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

I continue to speak in relation to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Schedule 2 in this particular piece of legislation is an important schedule that deals with the administration of justice offences in the Crimes Act. Maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system and the integrity of the legal process is important to ensure civil society and to ensure that people have confidence that when they are in the terrible position of facing criminal charges and facing their accusers, the DPP, and their friends and relatives they will get a fair deal, and that the judges are impartial, that the jury is unbiased and that no-one can tamper with witnesses. The amendment in relation to part III of the Crimes Act is very important. It deals with fabrication of evidence, intimidating witnesses and aiding a prisoner to escape lawful criminal detention.

The amendments in this bill deal with administration of justice offences. They correct a drafting oversight. They also increase the penalties for a number of offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice offences, the penalty for which has been increased to 10 years imprisonment, which I think is consistent with what my constituents in Blair in Queensland would believe to be a fair penalty. It is a very serious offence to interfere with the integrity of our criminal justice system and court process, and having the term of imprisonment increased to 10 years is appropriate in all circumstances. It is consistent with the Rudd Labor government’s policy to ensure that anyone who obstructs, perverts, prevents or tries to defeat the legal process in an improper way should be subject to the strongest possible criminal sanction in all circumstances. Of course, this brings things into line with the other jurisdictions—states and territories—in Australia.

Schedule 3 deals with improving the operation of the DPP to ensure that the state and territory counterparts of the DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions, have joint conduct of criminal trials. It is about ensuring that there is a single prosecuting authority involved in the prosecution of all charges and that we make more effective use of court resources. One of the problems we have in Australia with our federal system of government is the duplication of resources. Accordingly, it is important that we streamline the processes, functions and powers of the DPP Act to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions can delegate functions and powers—for example, his staff—to a state and territory public prosecutions section or a Crown Prosecutor. It is important that we do not duplicate and that we save taxpayers’ dollars, and ensure that things are done efficiently and effectively and with the best use of taxpayers funds. This amendment is particularly important in that regard.

Schedule 4 deals with a particularly difficult area that has been vexing the Australian community for a long time, and that is the area of money laundering. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 established the framework for AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the body that established a robust detection regime to ensure that the misappropriation and laundering of approximately $4.5 billion in Australia ceases. It is very important that, when money crosses borders, it be done lawfully. People can press buttons in different parts of the world and transfer money. We do it all the time in Australia. There would be barely one individual in this House who has not transferred money across the internet between bank accounts. Transferring money in a lawful way is crucial to maintaining our tax system and ensuring that taxpayers’ dollars are used well. We need a system in this country that detects and deters money laundering and terrorism financing. We cannot have a situation where people are involved in these types of activities.

According to a report that the Australian Taxation Office sent to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in July 2008, there is a very worrying phenomenon—that is, about US$5 trillion to US$7 trillion is held in tax havens and secret banking establishments and jurisdictions. AUSTRAC has sophisticated capabilities to track the flow of international funds. But we need to make sure that we are ever vigilant to maintain the integrity of our system, so information which is gathered by AUSTRAC and those involved in this process, particularly the Australian Taxation Office, should not be revealed in a way which compromises potential prosecutions. We have seen the Australian Taxation Office actively involved in work to crack down on money laundering. Project Wickenby is one such task force which has been funded in a bipartisan way by the previous government and also by the current government to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can minimise corporate misappropriation of funds to ensure that taxpayers, both corporate and individual, pay the right amount of tax. AUSTRAC, which monitors money movements into and out of Australia, plays an important role. Information which could be considered to be AUSTRAC information should simply not be disclosed for the purpose of court or tribunal proceedings or investigations which could compromise the kinds of prosecutions which the ATO have been initiating in circumstances such as, for example, Project Wickenby.

The amendments in this particular bill deal with that aspect as well. Information relating to suspect transaction reports is of a similar nature to information relating to suspicious matter reports. It is important that we extend the prohibition to suspect transaction reports and preserve the anonymity of businesses which provide information; otherwise, how can we gather the kinds of information we need to ensure the integrity of our Australian Taxation Office and the intelligence-gathering processes, which are so important in all circumstances to clamp down on money laundering?

The other amendment which I briefly wish to deal with deals with the repeal of section 55D of the Judiciary Act. It is the case that our states and territories have their own comprehensive legislation to regulate the legal profession and themselves. The amendments in this particular provision simply get rid of an otiose provision which used to govern what happened in certain territories of this country. It is important that we clear up this aspect of the legislative books, so this amendment gets rid of an unnecessary piece of regulation in the circumstances.

