Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 but first of all welcome my old primary school principal, Keith Ray, who I have just seen walk into the public gallery. It is great to have you here. Thank you very much for everything you did for me.

After stealing a person’s identification, especially if you have their credit cards and other identification such as library cards and Centrelink cards—things most likely without a photo on them—you can actually assume that person’s identity. In my time with the Victorian police force, there were some very unscrupulous people from VicRoads who arranged false identification to go with criminals’ photos so that they could have their photographs on cards with the names of Jason Wood, Harry Smith and so on. It was one of those times when criminals really had free rein to open bank accounts.

In Victoria in 2006 a conwoman assumed the identity of up to 15 different people. She assumed her victims’ identities and was able to access up to $140,000 from their collective bank accounts. This conwoman went around the country living a very flashy lifestyle in hotels and having a great time, and for the next two years her victims had to prove their identities and deal with hotels, saying, ‘I didn’t actually go to Western Australia and spend time in your hotel.’ Once the debits come through, it is really hard for a person to prove they were not in a particular place, especially when it comes to bank accounts.

Identity crimes are not new—there are a number of stories about them in the Bible. On one hand it is fantastic that today we have the ability to set up and access bank accounts and look up files on the internet, but at the same time, as we have heard from previous speakers, those things have given rise to professional crime groups all around the world, whether from Nigeria or elsewhere, who prey on stealing identity. The good thing about this legislation it is that it focuses on trying to respond to some of the concerns about identity theft.

Anyone’s wallet is a tapestry of personal identification. As we have heard from previous speakers, there is a more harmless side to identity fraud—for example, where a member of the younger generation might try to get into a disco when they are 16 years of age by trying to assume the identity of someone much older. However, although we are obviously gravely concerned about the risk of alcohol related problems for these young people, there are people who go to the next level and systematically watch unsuspecting people in order to steal their identification cards or wallets. I remember a classic case in Melbourne’s CBD, where a group of young teenage girls were going around the various cafes and waiting for a mum to put her handbag over a chair as she tended to the baby. They would then grab her purse, and it was hell for the mum for the next two years as she tried to prove who she was.

Sometimes all the person wants to do is get the credit card, go into David Jones or Myer and try to make a quick purchase. They get the goods and normally they try to get a refund and get the money back on another day. As I mentioned, there are organised crime groups that go out of their way to get as much money as they can over a period of time. Once your identity is stolen and someone else has been able to set up accounts in your name or if you are renting a house, it is so hard to make sure the banks and all the authorities know precisely that you are who you say you are. According to the The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age by Daniel Solove, it takes up to two years and thousands of dollars to repair the damage caused by identity theft. It is not one of these things where you can fix it by just walking into a bank and saying: ‘Hey! Guess what? I didn’t spend that $2,000 on that credit card for a plasma TV.’ It takes a lot longer to deal with it.

We have had the awful tragedy of the bushfires in Victoria, and I presume we have a number of Victorians up there in the gallery. Sadly, there are a number of people in Victoria who survived the bushfires but who lost everything, including all their identification, and were left only with the clothes they were wearing. A very sad situation was highlighted in the Australian where a journalist tried to get one of these one-off grants. I congratulate the government for making the grants available, but it was of great concern that people had to initially prove who they were and could not because all their identification has been lost. I commend the Prime Minister for addressing that situation, which to my knowledge has not occurred since.

We must also look at the economic cost. I have heard mentioned before that identity fraud costs up to a billion dollars. The information I have from the Model Law Officers Committee of the Australian Federal Police states that identity crime costs $4 billion annually. I do not know how many times people have tried to scam people—even members of parliament, who every single day would get an email that looked like it had come from the Commonwealth Bank, another bank or even PayPal saying that there was a security concern and just to be sure wanted to check their account details to ensure they were safe. Sadly, a number of elderly people in the community think this request is genuine and pass on the information. So I say to all people: a bank will never contact you by email asking you for identification. If you ever get a phone call from a bank or finance institution or anyone else, do not hand over the information without ringing the bank’s general inquiries line and asking to be put through to the relevant area before handing over that information.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released research in June 2008 which concluded that 499,500 Australians were, sadly, the victims of identity fraud. It is quite an amazing statistic. There are over 20 million people in Australia, and at least 15 million of them would have some sort of identification, so it is a huge figure and a huge problem. Organised crime groups know that identity fraud is a great way to make money, especially when they can create up to 100 or so credit cards and move around from state to state in gangs of 15 or 16 using false identification. They go into shops and make a number of purchases and cause great grief. If they get hold of people’s tax file numbers and drivers licences, they can cause huge problems and much stress for the victims and, you have to remember, for the business operators too because it is not the banks which normally take the burden. It is the small business that makes the loss, whether it be the hotel or the small shopkeeper who, for example, has allowed a person to purchase an expensive bag. It used to be cheque fraud that was the main concern of law enforcers but now it is credit card fraud.

