Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak, and I thank my colleague the member for Lyne for allowing me to precede him so that I can fulfil my obligations in the Main Committee. I also rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Despite this bill covering a significant range of topics, I would like to focus my attention on the key amendment to introduce new criminal offences relating to identity crimes, and the introduction of the victims certificate so as to assist those in the community who have had their identities stolen and been affected quite dramatically by this particular crime.

Identity crime is a serious problem and a growing problem. In fact, we are only just beginning, I think, to fully understand and comprehend the scope and the impact of identity crime in our community. As technology advances, so does the arsenal available to those criminals perpetrating identity theft. Identity crime is a terrifying prospect and an insidious blight. Victims are often completely unaware that they have been targeted until they discover that all their money has gone, they have unknown debts and/or their credit rating and reputation have been traduced.

In many cases, victims of identity crime will also suffer significant psychological distress, humiliation and isolation. Identity crime is transnational and is very often only the tip of a much more sinister underworld of organised crime or even terrorism. These identity thieves will assume the identity of their victim, eating away at their assets until all that is left is an empty facade of an individual’s identity.

In 2007, the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, noted that there can be ‘no greater invasion of a person’s privacy than the theft of their identity’. He made this comment while launching National Identity Fraud Awareness Week. I know that, following those comments, and on reports from people in my electorate, we have quite often issued press statements about the risk of identity fraud and have tried to give greater recognition in the community of the risks.

The Australian Federal Police estimate that identity crime could be costing us $4 billion annually. With international statistics demonstrating that this type of crime is growing faster than any other, it is likely that identity crime costs will continue to rise. Identity crime was listed as a priority matter in the Commonwealth, States and Territories Agreement on Terrorism and Multijurisdictional Crime back in April 2002. From that point on, the coalition government took a number of proactive and effective steps to ensure that the problem of identity crime was properly recognised and began the process of empowering Australia’s law enforcement agencies to deal with this insidious trend. In 2006 the coalition government introduced vital new measures to ensure that the identities of Australians were secure. The collaboration of multiple agencies forming the Identity Security Strike Teams, led by the Australian Federal Police, has proven to be an effective tool in the fight against identity crime and, as recently as 30 December 2008, the ISST were involved in the arrest of a New South Wales man believed to be involved in multimillion dollar identity fraud. If we are going to stay at least a step or two ahead of the criminals, the AFP need to continue to be adequately funded in order to be able to achieve that.

In 2007, as a result of a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, coalition senator David Johnston, senator for Western Australia, then Minister for Justice and Customs, released a discussion paper formulated by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee relating to the implementation of specific identity crime offences into criminal law. The MCLOC’s final report was issued in March 2008 and now forms the basis for the bill that is before us today. It was clear from the coalition commissioned report that there are significant gaps in the current criminal law which pose substantial challenges to the prosecution of those involved in identity crimes. The new offences to be created in this bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies can move swiftly to prosecute an individual perpetrating an identity crime before the identity information is utilised in a criminal act such as theft or fraud.

This bill will implement the recommendations of the MCLOC report that three new specific offences be introduced to rectify the current deficiency within the law. The first and main offence carries a sentence of five years imprisonment and targets those dealing in identification information. In this case dealing in identification information means making, supplying or using information ‘with the intention that a person pass themselves off as another for the purpose of committing or facilitating a Commonwealth indictable offence’. The second offence relates to the possession of identification information where there is intention to use such information to engage in conduct covered by the first offence—that is, dealing in the identification information. This is essentially a preparatory offence and is punishable by three years imprisonment. The final offence is aimed at criminalising those in possession of the equipment required to make identification documents who intend to use that equipment for the purposes of engaging in conduct under the main offence. This offence is also punishable by three years imprisonment.

The Australian Federal Police hands-on expertise in investigating identity crimes uniquely positions them to provide useful insight into the functioning of the syndicates generally responsible for this form of crime. In their 2007 response to the MCLOC’s discussion paper, the Australian Federal Police noted that identity crime was often perpetrated by sophisticated syndicates sometimes operating at the transnational level who rely on the ‘layering’ of personnel—that is, the people at the bottom do the running while not knowing the true identities of their supervisors. The supervisors are in contact with organisers who keep the identities of the manufacturers secret. The structure is complicated but, in essence, it would seem that those at the bottom or middle order within an organisation will be the target of the first or second offences contained within this bill: dealing in or possession of identification information. Meanwhile, those sitting at the very top of the structure, the manufacturers or suppliers, in many cases will be the target of the third offence: possession of equipment to create identification documents.

The Australian Federal Police describes those manufacturing identity documents as the key enablers and facilitators of identity crime and yet those found to be in possession of equipment such as that required for the skimming of credit card information may be liable for only three years imprisonment. Possession of such technology can only be bona fide in the extremely limited circle of legitimate credit card providers or producers. Such specific and advanced technology is likely to only be possessed by those at the top of the chain of criminality.

The offence for possession of equipment used to create identification information contains the requirement that a person intend that the ID information be used to engage in conduct that constitutes dealing in identification information. The inclusion of this intention element protects those who innocently possess equipment that may be wrongfully used. It would thus be appropriate in circumstances where safeguards are in place that the courts be empowered to impose significant penalties on those who are at the top of what the AFP describes as ‘serious and organised crime syndicates’.