Finally, this bill, which does so much to improve the capacity of our regulatory bodies and our criminal prosecution bodies to deal with identity crimes, is an important piece of legislative reform which the Rudd government is committed to. It deals with offences related to identity crime, it deals with possession of information and it also deals with what I would describe as the equipment offence. Importantly, it also provides a mechanism for victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate from a magistrate to ensure that they can be assisted in negotiating with financial institutions. The improvements in the administration of the justice offences will add a lot to the integrity of our legal system, and the DPP amendments will improve the efficiency of our criminal justice process. The amendments with respect to AUSTRAC will help with the protection of information for the purpose of investigations into money laundering and the prosecution of those criminals who rip off the Australian taxation system and taxpayers across Australia with their nefarious activities which the average taxpayer could only dream of. It is a disgrace that people engage in these types of activities, when honest taxpayers like those in my electorate of Blair pay their taxes. When these honest taxpayers—who are school teachers, public servants, carpenters, bricklayers and shop assistants—pay tax, they expect corporate high-flyers to do the same. Improving the protection of sensitive information is an important reform which will enable the successful prosecution of those criminals who are engaged in white-collar crime.

This is an important piece of law reform in terms of the criminal justice system. I support the bill. It is part of the great reform agenda of the Rudd Labor government with respect to criminal law. There are those who think that Labor governments are soft on crime, but we are not just hard on criminal activity; we are hard on the causes of crime. This bill shows just how determined we are to stamp out white-collar crime and just how committed the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs are also to ensure that Australian taxpayers get their just deserts when it comes to the money they pay in taxes. I support this bill. I commend the government for their initiative. This is an important reform and it is indicative of the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to justice and equity in all aspects of our society.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 implements recommendations made by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee in relation to identity crimes. The bill inserts three new offences into the Criminal Code and will allow victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate which may assist in re-establishing their credit histories.

The Model Criminal Law Officers Committee was established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for the development of a national Model Criminal Code for Australian jurisdictions. In April 2007 this committee released for public consultation a discussion paper on identity crime. Twenty-six submissions were received from a range of organisations including state police forces, government agencies and associations, with the final paper being published in March 2008. The offences recommended to be inserted by the committee include: the offence of dealing in identification information, the offence of possessing identification information and the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation.

The item on dealing in identification information makes it an offence for a person to make, supply or use identification information with the intention of representing themselves as another person for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission, of a Commonwealth indictable offence. This offence will be punishable by up to five years imprisonment. An example of this kind of offence which is outlined in the explanatory memorandum is where a person uses identification information of a business—such as trading and financial information—to pass themselves off as that business with the intention of importing a prohibited good, such as an anabolic steroid, under the Customs Act 1901. It will not be necessary to prove that the person knew the offence they committed was a Commonwealth indictable offence—only that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the person made, supplied or used the information with the intention of pretending to be another person in order to facilitate the indictable offence. This item also applies even if it was impossible to commit the indictable Commonwealth offence at the time—for example, where the attempted importation of an anabolic steroid was detected and stopped before importation could actually occur. It is also not a defence if the person or business to which the identification related to consented to the use of their identification.

The second item to be inserted makes it an offence to possess identification information with the intention of using that information to engage in conduct that constitutes an offence under the item of dealing in identification information. This offence is punishable by up to three years imprisonment. The example given for this offence is where A possesses identification information about B, and A intends to use that information to represent themselves as B, with the intention of committing or facilitating a Commonwealth indictable offence. As this is a preparatory offence, the penalty is lower than the main offence of dealing in identification information. It is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person possessed the information and that they intended the information to be used to engage in the prohibited conduct of dealing in identification information. Once again, absolute liability applies as it is not necessary to prove that the person knew that their conduct was prohibited and the defence of mistake of fact is not available.

The third item to be inserted is the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation. It will be an offence to possess equipment to make identification documentation where the person intends to use, or allow another person to use, that equipment to make documentation for the purpose of engaging in the offence of dealing in identification information. The offence will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

Three factors must be shown beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the person possessed the equipment; (2) that they intended that they or another use the equipment to make identification documentation; and (3) that they or another will use the documentation to engage in prohibited conduct under the main offence of dealing in identification documentation. Because this is a preparatory offence, it is not relevant whether the equipment is actually capable of making the identification documentation; only the intention to do so is relevant. Once again absolute liability applies, as the person need not know that the conduct they intended to engage in was an offence of dealing in identification information. Absolute liability is appropriate for this required element of each of these three new offences—that is, the intention to commit or facilitate a Commonwealth indictable offence—as it does not relate to the substance of the offence but refers to a jurisdictional boundary between Commonwealth, state and territory legislative powers. The bill also applies an extended geographical jurisdiction to the three identity crime offences being inserted. This means that the three offences extend to conduct by an Australian citizen or an Australian body corporate outside of Australia. It will not be a defence that there is no equivalent local offence where the crime took place.