One of the main tools for terrorists is the way they portray themselves to be someone else. We heard previously a government member speak about September 11 and people creating false documentation. I have spoken about one of the luckiest escapes from terrorism a few times before in parliament, and the reason I keep talking about it is it was probably one of the closest shaves in the world when it comes to a terrorist attack. That was in Jordan in April 2004, when the first step of more than 20 terrorists was to create false identification. Then they actually went out, set up companies to buy chemicals and purchased chemicals—20 tonnes in total. Their purpose was to kill over 100,000 people. It was just amazing that the law enforcement authorities were able to prevent the attacks. Basically, they went and used credit cards and other means to purchase or hire a number of vehicles and were going to lade them with the chemicals. They had already purchased the chemicals, and the next step was to go out and commit the attack.

Another concern which I have just had raised with me, given my background as a police officer—and this is one the government really needs to look at, and I will be writing to the minister on this—is the situation where a number of people of Somalian descent are going over to Malaysia. The reason they are going to Malaysia is that there are no visa requirements if they go from Somalia to Malaysia. What happens there is that they miraculously lose their Australian passports and then a similar looking person gets possession of their passport, and it still is not reported as stolen. The person who now has the stolen passport arrives back into Australia and gets through customs. My inquiries show that the normal process—which happens after two or three days—is that the person applies for refugee status to get all the benefits. The person of Somalian origin who had the Australian passport issued then reports the passport stolen in Malaysia.

The concern at the moment is that there are at least seven cases where the person who had the stolen passport got through customs and did not actually come to light when arriving back to Australia. They are not trying to notify the Australian government that they are applying for refugee status. The government needs to look very closely at this because of the obvious strong links to al-Qaeda and some people in Somalia. We also have to be very careful because we do not know if the people may just be concerned about going to the Australian authorities and just want to hang low and go as long as they can before they are apprehended. I would just hate to think that there was something more sinister. I know we have the government advisers here today, and I am sure they will be making the government aware of this and will be putting this in writing.

Under this legislation, there are currently only two states in Australia—Queensland and South Australia—where the offence of identity theft is looked at. This bill will change that and take it further. We have heard a number of members talk about what the bill looks at. These include: dealing in identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment; possession of identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes a dealing offence, which is punishable by up to three years imprisonment; and possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes a dealing offence, which is punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

The reason I read out the three sections is that, according to their submission, the Australian Federal Police wanted not to have to prove the offender’s intention. One of the things the AFP always find hard to do is to prove the intention of the person who committed the crime. If a person beaks into a house, is caught there and has the crowbar in one hand and the family goods in the other hand, then the intention is fairly obvious. But, when it comes to identification theft, it is very hard to prove the person’s intention. For example, the police could come across a person who may just have someone else’s identification on them. The police then conduct an interview but, in most states, such as Victoria, the person does not have to answer any questions, which can make it a ‘no comment’ interview. The police would have to prove that person’s intention. This is an issue that I know the AFP were concerned about, and, as a former police officer, I believe the government really needs to closely monitor this to ensure that this issue is addressed. I just had a meeting with the President of the Police Federation of Australia, John Hunt-Sharman, and he gave a very good example when I spoke to him about this. He is greatly concerned that this will not, for example, pick up the offence where a person goes on a range of domestic flights across the country and does the self-check-in. They could put in pretty much any name, such as Mickey Mouse. It would be very hard to prove what the person’s intention was even after they get the boarding pass. I may be told differently by government advisers, but the AFP and other people in law enforcement that I have been speaking to say that it probably does not come under the legislation.

As I mentioned, the AFP are doing a fantastic job. But what greatly concerns me is that we had an election commitment and a promise by Prime Minister Rudd at the start of the election to have 500 new sworn AFP officers, at a cost of $191 million over five years, for high-impact criminal investigations. I strongly welcomed that announcement. The problem is that, on one hand, the Prime Minister said that the government planned to hand over all these AFP officers and, on the other hand, redundancy packages have been offered to 200 officers. So they give with one hand and take with the other. The AFP and all the police associations across Australia had a meeting today with the opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and that was one of their key issues. I know they will be meeting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tomorrow. They are greatly concerned that this promise is not being met.

We have had a $42 billion stimulus package and it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. I cannot understand why, when, as we have heard today, we have anywhere between $1 billion and $4 billion being taken from the community through identity fraud; the cost of serious and organised crime and drug trafficking is up to at least $10 billion a year; and we are hearing that the air marshals program has been slashed dramatically. Given all this, it is quite ironic that the Prime Minister gave a 40-minute speech on national security. I think journalist Cynthia Banham was the only one who looked in any detail at what was promised and what was not promised. The Prime Minister spoke about a national security college. Where this plays a role in identity fraud is that, as we have heard before, whether it be the attacks in Jordan or on September 11, terrorists use false identities to commit their crimes. I am sure that if this national security college is implemented—and I say to the government: stop considering this and actually establish it—then that would be one of the key subjects: how terrorists are using false identification.

In closing, I do welcome this legislation but I am also concerned about the cutbacks to the Australian Crime Commission. I thank all of the law enforcement officers for the great work they are doing. Sadly, when we are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, law enforcement is being taken for granted and having its funding removed.

See this speech in context