George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition support the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Identity fraud is Australia’s fastest-growing crime, with hundreds of thousands of victims and an estimated cost of more than $1 billion every year. It is evident that the rapid increase in technology and computer use is partly behind this emerging threat. Identity crimes are increasing due to advances in technology in the banking sector and the rapid increase of financial transactions via the internet and the use of credit cards.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics report released late last year found that in 2007 alone more than 800,000 people, or five per cent of the population, aged 15 and older, fell victim to at least one instance of fraud. Identity fraud accounted for almost half a million victims, with 77 per cent of those reporting fraudulent transactions on their credit or bank cards. The remaining 23 per cent suffered identity theft involving unauthorised use of their personal details.

This bill implements changes to the identity crime offences recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee Final Report on Identity Crime. It seeks to insert three new identity crime offences into new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. With the exceptions of South Australia and Queensland, it is not currently an offence in Australia to assume or steal another person’s identity, except in restricted circumstances. Existing offences in the Criminal Code, such as theft, forgery, fraud and credit card skimming, do not adequately cover the varied and evolving types of identity crime—for instance, malicious software and phishing.

The proposed offences are framed in broad and technology-neutral language to ensure that, as new forms of identity crime emerge, the offences will continue to be valid. The offences include: 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; possession of identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment; and possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

Schedule 4 to the bill contains several amendments which will establish a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed upon the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information and strengthen safeguards to protect against the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information.

The bill also contains several minor amendments to correct a drafting error in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and repeal a provision in the Judiciary Act 1903 which is no longer necessary. The bill contains key measures to resolve deficiencies in current legislation relating to identity crimes. The bill also includes measures designed to improve the administration of justice and the effective operation of the AFP and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

In April 2005, the coalition government announced the National Identity Security Strategy to combat the misuse of stolen or assumed identities in the provision of government services. To support development of the strategy, the coalition allocated funding of $5.9 million over two years in the 2005-06 budget, including funding for a pilot document verification service. Under the coalition government, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee released a discussion paper on identity crime and subsequently a final report in March 2008. This bill implements that law reform largely undertaken by the previous government and now brought to completion under the current government. The coalition therefore supports the policy underlying the bill and supports the passage of this bill.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will also be supporting the passage of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010. In particular, we support the provisions that establish new offences for combating identity crime. We recognise that there are a diverse range of other measures in the bill, but I will confine my remarks today to the offences relating to identity crime.

We acknowledge at the outset the seriousness of such crimes and support attempts to assist in the investigation and prosecution of such offences. Identity crime has become more prevalent in recent years due to our ever-increasing reliance on new technology—a trend that will undoubtedly continue in the future. This is one of the issues that I hope to pursue in the inquiry that we proposed a couple of months ago into online privacy—which was supported by all sides of the chamber. Identity crime fits pretty squarely with the agenda of protecting people’s privacy online so that those flow-on consequences cannot occur. This is a trend that will undoubtedly continue into the future as these technologies become more ubiquitous.

Information from the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Australian Federal Police states that identity crime costs Australia around $4 billion annually. Research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics also highlights the breadth of the issue, with research released in June 2008 concluding that around half a million Australians were victims of identity fraud. Identity theft must therefore be taken very seriously, as it has quite serious repercussions—most directly for the victim but also for the Australian taxpayer.

We therefore support the bill’s intention to strengthen Australia’s identity theft legislation, which at present is somewhat ad hoc and fails to comprehensively protect Australians. We are pleased that the bill uses language which ensures that, as new forms of identity theft emerge, the offences contained in the bill will remain applicable. This is something we will need to deal with as new technologies, and new communications technologies in particular, emerge.

In addition to supporting the introduction of three new identity crime offences, we strongly support the bill’s inclusion of a remedy for victims of identity crime. The bill provides that they may be granted a certificate by a magistrate to prove that they have been a victim of identity theft when negotiating with the relevant authorities over the misuse of their identity, such as in re-establishing their credit rating with financial institutions. These amendments are common sense. They are certainly well timed, given the emerging ubiquity of these technologies. The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill in its entirety.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow Senator Ludlam—who is on time.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You couldn’t resist, could you!

