Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It seems quite common these days that I tend to follow the member for Werriwa in talking about crime and these sorts of matters. I welcome the opportunity to add to his comments. In seeking to make a contribution on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 today, I had a close examination of the schedule within the Criminal Code Act 1995, chapter 9, the chapter that deals with dangers to the community. As we know, this bill will insert three identity crime offences into the act as division 372. The first offence carries a five-year penalty for dealing in identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence. The second offence, carrying up to a three-year term of imprisonment, is the possession of identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence. The third offence, with up to three years imprisonment, is the possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence.

Although this bill deals with a number of amendments, the offences relating to identity crimes are the ones that I wish to speak to today. Some may express a little surprise that, despite all the good work done in this area by the previous government and the federal agencies, no offences were finally brought to legislation. But there are good reasons for that, which will be covered by me soon. Nevertheless, I do think it is important to recognise the past achievements and the cornerstone of the recent work on identity security and crime. That of course is the great work done by the then Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, who was responsible for the National Identity Security Strategy of April 2005, obviously with the clear support of the departments behind that strategy.

The strategy was aimed at combating the misuse of stolen or assumed identities. The ongoing development of the strategy was provided for from the 2005-06 budget, with $5.9 million over two years. That included funding for the pilot scheme, the DVS, the Document Verification Service. Within the context at the time we should remember that, while the strategy was announced in April, it was at COAG on 27 September 2005 that identity security was considered at a special meeting on counterterrorism. Agreement was reached on the development and implementation of the strategy. That intergovernmental agreement also agreed to the development and implementation of a national document verification service to combat the misuse of false and stolen identities and to investigate the means by which reliable, consistent and nationally interoperable biometric security measures could be adopted by all jurisdictions.

I recall at the time some of the discussions about the National Identity Security Coordination Group, a collection of significant representatives from agencies under each government; the Council of Australasian Registrars for Births, Deaths and Marriages; Austroads; and the Privacy Commissioner. I understand that 31 agencies were represented, and also five working groups, to focus on proof of identity and enrolment processes, security standards on the proof of identity documents, a document verification service, the integrity of identity data and authentication standards. This demonstrated the complexity of the task and the complexity of the relationships between agencies that would have to implement the strategy and the processes, let alone the task of bringing into the process the banks and the financial institutions. It was at the Council of Australian Governments meeting between the then Prime Minister John Howard, premiers and chief ministers that the intergovernmental agreement was signed on 13 April 2007. I believe that COAG noted the progress that had been made and the good work that had been done.

In the budget it was announced that the identities of Australians would be further protected by the rollout of the National Documentation Verification Service. That was funded by the then Howard government, with funding of $28.3 million. It should be noted that the Howard government had for some time been promoting the issue of identity crime and identity security measures with a very good folder and resources, even for individuals, to promote the issue.

It should also be noted that, on 20 April 2007, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee further advanced the issue with the release of a discussion paper for public comment. I am informed that 26 submissions were received and they were generally supportive of the defences put up—and by ‘defences’ I mean the promoting of the issue to make people more aware of what the threats were—and of the establishment of identity crime offences. That committee then advanced some of the suggested changes in creating model offences.

Finally, on 27 and 28 March 2008, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General released the final report on identity crime. That report addressed the nature, extent and cost of identity crime, the state of action in other countries and the circumstances existing in Australia. As I previously stated, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee offered suggested offences as part of its final report. The committee’s final report also suggested that courts be able to attest to the identity of a person where the court is satisfied that the person is who they say they are and that they are a victim of identity crime. The value of such a proposal is that a certificate would help in enabling that person to re-establish control of their affairs.

It has been increasingly clear that identity crime is a growing threat. Technological advances have provided opportunities and encouragement for criminals to gain from crimes. At the simplest level, the theft of identification information can be used to pass a person off as another person. In fact, the possession of a fairly benign bill, taken from an unlocked letterbox, is sufficient to obtain membership at a video hire shop. Is it a form of identity theft? Absolutely.

The list of information that can assist a criminal to gain from another person’s identity includes not only obvious documents such as a passport, a drivers licence or a credit card et cetera but the numbers on those documents, which also have great value. That is all before the skimming of information from cards, stealing electronic signatures and undertaking other, higher technological options for stealing and then converting information to some criminal advantage.

