Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 seeks to implement changes to the identity crime offences recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee report on identity crime. The report was released by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in March 2008. The issue of identity crime has received an enormous amount of media and public attention over recent years. Clearly, it is of significant concern to many government agencies, law enforcement organisations, private bodies, the financial sector and of course individuals themselves. It is also an issue of some international significance, as identity crime is an essential tenet of most transactional crime that occurs. It is a significant social and legal problem. It is perpetrated upon citizens to harm their individual reputation, to take, adopt or steal their identity for nefarious reasons and predominantly to steal money.

The form which identity crime is taking continues to morph and change, from phishing—that is, looking for credit card information and details and login details—to credit card theft at retail and other outlets, to the theft of identity documents, including passports and drivers licences, and to the use of malicious software like trojan horses to get passwords and authentication details. Banks and, indeed, this parliament continue to issue warnings and say that reputable credit organisations will never ask you for your credit card details or internet banking logon details. They will never ask you for the CCV number at the back of your credit card. Those individuals or organisations that purport to be anything but what they are and that do request that information do so with one intent and one intent only—that is, to harm.

This issue is not a recent addition to the parliament’s timetable. By way of history, in April 2005, almost four years ago, the Howard government announced the National Identity Security Strategy to combat the misuse of stolen or assumed identities in the provision of government services. To support the development of the strategy, the coalition allocated $5.9 million over two years in the 2005-06 budget, including funding for a pilot document verification service. The Council of Australian Governments, COAG, considered identity security at its special meeting on counterterrorism on 27 September 2005, and COAG agreed to the development and implementation of a national identity security strategy underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement. Furthermore, COAG agreed at the time, in 2005, to the development and implementation of a national document verification service to combat the misuse of false and stolen identities and to the investigation of the means by which reliable, consistent and nationally interoperable biometric security measures could be adopted by all relevant jurisdictions. Consequently, a governance framework was set up to guide and progress a strategy, including development of the intergovernmental agreement.

The National Identity Security Coordination Group consists of a range of representatives from central agencies of the Commonwealth; state and territory governments; the Council of Australasian Registrars for Births, Deaths and Marriages; Austroads; and the Privacy Commissioner. The Commonwealth Reference Group on Identity Security comprises 31 Australian government agencies and was formed to ensure that the cross-government initiatives at the Commonwealth level relating to identity security aligned with the strategy. Together, five working groups were established to take forward the principal elements of the strategy, focusing on standard frameworks for proof of identity, security standards on such documents, a document verification service, the integrity of identity data and, of course, authentication standards.

Prime Minister Howard, the premiers and the chief ministers signed the intergovernmental agreement at the COAG meeting on 13 April 2007. At that meeting, COAG also noted the progress made to date in giving effect to the various elements of the strategy and acknowledged the value of the work in providing guidance to the government. Furthermore, in the coalition’s 2006-07 budget, the identity of Australians would be further protected with the rollout of the national document verification service. It was rolled out with funding of $28.3 million, building on the prototype service trialled during 2006. Thus, the Commonwealth contributed something like $35 million to this important element of work commencing in 2005.

This bill now forms the latter part of the work that commenced so many years ago. It will insert three new identity crime offences into the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It should be noted that, except in South Australia and Queensland, it is not currently an offence in Australia to assume or steal another person’s identity except in restricted circumstances. The fact that only two states have moved to enact laws seems unbelievable when, since 2005, the federal government has been moving in this place to strengthen the issue of identity fraud. 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 example, malicious software, including trojan horses; phishing; and other forms of sophisticated credit card fraud. The proposed offences are framed in broad and technology-neutral language to ensure that, as any new forms of identity crime emerge, offences will continue to be valid. I should put it on record that I am disappointed that states outside South Australia and Queensland have not moved to shore up legislation in this area. The three offences are: dealing in identification information, possession of that information and possession of equipment to create identification documentation.

This bill also includes minor amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to streamline the processes for alcohol and other drug testing under the act and to expand the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. Furthermore, schedule 4 of the bill contains a range of amendments that will establish a more consistent approach to restrictions upon disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information and strengthen safeguards to protect against disclosure of such information. The bill also amends the definition of ‘enforcement body’ under the Privacy Act to include the Office of Police Integrity in Victoria, an office with the same status as similar law enforcement bodies such as the Police Integrity Commission in New South Wales and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. A range of several minor amendments, to correct drafting errors in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and to repeal a provision in the Judiciary Act 1903 which is no longer necessary, also form part of the bill.

The bill is clearly supported. It contains key measures to resolve deficiencies in current legislation relating to identity crime offences. The bill also includes measures designed to improve the administration of justice and the effective operation of the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. This will bring the law into line with technology. It will ensure that there is nowhere to go for those who would seek to perpetrate a fraud—a crime against Australian citizens or corporations. The changes will ensure that due prosecution will follow those who, for their own material gains, seek to defraud citizens of their identity and therefore their dollars and cents—their money—and their form. It will hold accountable those who seek to take the identity of another and use it for their own personal gain.

The privacy of citizens is paramount in our nation. We on this side of the House believe in small government. We believe that governments should not interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens. We believe that citizens should be able to get on and live their lives with freedom, trusting that their privacy will indeed be kept private and that nothing will be done in this place or anywhere else to impinge upon the very freedom that we hold dear. The basis of that freedom is the fact that people have an identity that is peculiar to them. The theft of that identity for use by nefarious means is an assault on the very freedom that we stand here to defend this evening. The bill is indeed supported.

See this speech in context