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Identity fraud represents a serious threat to the community and can play a part in financing organised crime and terrorism. It is no small problem. According to the Australian Federal Police, identity fraud costs the Australian economy up to $4 billion a year. New measures to deter and penalise these crimes are essential in putting an end to this illicit industry. The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010 inserts new identity fraud offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995, making it an offence to deal in identification information, including specific offences for possessing identification information or the equipment used to make false documentation with the intent of dealing in such information.

The existing offences in the Criminal Code, covering such offences as theft, forgery, fraud and credit card skimming, are currently inadequate in addressing the many established and emerging types of identity crime. This bill will bring into effect recommendations on identity crime offences arising from the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee Final Report on Identity Crime, which was released by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in March 2008. After passage of this bill, it will be an offence to make, supply or use identification information for the purpose of allowing one person to pass themselves off as another where it involves committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth offence.

Significant improvements and changes in the nature of technology are common, along with the development of new applications for these advances. The utility of the internet in terms of such uses, such as communication, shopping and online banking, has become a part of everyday life and has changed the way we interact in both a social and commercial sense, so legislation must have a capacity to account for the invention of new forms of criminality associated with technological progress. This bill will grant such scope, ensuring that a strong disincentive will always be relevant to those engaging in identity theft, in whatever form it may take. Key terms and definitions have deliberately been drafted in a technology-neutral manner, to avoid the problem of terms becoming outdated or technology surpassing the definition as it will exist in the act.

As identity crime is very often a transnational phenomenon, the three identity crimes offences created by this bill will extend to the actions of any Australian citizen or corporation outside Australia, removing any recourse to using the fact that a particular jurisdiction had not legislated on this type of conduct. Australians will not be able to escape prosecution for an identity crime offence committed outside Australia on the basis that the jurisdiction in which the action takes place does not have identity crime laws.

Of particular note in this bill is the provision allowing for the issue of a certificate outlining the circumstances in which an individual has been the victim of identity crime, to help those affected to minimise the inconvenience of such circumstances. In the certificate, the magistrate must record the identity of the victim and describe the manner in which the identification information was said to have been misused.

Identity crimes can have a significant impact on a victim’s personal financial affairs, such as their credit rating. A certificate issued by a magistrate may be useful in reducing this impact, especially when in discussion with financial institutions to isolate and remove fraudulent transactions or re-establish their credit rating. Considering the fact that individual victims are reported to spend an average of two or more years attempting to restore their credit ratings, these provisions have the potential to save victims of identity fraud offences from putting their lives on hold while clearing fraudulent transactions made in their name.

This bill goes a long way to making identity crime a less attractive source of finance for criminals, but the vigilance of individual citizens in protecting sensitive information concerning their identity is also essential. Initiatives like the recent National Identity Fraud Awareness Week, which occurred from 9 to 15 October this year, should bring home how serious a risk we take with our identity through seemingly innocuous actions. A study found that 75 per cent of Australians throw out enough personal information to put themselves at risk of identity fraud, and many unsolicited phone calls seek to contribute to building a profile of information that can be used for profiting from deception. Educational initiatives such as this should worry us enough to be less complacent about how we treat our own sensitive information.

Beyond the identity crimes provisions, this bill seeks to amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to augment Australia’s regime of detection and deterrence when it comes to money laundering and the financing of terrorism and organised crime. Measures to ensure awareness of the reporting obligations for the movement of physical currency across borders under the act, along with improvements to restrict and protect against the release of AUSTRAC information, form the substance of this component of the bill.

Additionally, the bill amends part III of the Crimes Act 1914 in order to bring the administration of justice offences into line with chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It also makes amendment to the Australian Federal Police Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The suite of amendments in this bill will ensure that the operations of law enforcement agencies are improved. This bill represents a strong disincentive to identity fraud, as it imposes specific penalties on such actions. It is an additional welcome step in enhancing the capacity and capabilities of law enforcement to prevent serious and organised crime and prosecuting those involved in it. I am sure that the bill will go a long way towards arming our law enforcement agencies to deal with identity crimes while also assisting victims to rectify their financial records. I commend the bill.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent years, identity crimes have grown more prevalent and they continue to pose a serious threat to ordinary Australians. TheLaw and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010 implements the recommendations of the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee and introduces three new offences into the Criminal Code. The bill also includes provisions which allow victims of identity crimes to obtain a certificate which may assist in re-establishing their credit histories. Family First supports these changes and the commitment by the government to address the current deficiencies in our laws. Family First firmly believes that matters relating to the identity of individuals deserve our serious attention given the significant consequences which exist where a person’s identity is abused.