This bill proposes that the maximum criminal sanction for someone in possession of equipment with the potential to enable widespread theft and fraud be three years imprisonment. I have to say this falls well short of the 10 years penalty envisaged by the Australian Federal Police in their submission to the MCLOC. The implementation of the MCLOC’s recommendations is, though, an important step in the battle to combat identity crime, but the government cannot assume that this will be all that is required of them if they are going to make a meaningful challenge to this ever-increasing problem.

It is essential that Australian individuals and businesses are adequately educated about how to minimise the risk of identity crime. That has been strongly supported across the benches here, which is good to see, because the public education aspect of this is enormously important. In this era of heightened awareness of the risk of identity crime, I was alarmed to learn that a 2008 Galaxy Research poll found that 70 per cent of Australians have not taken any measures to protect themselves from identity crime, and some of those measures are very simple. Such measures include shredding documents, regularly checking credit files and cutting up credit cards—simple measures, but essential if people are to do as much as they can to avoid their identities being stolen. Statistics from the National Identity Fraud Awareness Week website indicate:

• 81% of middle Australia—

disposes of—

… personal information such as utility bills and credit card statements—

putting themselves at extreme risk to this type of crime. Again, we need to make sure that the public understand when they are disposing of such documents that they should shred them or tear them up and not leave them intact. The OECD policy guidance on online identity theft, published in June 2008, stated:

Educating consumers, business, government officials, and the media, and raising awareness about online ID theft are indispensable to reducing risks of theft.

I add at this point that we have too often seen reports where the public have found boxes of documents dropped off trucks, exposing the public. So I think if government wants to reduce identity theft then government has to be absolutely certain, whether it is federal, state or local, that it is taking responsibility for properly disposing of records to make sure that we are not adding, through our administration of departments, to identity theft and fraud.

I would urge anyone concerned about identity crimes to access the identity theft information kit originally published on the web by the coalition government. The kit contains information on how to avoid becoming a victim as well as what to do in the instance that you are a victim of identity crime. I certainly urge the government to reinforce the implementation of the punitive aspects of this bill with a continued effort to educate the electorate on how to prevent this crime and to give particular attention to the way in which government agencies dispose of important documents which may reveal critical information about a person’s identity.

As I noted earlier, the Australian Federal Police are at the forefront of the fight against identity crime. The depth of knowledge gained by their hands-on experience in dealing with this issue should be considered invaluable as we seek to shape new criminal offences in this area. I have to say it is disappointing that the Australian Federal Police are now struggling due to budget cuts. We want them properly resourced to ensure that they can maintain their position several steps ahead of the criminal element which clearly has in mind to use new technology in the worst possible way—to steal people’s identity. In a statement to the Australian newspaper, the President of the Australian Federal Police Association, Jon Hunt-Sharman, said that the funding cuts to the AFP were causing operational ‘weakness’ in areas such as organised crime.

I would like to take this opportunity to join with my colleague the member for La Trobe, who has some knowledge on this matter, and support him in his call for the government to recognise the important work of the Australian Federal Police in fighting organised crime—work that is vital to maintaining Australia’s security and the security of individuals’ identities. Accordingly, I call on government to rethink its application of the two per cent efficiency dividend policy to the Australian Federal Police and immediately relieve the funding pressure that they are currently experiencing. It is completely incongruous to strengthen a law enforcement agency’s capability to fight identity crime through legislation while weakening its practical ability through budget cuts.

The second aspect of this bill that deals with identity crime is the introduction of the victims certificate for those directly affected by identity crime. This is a vital step in ensuring that victims of identity crime are supported in a practical way to assist in re-establishing their financial ratings. The certificate, issued by a magistrate, will state how the identification information was used, and it is intended that this certificate will assist an individual to negotiate with their financial institution for the restoration of their credit rating—and we all know how important that is in this particular day and age. The issuing of such a certificate is not contingent on the prosecution of the perpetrator or even on the perpetrator being named. Rather, the magistrate needs to find that the facts required to establish the offence of dealing in identification information exist.

Identity crime will certainly be hindered to an extent by the measures contained in this bill, but it is unlikely that it will be eliminated altogether, as those perpetrating these offences will undoubtedly continue to adapt and continue to deceive. If we are to effectively tackle the problem, it will be essential to pursue a program of continuing education and community awareness of the method and effect of identity fraud, and this will require the government’s continued work supporting such programs as National Identity Fraud Awareness Week and the identity theft information kit.

We will also need to ensure that the law enforcement agencies that we are relying on to protect the identity security of Australians are properly funded, resourced and respected. This will require the government to drastically reconsider their policies regarding the Australian Federal Police to assure the Australian people that they are serious about their security; they must match the rhetoric with the appropriate action.

Finally, we need to be able to adapt our anti-identity-crime policies to fight the ever-changing modes of deception used by these criminals. If overseas experience can teach us anything, it is that our efforts must be sustained even in the face of an expanding problem. In the future we may need to look at initiatives introduced elsewhere, such as the United States’s centralised victim assistance service, and introduce guidelines for financial institutions to prevent identity crime.

Identity crime is a contemporary, global problem that we must uncover and deal with. While legislating to make specific offences is certainly a step in the right direction, we must work together with business, financial institutions, consumers and government departments across the spectrum of government to ensure that its insidious spread is halted and that criminal elements relying on the proceeds from their crime are brought to justice and stopped in their tracks.

See this speech in context