Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak tonight on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Identity fraud is Australia’s fastest growing crime, with hundreds of thousands of victims and an estimated cost of more than $1 billion each year. It is evident that the rapid increase in technology and computer use is partly behind this emerging threat.

Identity crimes are increasing due to advances in technology in the banking sector and the rapid increase of financial transactions via the internet and use of credit cards. An ABS report released late last year found that in 2007 alone more than 800,000 people, or five per cent of the population aged 15 and older, fell victim to at least one instance of fraud. Identity fraud accounted for almost half a million victims, with 77 per cent of these reporting fraudulent transactions on their credit or bank cards. The remaining 23 per cent suffered identity theft involving unauthorised use of their personal details.

This bill implements changes to the identity crime offences recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee’s final report on identity crime. It seeks to insert three new identity crime offences into a new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, because, with the exception of South Australia and Queensland, it is not currently an offence in Australia to assume or steal another person’s identity, except in restricted circumstances. Of course, the existing offences in the Criminal Code, such as theft, forgery, fraud and credit card skimming, exist but they do not adequately cover the varied and evolving types of identity crime—for instance, malicious software and phishing. The proposed offences are framed in broad and technology-neutral language to ensure that, as new forms of identity crime emerge, these offences will continue to be valid.

The offences include: firstly, dealing in identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence, punishable by up to five years imprisonment—that is, dealing in identification information; secondly, possession of identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment—that is, possessing the identification information; and thirdly, possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

The bill includes amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to streamline the processes for alcohol and other drug testing under the act and to expand the range of conduct for which the commissioner may grant awards. The bill also makes several minor amendments, establishing a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed upon the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information, and strengthens safeguards to protect against the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information. It also corrects a couple of drafting errors and repeals the provision no longer required.

I would like to mention the coalition’s strong record on identity security. In April 2005, the coalition government announced the national identity security strategy to combat the misuse of stolen or assumed identities in the provision of government services. To support development of the strategy, the coalition allocated funding of $5.9 million over two years in the 2005-06 budget, including funding for a pilot document verification service, DVS.

The Council of Australian Governments, COAG, considered identity security at its special meeting on counterterrorism on 27 September, 2005. COAG agreed to the development and implementation of a national identity security strategy, underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement.

COAG also agreed to the development and implementation of a national document verification service to combat the misuse of false and stolen identities and to the investigation of the means by which reliable, consistent and nationally interoperable biometric security measures could be adopted by all jurisdictions.

The coalition announced in the 2006–07 budget that the identity of Australians would be further protected with the rollout of the national document verification service. The national DVS was rolled out with funding of $28.3 million, including building on the prototype service trialled during 2006. So the coalition does have a strong record in tackling the issues surrounding identity security. It is something that we are proud of, and I am pleased that the government is continuing with measures that would have been instigated well over a year ago. It certainly needs to be vigilant as this emerging threat continues to grow.

Under the coalition government, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee released a discussion paper on identity crime and, subsequently, its final report in March 2008. The bill implements the recommendations made by the committee. The report highlights national security impacts and the different forms in which identity crime occurs. As the report explains, it is important to note that it is not only individuals who commit identity crime related offences; it has been recognised that organised crime groups are becoming increasingly involved in identity crime—for example, to facilitate the smuggling or trafficking of people. The 9-11 hijackers used fictitious social security numbers, false identities and fraudulent identification documents. A report issued by the French Senate in 2005 indicated that terrorist networks have systematically used false identity documents to obtain employment overseas, to finance their terrorist activities and to avoid detection.

There are several ways in which identity crime occurs. The first is general online techniques. Identity related criminal activity is constantly evolving as new ways to gain access to or manipulate identity data online are found. A common online method of obtaining personal details is that of phishing. Phishing occurs when an identity fraudster sounds out fake emails claiming to be from a trusted organisation such as a bank. Ordinarily, emails claiming to be from a bank are sent to the victim, directing the receiver to a fake website designed to look like the bank’s real website. The victim enters his or her details, these are captured and subsequently used to withdraw funds from the victim’s account.

There are other online techniques that fraudsters use to obtain one’s personal identification information. Two of these are: using a key-logging device on computers and stealing personal information that is stored in computer databases, and infiltration of government organisations or financial institutions that store large amounts of personal information.

A second way in which identity crime occurs is via online social interaction, in particular social networking, which has grown in popularity in recent years. Unfortunately, some users of these networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace, display publicly personal information that puts them at risk of identity theft or fraud. Displaying personal information such as one’s email address, name and birthday are enough to put a person at risk of identity theft, as it enables the fraudster to steal the victim’s identity and open accounts in their name. An example of a scam using Facebook involves Nigerian scammers who trick users by taking over other user’s accounts and then posing as their friends. They then send a plea for help to their ‘friend’, saying they are stranded in Lagos, Nigeria and that they need to borrow $500 for a ticket home.