The other important aspect of this bill is the item allowing a person who has been a victim of identity crime to approach a magistrate for a certificate that states the manner in which the identification information was used. This certificate may assist victims in negotiating with financial institutions to re-establish their credit rating or remove fraudulent transactions. The definition of who is perceived to be a victim in this item is broader than the definition of those whose identification information is the subject of the offence. The example given in the explanatory memorandum is where A uses another’s identification information to impersonate a Commonwealth public official—which is a Commonwealth indictable offence—to convince C to part with a large sum of money. Although C’s identity information has not been dealt with, they have suffered harm as a result of the identity crime committed by A and would be able to apply for a victims certificate. In order for a certificate to be issued, a person must present sufficient information so that the magistrate is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the facts of the offence of dealing in information have been established. The magistrate does not need to be satisfied as to the identity of the perpetrator of the identity crime, nor is it necessary for criminal proceedings to have taken place against an alleged perpetrator.

The bill also contains a range of other amendments to clarify and improve the operation of justice legislation in the Commonwealth. The Australasian Centre for Policing Research defines identity crime as a generic term to describe activities in which a perpetrator uses a fabricated identity, a manipulated identity or a stolen or assumed identity to facilitate the commission of a crime. The use of false identities for committing crimes is not a recent phenomenon. The English Forgery Act was passed in 1870 to deal with fake stock certificates. Identity is how you are identified as being you—for example: physical or biometric identifiers such as photographs, fingerprints, voice prints and iris scans; written identifiers such as passports and licences; and financial identifiers, including bank and employment information. The impacts of identity crime are various. There can be direct and indirect financial impacts, such as loss of savings or damage to one’s credit rating; psychological impacts from the invasion of a person’s privacy, which can result in trauma, stress and reduced participation in society; national security impacts, such as the fictitious social security numbers, false identities and fraudulent documents used by the 9-11 hijackers; and other intangible impacts, such as access to citizenship and social services or falsely acquiring a professional qualification or affiliation.

The cost of identity crime in Australia is difficult to measure and there are few statistics available on its impact. The 2003 report Identity fraud in Australia: an evaluation of its nature, cost and extent by the Securities Industry Research Centre of Asia-Pacific claimed that identity fraud cost Australian large business $1.1 billion in 2001-02. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 2007 there were 499,500 victims of identity fraud—383,300 of these were victims of credit card fraud and 124,000 were victims of identity theft. Based on these figures it is thought that security tokens such as bank cards and passwords are easier to forge than biometric traits, which are far more difficult to forge, replicate, misplace, share or guess. Mobile phones and laptops which recognise fingerprints are now commercially available.

Biometrics is not a new concept. In 1879, the French police inspector Alphonse Bertillon came up with a system of body measurements, such as arm and foot length, to identify repeat offenders. Britain had established the fingerprint classification system in 1896, and Scotland Yard began collecting fingerprints thereafter. Australia was close behind with the first fingerprint bureau being established at the Darlinghurst Gaol in New South Wales in 1902. Biometrics requires traits that are unique and do not significantly change over time. Currently fingerprints, face and iris are the most popular traits. Biometric recognition has formed the basis of automated border control systems in many countries, such as fingerprinting with the US-VISIT program in the US and our facial recognition based Australian Customs SmartGate system. Facial images and fingerprints are also taken from those detained in immigration detention and have helped identify illegal fishers who have re-entered under false identities. Facial recognition is also used to accurately identify those sitting the citizenship test. The technology involved in biometric systems is evolving all the time to prevent false readings from doctored or faked traits. For example, systems have been developed to detect fakes, such as plastic fingers, with sensors that can detect heat and other signs of life.

The potential for biometric systems is infinite. The Office of Payroll Administration in New York City is installing biometric timekeeping systems. To clock on and off, employees simply place their hands to be read. It is thought that this system will save around US$60 million annually in record-keeping expenses and help prevent identity fraud. However, the development of these types of systems needs to be balanced with the community’s consensus on privacy based on their evolving needs and views.

Identity crime is a major concern to government agencies, law enforcement, private organisations, financial sectors and individuals. This bill addresses the current deficiencies in our laws governing these crimes and I commend the bill to this House.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008, which implements the identity crime offence as recommended in the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee’s final report on identity crime. The report was released in March 2008 by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. This is significant legislation and I want to go into some of its various components. The issue of identity crime is certainly of increasing prevalence in our community. I do not think there would be a member in this House who has not had people come to their electorate offices complaining about some aspect of identity fraud that has affected their way of life—fraud emanating from the proof or otherwise of their identities, or the replication of those identities in other circumstances.