We need strong protections in place to ensure that individuals’ identities remain protected, particularly where these identities are used to commit serious crimes. Remarkably, the issues of identity protection and identity verification continue to be a problem. This is most apparent in relation to the national criminal history record checking which takes place across the country every day. As it stands, people are able to hide their criminal history by changing their name by deed poll, thereby essentially erasing any record of their criminal history. This is because a person’s new name is not tagged in the systems with the criminal history associated with their previous name. It is a crazy loophole. Think about it—this means that a murderer, a drug dealer, an armed robber or any other person with a criminal history is able to hide it by changing their name by deed poll.

I was flabbergasted when I discovered some time ago that this loophole existed, because it is a serious hole in our criminal history checking system. People rely on criminal history checks all the time, especially before hiring new employees, and it is serious breach of the trust which many people place in these checks. In many cases, these checks are performed before employing people in positions of trust, such as those that involve working with the elderly or children. These are positions of significant concern, so organisations undertake these checks to make sure that the people they are employing do not have an inappropriate criminal history.

It is now clear that criminal history checks are in many cases quite meaningless, because a person with a certain type of criminal past need only walk into the nearest births, deaths and marriages office, pay a small fee of around $50 and—hey-presto—watch as their criminal history vanishes instantly. Incredibly, the government has been aware of this crazy loophole for years, yet it does not seem to want to close it with any real urgency. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions, including through Senate estimates and hearings involving CrimTrac. The government continues to fail to urgently act to close this loophole which allows criminals to hide their criminal history.

I am flabbergasted that, on the one hand, the government clearly admits that it is aware of the potential for criminals to abuse this loophole yet, on the other hand, it suggests that there is nothing it can do to prevent this, claiming that it is a state issue. I have also raised the issue of criminals being able to change their names and hide their criminal history with the office of the Attorney-General, providing a list of amendments to this bill which I believed would strengthen the power of the Commonwealth to force the states to take action on this matter. In the beginning, my proposed amendments were met with silence; it was only after the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on 6 and 7 August 2009 that the Labor government finally saw fit to address this serious security issue. Even so, the response from the government has fallen well short of what any person would reasonably expect from a responsible government. A summary that was released of the decisions arrived at by the committee devoted just 28 words to this issue. It stated:

… Ministers requested that National Justice CEOs develop a best practice approach to the change of name process, to ensure that criminals cannot abuse the change of name system.

Clearly, everybody is aware of this issue and, quite frankly, it is simply not good enough not to act urgently. The CEOs were asked to go back to their states and develop a best practice approach, but that was over 12 months ago, and we are still waiting for proper action to ensure that criminals will no longer be able to go to any births, deaths and marriages office, change their names and thereby wipe away any record of their crimes. We need proper action, not more excuses or inaction from the government.

Family First has put forward amendments which try to force the Commonwealth government to take action on this issue. Under these amendments, the minister would be required to present a report on what could be done to urgently develop a nationally consistent scheme to make sure that this loophole is closed. In this report, the minister would also need to address what the Commonwealth was doing to implement such a scheme. This would force the issue to a federal level rather than leaving it at a state level and put pressure on the government to finally make serious attempts to fix this problem.

Family First’s amendments also include a suggested change to the Privacy Act to make it clear that the Privacy Act does not prevent agencies passing on relevant information. While this would not guarantee that information would be passed on, it would remove possible excuses for not doing so. This loophole, which allows criminals to erase their history of convictions, has existed for far too long. I understand that New South Wales has moved to address this issue, and it is high time that a nationally consistent approach was adopted. I urge all senators to look at these amendments as we go into the committee stage of this bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on a bill that is based at the heart of very contemporary Australian society—that is, the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010. The Gillard government takes crime seriously and will do anything possible to protect the Australian people from the effects of crime—and, unfortunately, Australia has its fair share of identity crime.

Our identity is something that begins when we are born and given a name and a birth certificate. Our identity grows over time as we acquire personal identification numbers, passwords and licence and passport numbers. Our identity may also include a change of name, either through marriage or even just by deed poll. Regardless of what our identity consists of, it is ours for life—or at least it should be.

