Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak about the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015, I start by saying that of course Labor supports this legislation. In a world where international travel continues to increase, the bill takes note of the fact that the security and efficiency of our passport regime depend on continually reviewing and keeping our legislation up to date with both our international obligations and our domestic laws. This legislation does both of those things. It also closes a loophole by creating the offence of falsely reporting a document as stolen or fraudulent.

Passports were originally about having the protection of a king or other ruler extended to the carrier. They were not initially documents for identifying citizenship but documents for safe conduct—permission for foreigners to travel within a country, sometimes only to specific places. It was not until the mid-19th century that they took on the nature of a document identifying an individual and declaring their citizenship, and it was not until after World War I that they became generally required for international travel. Once they were generally required for international travel, it became important for nations to standardise passports. The first agreement on standardising passports was reached by the League of Nations in the 1920s, but progress was slow and irregular until passport standardisation finally came about in 1980—as late as 1980—under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

An international standard is so critical for passports because they are by their very nature a document issued by one government for the purpose of being presented to another. We saw just how important the integrity of passports is when Ahmad Saiyer Naizmand left Australia on his brother's passport—after his own had been cancelled due to security concerns—in August 2014, less than 10 months after convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf had done the same thing.

Australia's passport regime is, however, on the whole, robust and respected around the world. On the 2014 Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index Australia ranked seventh, with our citizens being able to travel without a visa to 168 other countries. All Australian governments have taken very seriously the responsibility to make sure that our passports are as secure as international standards require and as modern technology can ensure. When in government, Labor introduced the N series passport, the additional fraud countermeasures of the ghost image and retroreflective floating image, as well as images of Australia printed throughout the document, making every page unique and therefore more difficult to reproduce.

Given that passports have now become the pre-eminent identity document, we also introduced reforms to make it possible for gender diverse Australians to get passports that reflect their gender identity. Previously, sex reassignment surgery had been a prerequisite for a person to get a passport in their preferred identity. Intersex Australians had only been able to obtain a passport reflecting their gender identity if they had been born in Victoria, where birth certificates could be marked with an X. This meant that very many Australians could not get a passport reflecting their preferred gender identity. For many, the difficulty, the violation of privacy and the danger of harassment posed by explaining their gender history every time they presented their passport prevented them from travelling at all. Labor's reforms in 2011 and 2013 opened the way for gender diverse Australians to enjoy the same opportunities to travel for work, family and leisure as everyone else.

As I said earlier, in a world where international travel continues to increase, making sure that our passport regime is robust and up to date is important. Therefore Labor will support this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 amends the Australian Passports Act 2005 and the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 and has consequential amendments to a number of other Commonwealth acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005. The bill is a result of a review of Australia's passport legislation 10 years after it was enacted. The importance of keeping this legislation up to date has been reinforced recently with some of the national security issues we have seen and that have exercised people's concerns. Our passports are a very key part of that. For anyone who has travelled around the world, and that is a lot of Australians, you protect your passport like nothing else in your possession. There is nothing that gives you greater panic if you are travelling than the thought that you have misplaced or mislaid your passport.

We understand the issues that you might face should that be the case. We understand what your own passport means to you and how you are really in no man's land without it. We also understand how valuable Australian identity and Australian passports are on the black market. And we understand that not only are there national security issues in this space but the broader issue of identity theft. When you consider that 40,000 Australian passports go missing, there are real concerns about in whose hands these particular documents end up and to what purpose some of these are used. Of those that are lost overseas in very popular tourist destinations, some are lost and some are certainly stolen. As I said earlier, when we are travelling, we guard our passport almost with our life. We are very concerned about our passport. We understand what it means not to have it in our possession or in reach whenever we are travelling.

This bill continues the work we need to do to keep the passports and the act up-to-date and relevant, particularly given some of the issues that have emerged. The bill seeks to refine and clarify the legislation—very important—and strengthen the government's ability to respond to any form of unlawful activity in relation to Australian travel documents. This changes constantly. The bill will include four principal amendments and a number of minor technical amendments.

Firstly, the bill provides for the issue of a travel document to a person on the Minister for Foreign Affairs own initiative to facilitate a lawful requirement to travel. This provision is limited to the following circumstances: to remove or deport a person who is the subject of a lawful removal or deportation order to or from Australia; to extradite a person who is the subject of a lawful extradition request to or from Australia; to effect an international prison transfer. A person should not be able to delay or obstruct a lawful expulsion to or from Australia by refusing consent to the issue of the document. There are already existing avenues for people to seek review of the substantive decision to extradite or to remove them. This will also enable Australia to comply with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944, which stipulate that a contracting state shall issue a travel document to one of its nationals to facilitate their return within 30 days of request by another state to do so, whether or not the person concerned consents to the issue of the travel document.

Secondly, the bill will align the definition of parental responsibility far more closely to that in the Family Law Act 1975 and remove any confusion as to who is required to consent to a child having a travel document. For those constituents in my electorate, this will be very welcome. Child passport applications are one of the most complex aspects of passport operations. I think all members in this place will have had contact from people in this position. Due to the changing dynamic of family composition in Australia over the last 10 years, we have seen a noticeable increase in the number and complexity of child passport applications without full parental consent. For a small number of applicants, the current requirements can cause unnecessary distress, delays and confusion, and can make what is already a difficult family situation so much worse.