The bill introduces three new identity crime offences to part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. With the exception of South Australia and Queensland, it is not an offence in Australia at present to assume or steal another person’s identity, except in limited circumstances. Existing offences in the Criminal Code such as theft, forgery, fraud or credit card skimming do not adequately cover the many and varied aspects of identity crime and certainly have not kept up to date with the emergence of new technologies that help facilitate those intent on perpetrating identity crime. Technology is available now to scan somebody’s fingerprints. Various laptop computers on offer these days have these sorts of scanning technologies, if you have the suitable program. Even some PDAs or handheld devices do similar things. Scanning and capturing someone’s fingerprints is not all that hard to do.

We hear a lot these days about the various devices that can be deployed to capture people’s identity around ATMs. Apart from some villains in New South Wales at the moment who are blowing up ATMs, there are some very high-tech criminals who have made a career out of capturing other people’s identities so they can in their own time raid people’s bank accounts. These things are occurring and the problem will escalate simply because of the emergence of technology that can be adapted to help facilitate that.

The bill proposes that offences be framed in general, almost technologically neutral, terms to ensure that the new forms of identity crime as they emerge will still be captured. I think this is a very positive aspect of this legislation given the emergence of technology. The definitions include: firstly, dealing in identification information with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning a Commonwealth indictable offence, punishable by up to five years imprisonment; secondly, possession of identification information with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning, or conduct that constitutes, a dealing offence, punishable by three years imprisonment; and, thirdly, the possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning, or conduct that constitutes, a dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

These measures are needed. This is not simply a Commonwealth innovation; this is supported not only by the Commonwealth but by the attorneys-general throughout this country. There is no barrier to crime. It is no secret that criminals do not observe the constitutional or geographic boundaries of states and territories. Therefore, matters of law enforcement that this legislation deals with must be handled in a way that provides a similarity of operation right across the nation.

With identity crimes there are always going to be victims. As I said, people come to my office complaining about how they think they have been affected by a fraudulent credit card or mobile phone transaction—something appears on their bill that they are not aware of. These are all elements of identity crime. There are provisions in this bill that will assist victims of identity crime. I think it is quite appropriate that they be included. There is no doubt that identity crime can cause damage to a person’s credit rating. It can create a criminal record in some cases. The victims can incur tremendous expenditure not only in terms of time and effort but also in terms of the cost of trying to restore their records or their credit rating—in other words, getting back to the position they were in prior to the identity fraud happening to them.

A person’s identity can be used for citizenship material, Centrelink payments and medical services and to gain professional qualifications. It was not all that long ago that a Qantas engineer falsified information that had this fellow working on jet aircraft. So it can be used not just for personal gain in terms of cash but also for movement, transactions and personal things such as inappropriately applying for positions of employment. So it is important that victims can have some redress other than simply going off and notifying the police, which they should do. They also have to be able to speed up what they can do to remedy the position they now find themselves in personally. I understand that individual victims can spend up to two years trying to restore their credit rating. It is not an easy task to go through all that. You do not just go and ring up the credit agencies and it just occurs; you actually have to go and prove these things. That is why this amendment is particularly important to the victims of identity crime, because it allows for a person to approach a magistrate for a certificate to be issued that shows that the person who appears before the magistrate has been the subject of identity crime and which indicates that the person’s personal information has been misused. That certificate is not the be-all and end-all; it does not rectify a person’s problems. It is designed to assist victims of identity crime in negotiating with their financial institutions to re-establish their credit ratings with other organisations, including places such as Australia Post, telephone companies et cetera, to clear up as quickly as possible those residual problems that they face resulting from identity theft.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 establishes a pretty robust regime for detecting and deterring money-laundering activity and financing of terrorism. This is another crucial aspect of this bill. Section 4 of the bill contains several amendments which will establish a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information and, secondly, will strengthen safeguards and protect against disclosure of this sensitive information as collected by AUSTRAC. As Australia’s financial-intelligence-gathering unit, AUSTRAC possesses and analyses information on suspicious transactions that occur in accounts, money movements et cetera. It is not a law enforcement organisation per se; it is an intelligence-gathering agency which operates and supplies information on a restricted basis to people such as the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, the Taxation Office and others. It is a very significant intelligence-gathering organisation and one which is central to modern law enforcement techniques throughout this country.

I had the opportunity to visit AUSTRAC only last year. What I understood from my meeting with them is that in 2007-08 they searched through more than 15,000 operational matters at the request of various agencies who are permitted to subscribe to AUSTRAC. In terms of tax revenue alone, I think last year something like $76 million of direct tax revenue resulted from their activities. For the last 10 years that figure comes in at $685 million. That is just the tax aspect and has nothing to do with areas of law enforcement and operations conducted by the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police or other agencies. It is very much a high-powered financial-intelligence-gathering operation. It would qualify to be referred to as robust in terms of its approach. Its information is obviously very valuable.