A third way is consumer scams or frauds which claim to offer lottery, jobs or other attractive-sounding opportunities. Consumer scams are essentially crimes of dishonesty such as counterfeiting, forgery, online deception and theft that target individuals wishing to purchase goods and services. These consumer scams are often used by organised criminal outfits to gather personal information, which is then on-sold to other criminal groups.

In March 2005, the coalition government, as part of a whole-of-government approach to combat consumer fraud and scams, established the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce. It involved all governmental regulatory agencies and departments in Australia and New Zealand that have responsibility for consumer protection.

One of Australia’s best known media identities, with a voice that is instantly recognisable to millions, John Laws, was recently targeted by identity thieves who forged his signature and raided his bank account. Mr Laws is the latest victim of a gang that is running a series of identity scams across New South Wales, much like the famous Catch Me if You Can con man, Frank Abagnale Jr. The group is responsible for stealing millions of dollars from banks by stealing and manipulating personal details, such as bank statements that are mailed to private homes. Mr Laws was not aware that he had been caught up in identity fraud until he received a call informing him of an outstanding debt. It was not until his personal assistant discovered that two cheques he had mailed had been intercepted and cashed into an unknown bank account that alarm bells began ringing. One of the alleged culprits who targeted Mr Laws is understood to be working as part of a Bonnie and Clyde set-up with a female companion. After they had stolen cheques, worth $15,000, they were able to re-route the money, using elaborate methods, including forging his signature, to a bank account belonging to Peter Raymond Murphy, a fictitious identity, set up with fake ID cards. Examples such as this show that identity theft can indeed happen to anyone, no matter how well known. It is a reminder that the government needs to be extremely vigilant and to keep up to date with new evolving methods that these criminal organisations are using.

In conclusion, as mentioned previously, the coalition support the changes recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee. We support ongoing efforts to combat identity crimes and we believe in real action on identity crime.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have such a great audience. I speak in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill includes a variety of criminal law reforms, which are necessary and are indicative of the commitment to justice of the Rudd Labor government. It makes a number of amendments which deal with identity crime. Our passport, birth certificate, tax file number and Centrelink number—all of these sorts of things—are crucial to telling the world who we are. It is crucial that we have this sort of information. When you go to see your accountant, the police or your lawyer or when you want to prove who you are, this sort of information is crucial.

To take someone’s identity, to deal with someone’s identity, to engage in credit card fraud or to pose as someone else is such a heinous crime. It is an offence against what makes us who we are and what we are about. We as a people want to know that, when we make a transaction, when we sign a legal document or when we use our credit card, we can do that freely, honestly and legally. We want to make sure that no-one misuses our money, our identity or our property. It is very important that, when people engage in these types of activities, they are punished to the full extent of the law, so we need new offences. What we are doing here is responding to a request; we are responding to a report on identity crime from the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. So we are simply responding to a recommendation of a report that deals with deficiencies in our law. Dealing with these amendments is important early in our government history.

The offences range across three main areas, and there are three areas of reform: first is the dealing offence, second is the equipment offence and third is the possession offence. What we are talking about is similar to the Drugs Misuse Act of Queensland, where there are dealing offences, possession offences and offences relating to equipment. So it is similar to what we are used to in terms of the law of Queensland and other states with respect to drugs. The idea of dealing really includes making, supplying or using information. When you are using someone’s credit card or identity to defraud them of their money, their property or their possessions, it is an awful thing.

Offences include the following: dealing with identification information with the intention that a person pass themselves off as another person for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence. We have ensured that such a person will face five years imprisonment. Five years is a long time and it is an appropriate punishment in the circumstances. The second aspect is the possession of identification information with the intention of engaging in conduct that would constitute a dealing offence—again, punishable by three years imprisonment. The third offence is the possession of equipment offence, which is the possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of engaging in conduct that would constitute the dealing offence—again, punishable by three years imprisonment.

What I think is so important in this law reform is this: where a person’s identity has been taken away from them through criminal activity by another person, they can approach a magistrate for a certificate. If, on the basis of probability, the magistrate is satisfied that the person’s identity was used and dealt with in this way, the magistrate has the discretion to issue a certificate. That certificate can be used to assist the victim of an identity crime in negotiating with, say, a bank or a credit institution to re-establish their credit ratings. That is a very important reform because dealing with a bank or a credit union is extremely important. I would seek leave to continue my remarks at a future time if the House prefers.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now continue because I have got instructions from the Leader of the House and, like the Chief Government Whip, I always listen to the Leader of the House.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair should continue speaking to the bill.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with the second schedule now; I will continue on. This is an important reform.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is an important reform, because it relates to the administration of justice. It is important because deceiving witnesses and acting in a way that will make the administration of justice difficult to administer undermines the integrity of our court system, the prosecution of criminal offences and the people’s faith in the criminal process. It is very important. We have increased the penalties. The penalty for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice has been increased to 10 years imprisonment. I now seek leave to continue my remarks at a future time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.