However, in today’s world with technology continually developing, it has become much easier for people to steal an identity or to create a new but fake one from scratch. Technology has played a huge role in the way identity crime and identity fraud is perpetrated, although in itself identity fraud is not a new concept. It has been around forever; it is just becoming more prolific. And even the most cautious people are at risk because of the ever-increasing, ever-changing technology available.

We need to be extremely conscious of protecting our identity and making sure that we are sensible with our personal information and what we do with it. It is also vital that parents educate their children about protecting their identity. In today’s world, it is just as important to teach your children about internet safety as it is to warn them about stranger danger.

We need legislation that makes it a crime to use someone else’s personal information, especially in criminal activities. We need to impose harsh penalties for doing so, because it does not matter how careful we are with our personal information, there will always be someone who can access that information and use it for their own gains. This bill will help clarify some areas of law that have previously been open to interpretation.

We part with personal information every day. It might be signing up for a new insurance policy, using online banking or giving information to someone over the phone. There are those of us who might misplace our wallet with all those important cards inside. Most people are honest and will use information only for the purposes they are intended for; however, there are some people who will use information for illicit reasons. Then there are the people who get access to our personal information without us even knowing that they have it. The fact that people can access our personal information without our knowledge is frightening.

People can even put incorrect information on websites about other people, and some of these can be edited by just about anyone. Currently, anyone who has their personal details misused has the onus placed on them to re-establish their identity. This is usually an onerous task, taking up a lot of time and effort and it can be very complicated. The changes proposed will hopefully make it easier by removing some of the difficulties and therefore decreasing the time and cost involved. It will identify how people can get help in re-establishing their identity, particularly when other people have committed criminal acts, carried on business activities or taken out loans in their name.

This bill has been worded so that emerging technology will be covered without having to make further changes. The term ‘equipment’ is not defined in the bill. This is so as to avoid a fast-dating of the provision. As an undefined term, ‘equipment’ will be defined by a court according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, equipment used often to create false identification, such as photocopiers, scanners and computers, will all be included under the term.

The bill is making amendments to a number of different acts, which include the Crimes Act 1914, the Privacy Act 1988, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Judiciary Act 1903, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. In general, these amendments are designed to provide consistency and to make the operation of federal agencies easier. These amendments are in response to a report on identity crime handed down by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Currently only Queensland and South Australia have offences specific to identity crime. In other jurisdictions certain offences are covered by a variety of laws such as fraud, forgery, credit card skimming and theft, but this leaves a significant gap that enables conduct involving using someone else’s identity to go unpunished by the law. This is a serious problem that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. This bill will achieve that.

The Criminal Code Act 1995 will have three new offences listed once this bill has passed. These offences will be covered in the new part 9.5 of the act. Section 372.1 states that it is an offence to deal with identification information with the intent of ‘pretending to be, or passing themselves off as, another person’ with the ‘purpose of committing or facilitating a Commonwealth indictable offence’. Where the proposed offence is made out, an absolute liability applies with a penalty of imprisonment for five years. Section 372.2 states that it is an offence to be in possession of identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, and this attracts a penalty of three years imprisonment. Section 372.3 relates to the proposed offence of possessing equipment to make identification documents, making it an offence to be in possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes the dealing offence. The penalty for that offence is three years imprisonment.

With the extended geographical jurisdiction, it will be an offence for an Australian citizen or body corporate to steal an identity while overseas. They will not be able to argue that they have done nothing wrong because the country they are located in does not have the same law. They will be committing an offence under Australian law while in another jurisdiction. This change recognises the serious impact identity crime can have on a global scale.

Under section 372.5, where a judge, a magistrate or a trier of fact in prosecution is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of the offence of dealing in identification information, it is still possible for the accused to be found guilty of the offence of possessing identification information. All that is necessary is that the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness. Section 372.6 states that it is not an offence to attempt to commit offences under sections 372.1, 372.2 and 372.3. The reason for this is that harm only occurs when identity information has actually been used. Possession of information is not a sufficient cause.