This bill strengthens the safeguards and protections in regard to that information. Whilst as a country we should be proud of organisations such as AUSTRAC, we must make every effort possible to ensure that the information that is collected is only used for the purposes specifically required and that we have significant restrictions on how that information can be used not only with respect to other organisations but with respect to citizens themselves. It was a very valuable excursion to go and visit that organisation. AUSTRAC is staffed by very professional people, a number of whom have been drawn from other areas of intelligence-gathering operations, particularly the Australian Federal Police and also state and territory police organisations. The chief executive officer, Neil Jensen, runs a very good ship. It is very impressive to see not only what they do on a day-to-day basis but the capability that organisation has. I for one am very proud that we have that sort of facility, but it also indicates that we should be very careful in how that information is not only gathered but used. It has to be used only for the intended purposes. The amendments to this act go very much to strengthening that.

The amendments also deal with matters relating to the administration of justice—in particular, in respect of both the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and the Financial Transaction Reports Act. The bill also increases the penalties for the offences of perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, from five years to 10 years imprisonment. This change reflects the government’s view that defendants who seek to obstruct or pervert the course of justice should be subject to strong criminal sanctions. The amendments will bring these penalties into closer alignment with the penalties for similar offences in other state and territory jurisdictions. As I said, law enforcement is very difficult if we have dissimilar arrangements that apply in different parts of the Commonwealth. It is important that, where possible, we have such similarity—not necessarily under one national code but certainly so that laws do not operate in such a way as to provide significant differences between the states and the Commonwealth in the application of laws on law enforcement and policing. All that would do is to create legal loopholes for people who do not need to benefit from those loopholes. I think we need to have consistency in our judicial regime in that respect to ensure that our law enforcement officers are not all put through different hoops in how they go about enforcing the law on similar offences or the same offences as they apply across the various jurisdictions.

The amendments also deal with aspects of the Privacy Act. The bill amends the definition of ‘enforcement body’ in section 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 to include the Office of Police Integrity, the OPI, in Victoria. This is a technical amendment that provides the OPI with the same status that similar law enforcement bodies have under the act—bodies, for instance, such as the Police Integrity Commission in New South Wales and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. It allows the OPI to go about its investigations with the same degree of freedom but with the restrictions that are imposed under the act in respect of the privacy of persons et cetera. Whilst it is simply admitting the OPI into that aspect of it, I think that is a very important aspect to ensure that the integrity regimes that apply in all of our jurisdictions are consistent. There is no point having greater professionalism introduced into our law enforcement areas if we have varying regimes of different standards in not only ensuring the efficiency of those areas but ensuring that they are all operating with appropriate integrity as required. Ensuring that the OPI is also brought under the Privacy Act amendments is certainly a major contribution, particularly in the state of Victoria.

There are a few other minor things that occur to me—probably not minor in that respect. This bill also contains amendments in respect of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to streamline the processes for alcohol and drug testing. This, again, goes to the issue of integrity. As I understand it, this is something that has been discussed and agreed to by the Australian Federal Police Association. This brings that in line with those agreements that have been made. There are further amendments that are made to streamline the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, but given the time I think I will let some other speaker deal with that. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Whilst we often rise in this chamber to talk about laws and occasionally rise to talk about justice, it is great that we have a timely combination of law and justice here. This is an important bill, which will beef up the legislation dealing with identity crimes and also ensure better support for victims of identity crime.

From the moment we are born our identity begins, and information that is unique to each individual serves as proof of who we are. I find this legislation particularly timely because I have a five-week-old son. It is amazing to see even in the last five weeks, from the moment he was born through to now, how much he has changed. Also, writing another speech for a motion about adoption that the member for Forde has put before for the House has made me particularly think about what our identity is. I will be speaking in support of the motion by the member for Forde later tonight. For the sake of the chamber, I will mention that last year I met for the first time a nephew who was adopted out by my sister when he was born, when she was only 15. It was interesting meeting someone who was 35 who was my nephew but who I had obviously never met before in his life and just seeing how easily he fitted into the family and how his identity fitted in there, but he also had an entirely different life, obviously, growing up in Darwin and the like. It is interesting how much our identity is shaped by nature and nurture and all those things that we do in our life.

On a very basic level, our identity includes details such as our name, our date of birth, our address and our parents’ details. As we move into adulthood, more information is added to our identity: bank details, a drivers licence, perhaps—although it is amazing the number of people who never have a drivers licence—passports, marriage certificates, education qualifications, employment history, perhaps our residential tenancy history and maybe even our criminal history or an absence of a criminal history. That is becoming much more common, certainly in Queensland, where you need to get a blue card to do any work around children. All of these details create a unique profile which we use to interact with society, government and other organisations.