The bill provides that the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who under a court order have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons who under an Australian law have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child. Those persons who do not have parental responsibility for the child but under a court order can spend time with or have access to a child will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. I can only assume the number of people for whom this will be a very welcome decision.

It is inappropriate that the Passports Act as it currently stands may accord a person more parental responsibility for a child than is actually permitted by the court. It means that a parent who has been granted sole parental responsibility under a court order is no longer required to seek the consent of other persons who have access to the child. It is important to note that these amendments do not remove the legal requirement for a person travelling overseas with a child to seek consent to the child's travel from all persons who have had court awarded access to or spend time with orders for a child. It remains an offence under the Family Law Act to take a child overseas without consent from all persons in whose favour a court order is made in relation to a child.

Thirdly, the bill provides that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application. It is a reviewable decision. It is really essential that the government send a very clear message that any kind of fraud in relation to Australian travel documents will not be tolerated. It is an offence under the Passports Act to provide false or misleading information, or to provide false or misleading statements or documents in relation to an application for an Australian travel document. This provision may be used instead of or in addition to a criminal prosecution for these offences. People need to take this very seriously. Fraudulent travel document applications threaten the security and the integrity of the Australian passport system. It is important to note that this provision does not prevent a person from being issued a travel document but they must submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.

Lastly, the bill modifies the existing offence framework in the Passports Act and adds an offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. The new offence will target persons who make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that the document may be accepted and used as if it were a genuine Australian travel document.

These amendments are necessary to deter and respond to the increasing fraudulent use of travel documents and the wider implications of such activities in enabling organised and serious crime. We are seeing an increase in organised and serious crime in areas such as the one that has been exercising much of the concern of this House, terrorism; in drug smuggling; and in people trafficking. It is important that this bill is up to date.

I want to use a short part of my time to talk briefly about the issue of identity theft, which is often facilitated by the amount of information that people put online. I spend a lot of time talking to young people and to our police, and I know that the police are very concerned about even localised identity theft, let alone that to do with passports. The amount of information that a young person who is allowed to be on perhaps a social media site like Facebook puts on that particular site about not just themselves but their family is extraordinary. The young person does it without even realising, often, that that information is being monitored by those who wish to commit crime and fraud using a fraudulent identity.

This is one of the issues that the police are very concerned about. They actually believe that there are numbers of young people in this country who will need to change their names when they reach 18 and they go to the bank to get their MasterCard and other documents like the ones we are talking about today because their name will have been used to commit fraud and crime. That criminal wants a clean name so that any of their activities will not be linked to them personally; they are committed in somebody else's name. This is a very real issue for a lot of young people. We know that the criminals are online, harvesting information off these sites—probably with a folder with that person's name on it on their system—every time there is another simple little piece of information.

People put the most extraordinary things online on something like Facebook. It is not only birthdays. What is a key part that is on our passport and on our licences? Dates of birth. It is often addresses and things like their mobile phone numbers, their email addresses and all sorts of personal information about and photos of where they live, who they live with and what goes on. If they have left on some of the settings on their phones, depending on whether they have location services or geotagging, if they take a photo and they have this turned on, the hacker can not only have a look inside and follow them, but there is a whole lot of personal information contained on their devices that is accessible. This is just one of the areas.

The other thing that the police not so long ago came to talk to me about with identity theft was that they have a further belief that the criminals that are harvesting this information, sometimes from job search sites, are putting all of this information into a folder, and they are going to wait until this young person, who is then 35, has bought their first home. With the amount of information that they have available that they have harvested over a number of years from these sites, they will have enough information to be able to go and sell these young people's homes. They will have the 100 points that you need to make a major financial transaction, and they will be able to sell their homes. The police were warning me about this some time ago.

On this discussion on passports and the importance of our identity: as I said when I started my speech, when you travel, there is nothing that crystallises your thoughts or your concerns more than the fact that you may have had your passport stolen or have misplaced it. I think everyone who has travelled will know that moment when you thought: 'Where's my passport? Where did I put it?' You have that momentary panic that you do not know where your passport is at that moment. It is something that we guard when we travel.

I think the measures in this bill reflect the fact that, in 10 years, we need to make sure that we certainly address the issues of security in a broader sense and that our laws allow the government of the day to maintain the security that is so important around the integrity of our passport system.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. I commend the objective to protect the Australian community by preventing and deterring the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. Our passport, the Australian passport, is without doubt the most thorough, accepted and important identity document in our country, and it is imperative that we do not let this change. This bill is the result of a normal 10-year re-evaluation of Australia's passports legislation. However, it is timely given the current security situation. The role of government is the safety of our citizens and to mitigate unlawful activity. I believe this bill does just that, and I will go into more depth regarding the four key elements to be amended.