This bill will alter part III of the Crimes Act 1914, which covers administration of justice offences to create consistency with the Criminal Code. It corrects a drafting oversight and also increases the penalties for a number of offences such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice offences, which are very serious offences. This is consistent with the Gillard government’s policy that anyone who obstructs, prevents, perverts or tries to defeat the legal process in an improper way should face the strongest possible criminal sanctions. This area also covers the conduct of judges and magistrates when setting bail. It makes it an offence to require excessive and unreasonable bail where the requirement represents an abuse of their office or where the judge or magistrate has a personal interest in the matter. Also covered are offences relating to witnesses and evidence. Offences include perverting the course of justice, giving of false testimony, deceiving witnesses and aiding a prisoner to escape from custody.

This bill proposes to alter the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 by allowing delegation of powers and functions. This matter was previously unclear and clarification of this was certainly needed. This bill will not only clarify the power of the DPP to delegate but also make it possible for them to undertake a function despite previously having delegated that function to someone else. Under the proposed legislation, immunity against civil proceedings will be granted to the DPP and staff as well as to the Australian Government Solicitor while carrying out their duties. This provision covers both acts and omissions, but they must be carried out in good faith and in the course of duty to warrant immunity. These amendments will ensure that there is a single prosecuting authority involved in the prosecution of all charges and that more effective use is made of court resources. The duplication of resources has been an ongoing problem with our federal system of government. It is therefore important that we streamline the functions and powers of the DPP Act and processes.

Alcohol and drug-testing processes will be simplified under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The amendments will allow for the timely testing of AFP employees, thus ensuring that they are not under the influence while carrying out their duties.

Money laundering is a significant problem in Australia. It is estimated that $4.5 billion is laundered in Australia every year. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 established the framework for AUSTRAC—the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre. This bill will establish a more consistent approach on the disclosure of sensitive information gathered by AUSTRAC, which has a sophisticated process able to track the flow of international funds. This information should not be revealed in a way which may compromise potential prosecutions. Under this bill, changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act will see people involved in cross-border transfers of currency and international fund transfers obligated to report any suspicions.

One aspect of the bill that I would particularly like to comment on is the provision to assist victims of identity crime. People can have huge debts run up on their credit cards before they realise they are missing. Their signatures can be faked or their names used for Centrelink or medical purposes. What happens to these people when they realise their credit card has not only been lost but has also paid for thousands of dollars worth of goods or a holiday or they find out someone has already applied for a passport with their details? It is bad enough to have a crime committed against you, but for the proceeds of that crime to then be involved in further crime is a complete travesty.

People will now be able to apply to a magistrate for a certificate which, if granted, will help the individual in their dealings with financial institutions when trying to get their credit rating reinstated. In order to get a certificate, the person will have to provide enough quality information to prove to the magistrate that on the balance of probabilities the identity offence has been committed. As we are all aware, it is much easier to establish that on the balance of probabilities an offence has been committed than to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it has been committed. This will mean that a certificate can be issued without having to secure a conviction of a person for using your identity. The certificate will need to have the individual’s personal details as well as the nature of the offence committed. Even in a case where the identity of the offender has been established, it is not a requirement to include the name of that person. With the certificate in hand, the person will be able to negotiate with the finance company to get the loan they want or to simply have their previously good credit rating restored. They will not have to wait for the sometimes lengthy court process to take place to get a conviction or, if the perpetrator is never found, they will still have the assistance to help with the difficulties the fraud has created. Under section 375.3, a certificate must not be issued if it is likely to influence a court case. This is vital to ensure that court proceedings are protected and that no person loses their right to a fair trial.

Another benefit of this bill is that prison sentences of up to 10 years can be imposed for some offences. The tough sentences implemented in this bill should act as a deterrent to people against committing the crime of invading another person’s privacy by assuming their identity. After all, as I have said, our identity is vital to our existence and it needs to be protected.

As parliamentarians we have an obligation to ensure that the Australian public is protected from crime as much as it possibly can be. We have an obligation to ensure that penalties imposed for offences are effective deterrents. Passing this bill is one way that we can meet those obligations. The Gillard government is serious about cleaning up on crime and will continue to work to do so. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010. I do not propose to speak for very long and I commend the senators who have spoken before me, particularly Senator Hutchins, Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. Through that committee and through other involvement in this parliament, I have come to realise, as many others have, that identity crime has become a big issue in Australia and elsewhere. It needs additional resourcing and tools, and this legislation will go towards equipping jurisdictions in combating identity fraud. Identity crimes are very malicious types of crimes. They affect people on a very personal basis. To have one’s identity stolen is not a light matter, and that has been touched upon during this debate.