Our identity is a representation of who we are and a safeguard of our privacy and protection. Not only does it safeguard us; it also safeguards society as a whole, because it makes sure that others are aware of our place and who we are and that we are who we profess to be. It has been spoken about in the chamber today as being a modern problem, but obviously identity theft, or duplication, has been around for a very long time. I did some preliminary research and found that a young slave in Egypt, called Moses, was substituted for someone else. That was a bit like identity fraud. I then researched a little further and found that in one of William Shakespeare’s plays, The Merchant of Venice, one of the heroines, Portia, disguises herself as a man, as Balthasar, a young doctor of law, and assumes the role of a judge and saves the life of Bassanio’s friend Antonio in court. People would probably be familiar with the speech she makes about the pound of flesh. I cannot recall it exactly, so I will not quote it. Obviously identity fraud has been around for a long time but now, in the modern world, in the information age, identity crimes are on the rise. It is thought that high-speed information flows and remote communications, as well as the large volumes of personal information now available on the internet, have led to this surge. I would like to say a special hello to all of my good friends in Nigeria who constantly email my office and offer wonderful things to me. I point out to them that there is no need to keep emailing the office; I will get back to them as soon as I am able to.

The other example I want to bring to the attention of the House is that of Frank William Abagnale Jr. You might remember him if you saw the movie Catch Me If You Can. He was played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Back in the 1960s he was infamous for passing bad cheques worth about $2.5 billion in over 26 countries over about five years. During that time he used at least eight aliases to cash bad cheques until he was eventually tracked down—not by Tom Hanks but by the FBI. He went on to train the FBI in how to combat identify theft, and I think he is still a trainer with the FBI.

So it is not a modern phenomenon but we need to be as prepared as possible. Better technologies to prevent fraud are being developed, but so too are high-tech methods to forge documents and steal identities. The true extent of identity crimes is unknown, of course, as we are only really aware of the ones that are caught. In 2001, as part of the Scoping Identity Fraud Study of the Attorney-General’s Department, Geoff Main and Brett Robson said:

There is widespread agreement by all organisations that identify fraud already represents a significant problem, that is likely to grow further. The lack of statistics on the incidence and cost of identity-related fraud makes the total cost to the community impossible to accurately quantify.

That is still the case today, eight years later. The best estimates we have from the Securities Industry Research Centre of Asia-Pacific indicate that identity fraud costs big business in Australia, more than $1 billion per year. In the United States the economic impact is estimated to exceed $50 billion annually.

In the case of stolen identities, individuals face an emotional struggle in coming to terms with invasion of privacy, loss of savings and many years of time and effort spent in restoring their credit rating. A name like Graham Perrett is not such a common name but even before I was elected to parliament I had already met a baker by the name of Graham Perrett and an accountant by the name of Graham Perrett. In fact, the accountant and I went to the same dentist and had an appointment mixed up. Getting an extra filling was not something I was interested in but I was interested in seeing how easy it would be to be a bit duplicitous and gain some advantage. I have sympathy for the John Smiths of the world and the like.

Not only does identity fraud impact on businesses and individuals; identity crimes can facilitate much more serious crimes like terrorism and people-smuggling. For example, you need only think of the September 11 hijackers and their use of false social security numbers, false identities and ID documents to plan their evil deeds without detection—maybe detection did occur but it was a little too late.

Identity fraud is a serious crime and there is no doubt this parliament needs to act. The Criminal Code includes some identity offences such as credit card skimming, fraud and making a false document. However, given the extent of identity fraud and the potential for greater crimes, it is astounding that it is not already an offence to assume another person’s identity, except in limited circumstances in Queensland and South Australia, where legislation is already in place.

The bill before the House implements the recommendations in the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee final report on identity crime to introduce new offences associated with identity crime to the Criminal Code Act 1995. These include making, supplying or using identification information to pretend to be another person for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence, with a penalty of five years imprisonment; possessing identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, with a penalty of three years imprisonment; and possessing equipment to make identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, with a penalty of three years imprisonment. The bill also takes into account the global nature of these crimes by applying them to Australian citizens or body corporates outside Australia. This bill also ensures that these offences will apply to emerging identity crimes which come about in the future as a result of new technologies, because you can be sure that, as new technologies develop, so too will new criminal opportunities. The price of identity security is eternal vigilance.