On the issue of travel documentation by the minister, the provision is limited to the following circumstances: to remove or deport a person who is the subject of a lawful extradition request to or from Australia; to remove or deport a person who is the subject of a lawful removal or deportation order to or from Australia; or to effect an international prison transfer. I think they are pretty self-explanatory. There are already existing avenues for people to seek review of the substantive decision to extradite or remove them. This will also enable Australia to comply with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 which stipulate that a contracting state shall issue a travel document to one of its nationals to facilitate their return to the contracting state within 30 days of a request by another state to do so, whether or not the person concerned consents to the issue of the travel document.

The bill will align the definition of parental responsibility more closely to that of the Family Law Act 1975. There have been issues over the last 12 months or so which have underlined this. The aim of the amendment is to remove any confusion as to who is required to consent to a child having a travel document. The bill provides that the following persons are required to consent to a child having a passport: parents who have not had their parental responsibility removed by a court; persons who under a court order have parental responsibility or with whom the child is to live; and persons who, under an Australian law, have guardianship, custody or parental responsibility for the child. Those persons who do not have parental responsibility for a child but who can under a court order spend time with or have access to the child will no longer be required to consent to a child having a passport. It is inappropriate that the Passports Act, as it currently stands, may accord a person more parental responsibility for a child than is permitted by the court. For a small number of applicants the current requirements can cause unnecessary distress, delays and confusion.

The third area is that the minister may refuse to process a passport application if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty in the application. This is a reviewable decision. It is essential that the government send a clear message that any kind of fraud in relation to Australian documents will not be tolerated. It is important to note that this provision does not prevent a person from being issued a travel document, but they must submit a fresh application with the correct information and meet all other eligibility requirements.

The bill modifies the existing offence framework in the Passports Act and adds an offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of Australian travel documents. The new offence will target persons who make or provide false Australian travel documents with the intention that the document may be accepted and used as if it were genuine. These amendments are necessary to deter and respond to the increasing fraudulent use of travel documents and the wider implications of such activity in enabling serious crime such as terrorism, drug smuggling and people trafficking.

In addition, there will be a provision to refuse travel documentation that uses unacceptable names and signatures. This may include using language that is offensive, obscene or that could be misleading. While these situations rarely occur, it is important that a clear legal base exists to refuse such names or signatures to protect the integrity of our travel documents.

The amendments further allow the act to be simplified by removing the need to refer to the passports determination to work out which provisions in the act apply to the travel documents. The bill combines related subsections to avoid duplication and clarify existing provisions consistent with current practice.

While the majority of Australian citizens obviously use their travel documentation lawfully, we need updates to the legislation to ensure those who do not are held to account. The review assists us to deal with the current security situations facing Australia while updating important aspects of the 10-year-old legislation.

I would hope and assume that the bill will be dealt with in a bipartisan way, and I am sure that the opposition would agree with us on that. As I said earlier, it is a 10-year review, but it is very timely given current situations for both security and family law reasons.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015. I would like to start with a little bit of an anecdote. Some years ago, I was on a sales trip travelling through the United States. I had to go and visit a customer down in Birmingham, Alabama. The best way to get there at the time was to fly into Atlanta and hire a car and drive from Atlanta to Alabama. I did that. I remember it was a couple of hours drive. I hired the car and came back. When I made it back to Atlanta, I realised that I had misplaced my passport. I believe that it probably slid down behind one of the seats in the car that I was driving. I had lost my passport. I thought, 'This is a little bit of an inconvenience.'

So I called up the Australian consulate and reported that my passport was lost. From there, I basically jumped on a plane and flew from Atlanta across to Los Angeles. I thought I would be stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a new passport, but they said to go straight to the airport. I went up to the Qantas check-in desk in Los Angeles and told them: 'I've rung through. I've lost my passport.' They said, 'No problems.' They gave me a boarding pass and I was able to go through customs in the USA without a passport at all. I hopped on the plane and when I arrived back in Australia I lined up in the queue with everyone else and said, 'I am sorry—I've lost my passport,' and was waved straight through.

I think those days are long gone. The security situation that we face today, where we have issues of international terrorism and international drug smuggling, means we must ensure that we have the most stringent controls on Australian passports. That is what this bill does. It strengthens the integrity of the Australian Passports Act 2005 and makes a number of minor amendments, although important amendments, to a number of Commonwealth acts. It also repeals the Australian Passports (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2005.

The bill includes four principal amendments and a number of minor amendments. I will go through them one at a time. Firstly, the bill provides that the minister may issue a travel document to a person on the minister's own initiative if there is a lawful requirement for that person to travel. Secondly, it aligns the definition of 'parental responsibility' more closely to that of the Family Law Act 1975 to provide more certainty about who is required to consent to a child having a passport. That is a more and more important issue, unfortunately, as we see more and more children of single parents and more and more cases going through the Family Court. Thirdly, it provides that a minister may refuse to process a passport application on reasonable suspicion of fraud. Fourthly, it revises existing offences to add an offence to strengthen the government's ability to respond to the fraudulent use of travel documents. That is a most important issue. We need to send a very loud and clear message that anyone—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.