I wish to take this opportunity to recount an experience I had recently in Brisbane whilst travelling to a committee hearing on a train. A young woman was speaking on her mobile phone to a friend. It was a loud conversation that went on for some 15 minutes. I noted on that visit that these sorts of conversations seemed to be far more frequent than on our trains in Perth, where such conversations tend to be conducted in more hushed terms, but maybe that is something about Brisbane! However, this young lady decided to share a number of details of her private life with me and other nearby passengers. She discussed the government’s cash handouts, as this was in early December, and said that she was going to use the money to pay off her credit card debt.

While that was a legitimate use of the money, unfortunately, she went on to tell her friend that her computer at home was broken and asked her friend to help her transfer money on her behalf. She then gave the name of her financial institution, her account number and her password to her friend, all in the same loud manner in which she was conducting the conversation. She then left the train. I wonder how many other people have done the same sort of thing in such a public place? Hopefully, not very many. I hope that no-one present at the time took advantage of the situation, but it just goes to show that we must all be on our guard to protect identity and financial information. In this case, it would have been very easy to steal money from her. It clearly highlights an extreme example of a very casual approach and of the need to protect important information. In this matter, the loss of money could well have been the outcome, but the greatest threat would have been the use of such information to then assume this young lady’s identity. That is the greatest threat, as it could have devastating and long-term negative impacts on her life. The loss of identity information could see her with great debt accrued by another person in her name, a compromised credit rating, a range of other legal liabilities and a long-term fight to resurrect her standing, all potentially as a result of reckless talk on a train.

Before moving into a discussion of the actual offences proposed, I will just return to the matter I raised at the start, where I said that some people may be surprised that it is only now that offences are being introduced. Clearly, I refute that, because the approach up to this time has been careful because of the complexities involved. This was never going to be a shoot-from-the-hip, rushed event. If it were to be successfully introduced, it could not be rushed. It is therefore clear that progress has been made at an appropriate pace, and I, for one, welcome the advances made.

Moving now to the offences, I begin with proposed section 372.2. This relates to the possession of information with an intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a section 372.1 offence of dealing in identification information. Clause 372.1 covers the making, supplying or using of identification information where a person intends to try to pass themselves off as another person.

Finally, clause 372.3 covers the possession of equipment to make identification documentation. That would include, but is not merely limited to, current apparatus such as credit-card-skimming machines, data storage mediums, laminators, card printers, embossers et cetera. In any case, in the future there will be further developments that will threaten the safety of personal identification information, and the absence of prescriptive definitions of such equipment is the right approach to ensure that more advanced equipment is not excluded in the future.

Moving beyond the bill, it would be wrong of me not to reflect on the threats and provide some warnings for the community. We should remember that we have a vulnerability at all times in this modern age. Naturally, I remind everyone that a letterbox that can be locked and ensures that a person cannot reach into the slot is always the best option. You do not want to provide easy access to your bills or bank account details. But that is up to all of us to decide for ourselves. At the more technologically advanced end of our lives, we should not respond to emails asking us for personal details. I would also caution against allowing anyone to take our credit cards beyond our sight, as information can be extracted from the card, and identity and account security can be compromised.

Given such threats, I also take the opportunity to mention the work being done by the Western Australian Police service and, in particular, the good crime prevention work and law enforcement work being conducted by the Ballajura police. This small but highly effective station is led by Senior Sergeant Ian North, although for some time Ian has been seconded and Sergeant Narelle Woods has been the acting OIC. A testament to the effectiveness of the leadership team and the dedicated and hardworking police at Ballajura has been the reduction in burglary numbers. The station covers the residential suburb of Ballajura and the light industrial suburb of Malaga. In November last year, there were 47 burglaries across the two suburbs. Last month, there were just 19, which is a stark comparison with November and even the previous January, which had 49. I thank the Ballajura police for their great and dedicated service to the residents and local businesses.

I also mention the work done by Constables Geoff Bull and Johan Wepener last Thursday, who, through their persistent and relentless investigation, linked an alleged carjacking outside a Malaga business to a ram-raid and theft of a motorcycle the week before—great police work undertaken by Constable Bull, who is still on probation, and Constable Wepener, who is on transition from the police in South Africa. Clearly, we are fortunate to have the services of these two excellent policemen in our local area.

In concluding, I say that the process that has resulted in legislation arriving here has been an extended one. It has been necessarily extended, with due regard to the complexity of the matter. A great many defences against the scourge of identity crime were established by the Howard government, with awareness being greatly highlighted over the last five years. Ultimately, though, we need to make sure that, when such crime is detected, appropriate legal action can be taken, and this is now what we need. This bill has my support.

See this speech in context