I particularly welcome the measures in this bill that support victims of identity theft. The bill creates a certification system to help victims rebuild their reputation. As I said previously, identity crimes can damage a person’s credit rating and it can cost significant time, money and effort to negotiate with financial institutions to restore a true record and transaction history. I have had to deal with a lost credit card a few times and go about cancelling cards and the like, but I cannot imagine what it would be like when someone deliberately takes your details and uses them in a criminal way. Under this new system, a victim of identity crime may approach a magistrate for a certificate that states the manner in which his or her identification was used. This certificate would then help victims to deal with financial institutions and rebuild their credit rating.

I am sure most members of the House of Representatives would have had the experience of someone coming into their office after they had been put on a rental black list for whatever reason. If you cannot get bricks and mortar organised over your head because of someone destroying your credit rating, things may then become incredibly difficult. You can spiral right down into homelessness if you do not have the proper support. Under this system we are giving as much support as possible to the victim of the identity crime.

This bill also contains measures to provide greater protection for the integrity of the justice system. The maximum penalties for perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice will be increased from five years to 10 years. This shows how seriously the Rudd government takes this offence, and hopefully the message will get out to people that a seemingly harmless thing like taking a letter out of a mailbox can lead to very, very serious consequences. Hopefully that message will get out there, especially to young people. Once when I was waiting in the line at Queensland Transport someone in front of me—although I do not know his circumstances, because he ran off—was suspiciously trying to get an 18-plus card. Thankfully the person behind the counter asked a couple of questions, such as what his mother’s maiden name was and that sort of thing, and the guy obviously had not done enough research and actually ran out of the centre. So it does happen. Hopefully people will get the message from a young age that it is the wrong thing to do.

The bill also amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to ensure that the DPP can delegate functions and powers under the act to facilitate joint trial arrangements. Where the same or related facts lead to a defendant being indicted or charged with both Commonwealth and state or territory offences, a joint trial with one prosecuting authority is the most efficient process. However, the DPP has limited scope to delegate authorisation of indictments. This amendment will enable the director to authorise a person to sign indictments on his or her behalf. It also provides immunity from civil proceedings for persons carrying out functions and powers under the DPP Act.

I am the father of a brand-new baby and also a 3½-year-old. I would not say the 3½-year-old knows more about the computer than me yet, but I can see that in four, five or six years time he will. He already knows how to use a mouse and he certainly knows how to track down his favourite Ben 10 videos on the computer, so who knows where this information revolution will take us in five or 10 years time? It is important that we are ever vigilant about the nasty people who are out there. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for bringing this bill to the parliament and particularly welcome the new identity crimes offences, which will ensure greater protection for individuals as well as businesses. I commend the bill to the House.

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

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill because I think it does go a significant way towards addressing some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate—indeed most of them. The issue of identity crime and identity fraud is a significant one; it has been growing, as many of the speakers have indicated. It is not necessarily a new type of offence that people are committing but the methods and the forms that are being used are taking on an increasingly new character. We see this in particular with the use of new technologies, in particular electronic technologies, in order to make the approaches towards identity theft even more sophisticated than that which we may have witnessed in the past.

I wish to speak specifically on the identity crime aspects of the bill. The bill creates three new offences by inserting those offences into the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It has been said before and I restate the fact that, with the exception of Queensland and South Australia, identity theft has not been prescribed as a specific offence. But, as a result of the recommendations by the final report into identity crime by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in implementing those recommendations we will see that the Commonwealth—through this bill, when it becomes an act—will be implementing a number of those recommendations. There are some modifications to the recommendations provided but in the main we will be seeing the implementation of those recommendations.

Speakers before me in this debate have discussed the magnitude of identity theft and identity crime. Clearly it is difficult to put a figure on the cost to the community of that. Of course we can try and define in monetary terms the cost of identity theft and identity crime but, as some speakers who have contributed to this debate before me have also indicated, sometimes the loss or the cost that is felt by those who have been the victims of identity crime can be of a non-monetary nature. Indeed the hassle, the time, the energy, the effort and the stress that go into trying to remedy situations that one might have to confront as a result of being a victim of identity theft pose an additional set of hurdles for each and every one of us as we struggle to get through the complexity of our daily lives. I think what we see here, particularly with the emphasis on the victims certificate, is some very practical means by which some relief can be provided to victims of identity theft.

I wish to begin by turning to the substantive provisions of this schedule of the bill. I will then move on from there to have a discussion and to raise a few issues that I have confronted in my local community—issues that have been brought to my attention by local residents and have come my way and through the door of my electorate office. It is worth noting that, in the definitions provisions of the bill, the expression ‘identification information’, which is very much central to the operational provisions, is defined to include a name or an address; a date or place of birth; whether a person is married or has a de facto partner; relatives’ identity or similar information; a drivers licence or drivers licence number; a passport or passport number; biometric data; a voice print; a credit or debit card, its number or data stored or encrypted on it; a financial account number, username or password; a digital signature; a series of numbers or letters or both intended for use as a means of personal identification; and an ABN, or Australian business number.

