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

I have great pleasure in speaking about the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. I take this opportunity because the integrity and security of Australian passports is an important element of our national security and, indeed, of the security of the individual who is issued with the passport. This is both about combating security threats and also about combating identity theft threats. I therefore wholeheartedly endorse the bill.

There are few nations in the world with a more highly regarded standard of passport. Obviously I mean, in particular, their integrity. But it is an ongoing challenge to keep ahead of the threats to that integrity. The protection of that integrity should always be our aim in this area.

I would like to talk about the loss or theft of Australian passports. Around 40,000 go missing each year. They are valuable, of course. As has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, non-visa entry is possible with an Australian passport to 168 countries. That, of course, is the chief determiner of the black market value of the passport. Around 9,000 of the around 40,000 that go missing each year are lost overseas and the rest domestically. DFAT says that of those missing overseas most are reported as having been lost in significant tourist destinations such as Paris, Madrid, Rome, London, Los Angeles and Bangkok.

Fortunately, since 2005 passport technology has resulted in electronic chips being included in all Australian passport documents. This makes it almost impossible to change the information on them, because of course the chip also has a digital photo on it. This is why passports are swiped at the border and then held up to compare the passport photo and the person as well. The value of a stolen Australian passport then becomes about trying to assume a stolen identity, as opposed to trying to alter the documents.

It is considered that passports are normally lost because of carelessness or are stolen, normally with valuables such as debit and credit cards. As has also been reported in the media, unfortunately on some occasions backpackers have been known to sell their passports for extra travel money. It is also well known that bar girls in Thailand have stolen passports for a commission. I am sure that happens in other places wherever possible. For the reasons I have mentioned, an Australian passport could be onsold for several thousand dollars on the black market.

To ensure there is an incentive for close control of an individual's passport, in addition to the normal application fee of $250 a fine, essentially, of $111 is charged for one lost or stolen passport in five years, $250 for the second lost or stolen passport in five years and $500 for the third lost or stolen passport in five years. After the third loss in three years, a passport with only five years validity can be issued.

Specifically, this bill will make amendments to the Australian Passports Act 2005 and the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005. It makes minor consequential amendments to other acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005.

The amendments provided for under the bill will see changes that will allow a travel document to be issued to a person on the minister's own initiative to facilitate a lawful requirement to travel. It will see an alignment of the definition of 'parental responsibility' to more closely resemble that defined in the Family Law Act. The bill will update the existing offences to include a new offence to allow a better response to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents.

To take up the first measure, it would come as no surprise that there are certain circumstances where people are here in Australia and we do not want them to be here any longer. Therefore they must be deported. It is true that, amongst other circumstances, they have no travel documents because they destroyed them in order to conceal their identity and avoid being repatriated to where they came from. An obvious example is those who came by aircraft and then boarded a boat to Australia. We must therefore have the best possible laws to enable the minister to provide, without consent, a travel document that is limited to the removal or deportation of a person who is the subject of a lawful removal or deportation order to or from Australia; to extradite a person who is the subject of a lawful extradition request to or from Australia; and to effect an international prison transfer. Of course, in these cases a person should not be able to avoid the application of the law by refusing to consent to the issue of that travel document.

This has been required because we do not presently have the required legal framework by which we can issue travel documents in order to comply with the international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation. It requires us as a contracting state to issue a travel document to one of its citizens to facilitate their return to the contracting state within 30 days of a request by another state to do so. As the minister said in his second reading speech, the ability of a person to refuse to consent to the issuance of a travel document has resulted in Australia having to refuse a request in the past, being unable to issue a travel document.

Beyond this issue regarding consent problems, the next major amendment deals with changing or, rather, better aligning the definition of parental responsibility for the purposes of determining who is required to consent to a child having a travel document. This is a tricky area and I have seen the problems that my constituents have had trying to get a passport consent for children signed by others involved. It has been a disconnect and it is true that for a small number of applicants the current requirements can cause unnecessary problems.

As I previously said, the bill ensures that the reference to parental responsibility is more consistent between the Passports Act and the Family Law Act, so that who is required to consent to the issue of a passport is clearly stated. Those who can consent include obviously parents, provided they have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who have had parental responsibility granted by a court or with whom the child is to live; and of course persons with guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child under an Australian law.

I think it quite bizarre that persons who have a court order to 'spend time with' or enable 'access to' a child but who do not have parental responsibility were even required previously to consent to a child having a passport. It is right that a parent who has a grant of sole parental responsibility is no longer required to seek the consent of other persons who have 'access to' the child. I do wonder under what justification that was ever required, but in any case it is good to see common sense and a practical and realistic approach initiated. The point I will finish on is that this is about obtaining a passport not about taking a child overseas, as the usual consents would of course apply in that case.

Being a Western Australian, I should also clarify that within this bill there is a specific area that applies to Western Australia. This is because where children are born not within marriage, WA has not referred its powers in this area and the bill covers issues about child consent orders in this case.

The next element to these changes as proposed in the bill is to not process a passport application where there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, although that would be a decision that could be the subject of a review.

Another point I would like to raise is in relation to applying for an Australian travel document. This can range from the forging of a signature to identity theft. It should come as no surprise that it is a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information, statements and/or documents when applying for Australian travel documentation. Such activity creates a huge threat to the security and integrity of our passport control system and our national security. We believe it is vital to send a strong message that any kind of fraud activity in Australian travel documents is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The government recognises that someone's signature being forged or their identity being stolen should not prevent the correct person from obtaining travel documentation. They will be required to submit a new application with the correct information and supply supporting documents, which meet the eligibility requirements.

Lastly, I would like to speak about the amendment in this legislation to revise existing offences and to add an offence for the making and providing of fraudulent travel documents. It is an unfortunate truth that there is an increasing threat of fraud when it comes to travel documentation, and the government must be well positioned to respond and act to this threat. This is why it is vital that we have strong passport legislation to help protect our country from the use of false identity and citizenship documents. Travel documents can be powerful enablers of serious crime and related criminal activity, including people smuggling, terrorism and drug smuggling.

There are many positive aspects to this section of the bill, largely that it amends three offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information, statements or documents in relation to an application for an Australian travel document. The amendments provide that these offences also apply to the travel document itself and not just the application.

This legislation will address the issue whereby a person maliciously reports a passport as lost or stolen, so that it will be cancelled to intentionally disrupt the travel of another person. It also includes a targeted approach to stop the fraudulent collection of another person's travel document using false ID.

Another aspect of passport security is the selling of false Australian travel documents. This legislation will make this act an offence under Australian law.

A measure which is currently working well to prevent fraudulent travel documentation, and which is being implemented in this bill, is the embedding of a chip in travel documents. This measure will reduce the manipulation and tampering of travel documents and the creation of counterfeit Australian travel documents.

Another aspect that has been considered and covered in this legislation is that it will be an offence to make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that they will be used or accepted as genuine.

The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty points, or both. These penalties are consistent with other offences in the Passports Act and foreign passports act and related offences in other Commonwealth acts. The amendments in this bill will put into place key measures to deter and respond to the increasing fraudulent use of travel documents.

The last item I wish to raise is the refusal of names and signatures if deemed unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive. This action will further protect the integrity of the Australian passport system and Australian travel documents.

In conclusion, I am a strong supporter of this bill which strengthens the legislation around the most important identity document in Australia—our passports. Preventing and deterring any fraudulent use of Australian travel documents and related crimes is vital in ensuring Australian passports remain in the highest regard around the world.

See this speech in context