It is great that a government of this nature as well as the previous Howard government have always viewed ways to combat criminal activity as a priority for the government of the day, and it is good to see that the Labor Party is continuing the good measure that was introduced under the Howard government. It is nice for us to be in great agreement in relation to very sensible measures, such as the bill before us.

I want to mention two items in particular: firstly—and this has been touched upon—the varying nature of criminal activity and, secondly, the ability of organised crime to move very swiftly with new technologies. This bill has been very carefully crafted in the sense that it will not date very quickly on the definition of equipment. That is a very sensible measure. I trust that the courts will view that measure with the intention that the parliament is placing on that particular provision. If we do not have legislation that is swift and flexible enough to combat these organisations, it makes life very difficult for law enforcement agencies.

Secondly, the introducing minister at the time, Minister Debus, made some comments in his second reading speech in relation to aspects of newly evolving methods of criminal organisations. He thoroughly agreed with the member for Farrer during the second reading debate in the House of Representatives. He indicated that we need to keep up to date, and that is why the government has approached the bill in the way it has. Another comment in that second reading speech was that people need to be able to get their lives back together upon the discovery of an identity crime. The legislative framework in this country has not provided for that to happen in a reasonable manner and to give justification to a person’s identity being restored—in particular on a financial aspect.

If the government continues to legislate and the parliament continues to approve legislation that will combat serious and organised crime—other measures went through the parliament during the last term—it will go a long way to ensuring that organised criminals in this country and elsewhere understand that Australia is not a soft target and that Australia will often amend and adjust its legislative framework to attack the criminals at the very heart of their venture. Identity crime is one of those issues. The bill also addresses many other aspects which I certainly agree with and approve of, but I will not go into the detail of those. I commend the manner in which the bill was introduced and commend the bill to the Senate.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank senators for their support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Senator Brandis made reference to the National Identity Security Strategy. I seek to make a number of points in answer to his questions on the bill. The government continues to lead national action to prevent the identities of Australians being used for illegal purposes. The government is working with the states and territories to develop and implement the National Identity Security Strategy. One of the key elements of this strategy is the national Document Verification Service, which allows agencies to verify documents presented as proof of identity, such as passports or driver’s licenses, in real time. Once fully implemented, the DVS will help governments and individuals protect against identity theft by detecting false or stolen identity documents. The government is also working to expand the use of biometrics to anchor an identity by connecting personal information, such as a name, to the individual’s biometrics, such as a photograph or even a fingerprint.

It is important to raise community awareness about the risk of identity crime. That is why last year, on 23 November, the government launched the ID Theft booklet, which outlines how to prevent and respond to identity theft. Around 60,000 copies of the ID Theft booklet have been distributed nationwide for crime prevention activities. There is a range of other activities across the government aimed at preventing fraud and helping people to protect their identities online. For example, in March this year, Fraud Week included an online scams education and awareness campaign.

Senator Fielding raised the issue of criminal name changes. Name changes are governed by state and territory legislation and administered by their registries of births, deaths and marriages. The issue of criminal name changes is being addressed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. National justice chief executive officers are developing a best practice approach to changes of name to ensure criminals cannot abuse the change-of-name system. A proposal will be presented to attorneys-general later this year. A cooperative approach through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is the appropriate way to deal with this matter in the government’s view. Senator Fielding also mentioned the Privacy Act. That act already permits the use and disclosure of personal information for the prevention and detection of criminal offences, which would address the issue Senator Fielding raised.

Finally, the bill contains three new identity crime offences and other amendments that will improve the operation of Commonwealth agencies, including the AFP, the CDPP and AUSTRAC. As senators know, identity theft poses a significant threat to individuals and the entire Australian economy. In 2009-10 there were 124,000 victims of identity theft in Australia. The Australian Crime Commission’s 2010 Organised Crime Threat Assessment identified identity crime as one of the highest level threats. The identity crime offences in this bill bridge the gaps in existing legislation and limit the impact of identity crime on individuals and business. The offences are based on provisions prepared by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee. Amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 are all designed to improve and simplify the administration of the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and AUSTRAC. This bill advances Australia’s response to identity crime and enhances the ability of Commonwealth agencies to perform their functions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.