In terms of the specific offences that are created under this bill, the three offences primarily can be described as the dealing offence, the possession of identification information offence, and the possession of equipment with the purpose of or a view towards the creation of identification documentation. Each of these provisions requires particular intent elements, and I think it is worth just reflecting on the operational elements of the offences.

The offences include, as I said, 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 the dealing offence. I note that in the explanatory memorandum there is an example provided in relation to the dealing offence:

An example of this type of offence is: person A uses the identification information of a business, such as its trading name, ABN, address and financial account information to pass themselves off as the business or an authorised agent or employee of the business, with the intention of importing a tier 1 prohibited good—

that is the indictable offence element. It goes on:

To establish this offence, the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

• a person made, supplied or used identification information, and
• the person intended that they, or any other person, will use that identification information to pretend to be, or pass themselves off as, another person for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence.

That is the dealing offence, and it goes very much to dealing in identification information.

In relation to the possession of identification information offence, the EM provides the following:

An example of conduct that would be captured by this offence is:

• person A possesses identification information about person B [a business], such as its trading name, ABN and financial account number
• person A intends that he or she, or another person, will use the identification information to engage in conduct, and
• the conduct is that person A will pass themselves off as person B for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence.

The third offence relates specifically to the possession of equipment for the purpose of producing or creating identification documentation. The EM states:

To establish this offence, the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

• a person possesses equipment,
• the [first] person intended that they, or any other person, will use the equipment to make identification documentation, and
• the [first] person intends that they, or any other person, will use the identification documentation to engage in conduct prohibited under section 372.1.

Clearly, they are wide ranging but, significantly and most importantly, the provisions seek to be framed in technology neutral language so as not only to capture the newly emergent technologies but also to take into account those technologies that have not yet reached the marketplace or those technologies that we have not yet seen in operation or that perhaps have not yet even been invented.

As I indicated earlier, the particular provisions relating to the victims certificate are, I think, of great significance because of the great hassle and difficulty that many victims face in trying to redress the situation when identity theft or identity crime has been committed. I want to share the experiences of some constituents of my electorate who have raised their situations with me. But, before I do so, I note that there was a case in Victoria that was reported in the Herald Sun on Saturday, 15 November last year. The article was written by Ben Butler and was entitled ‘A very personal theft’. I will quickly run through the elements of that scenario. I was horrified to see that this had occurred—though not nearly as horrified as the victim, I am sure.

David Stray, a Victorian man, received a letter in the mail one day in March 2006. That letter confirmed that a loan for $360,000 had been secured against the house that he owned. That was news to him, as he had not applied for any such loan. The documentation was all there and signed and contained copies of all the supporting documentation that one would normally expect to form part of an application for a loan of that sort, including the title to his home. So, although he had not applied for this loan, he received in the mail confirmation of his application, enclosing the certificate of title to his home. I am sure that would be disturbing for anyone in that situation.

Initially, Mr Stray thought it was a practical joke but then soon realised that this was the work of fraud and contacted the police. More than two years down the track the offender in this case was finally brought to justice and was prosecuted under various fraud provisions. To that point, Mr Stray was not able to clear the debt that had been raised in his name. I think that is the most disturbing aspect of this story. It is an aspect that points to what I hope to be the effectiveness of the bill that is currently before the House—that is, to provide victims with some redress when they are confronting the aftermath of identity crime and its impact on their lives. In Mr Stray’s case, the threats to recover the loan in question eventually ceased—but they only ceased as a result of the finance company heading into difficult financial circumstances. It was only when the finance company collapsed—with a $20 million outstanding debt—that they ceased to pursue Mr Stray for a debt that clearly should not have been owing on his part as it was a debt that had arisen as a result of identity fraud.

Whilst there may be some argument that cases such as this can, to some extent, be covered within the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to the fraud offences that exist, because of the rapid changes in technology, the pace at which technology has been changing, there is clearly a case—as the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has recommended—to adopt this legislation, which will ensure that there are specific offences that go to the heart of identity crime and identity theft.

A couple of examples in my local community have been brought to my attention—in particular, a Facebook scam in relation to identity theft. This is a new scam targeting users of Facebook. The scammer sends an email to the friends of the victim—the identities of the friends having been ascertained by virtue of the Facebook site—indicating that the person in question is isolated in a foreign country and requires urgent assistance in the form of a cash donation, and they request that cash be wired across to them. I know of at least one individual who fell victim to this scam, and they did so because the email setting out the details of the request specifically referred to friends of the individual in question whose identity had been assumed. In that case, the person did wire the money and found themselves without any legal recourse.

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

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.