Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank members for their contributions to this debate and, I believe, all members for their support for the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Before I forget I should indicate to the member for Lyne that I too have great admiration for AUSTRAC and continue to do all that I can to support it. Its activities these days are very significant indeed in the prevention and detection of all sorts of crime. I expect that its role will only become more significant as time goes by. Each member speaking on this bill reflected, properly, on the serious impact that identity crime can have on the lives of victims. That is why the government is committed to addressing what is a significant and increasing area of criminal activity and also to helping victims. The new identity crime offences in the bill and the provisions for victims of identity crime to obtain certificates obviously will be of great assistance in the fight against this particularly insidious sort of crime.

I agree with the comment by the member for Farrer that we need to be extremely vigilant and to keep up-to-date with newly-evolving methods that criminal organisations are using. Indeed that is why the government is progressing the national identity security strategy. We expect to fully implement the national document verification service by 2010 and to commence a fraud awareness campaign focusing on internet scams next month. I note that the members for Blair, Werriwa and Moreton all highlighted the important initiative of enabling victims of identity crime to obtain certificates from magistrates—indeed, as did the member for Lyne. These are certificates to assist victims to negotiate with financial institutions and other businesses to rectify fraudulent transactions.

It may be worth while for me just to say a little more about this area because it is new and it has obviously been of interest to members in the debate. A person will be able to apply for one of these victims certificates by approaching a magistrate. They will have to be able to provide sufficient information to convince a magistrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the facts required to establish the dealing in identification information offence exists. They do not need to prove that the dealing in identification information offence was actually committed. This is a key element in the scheme. The person will not need to demonstrate that the identity crime perpetrator was convicted or even who it was who committed an identity crime offence. It is not appropriate for the magistrate in that circumstance to determine whether a crime has been committed, especially in the absence of a full prosecution and a defendant having an opportunity to put contrary evidence.

Identity crime is very difficult to prosecute. Without the kinds of laws that we are introducing in this bill it is often impossible to prosecute. With the heads of crime and with the kinds of broad offences that we have introduced with this bill it will be much easier to prosecute a specific offender. But it can still take several years to obtain a conviction and the victim of identity crime requires some kind of mechanism to assist them with what are the immediate effects of having their identity stolen. At present it will take somebody around two years to restore their credit rating.

The procedure that we are establishing with these victims certificates is to deal with the circumstance where a person needs to be able to get their life together again either in the absence of a conviction of the person who has committed an offence against them or, in any event, before such a person can be realistically assumed to be convicted in a court. This is why, as I say, the certificates do not and will not depend upon the actual prosecution or conviction of an offender. What these certificates will do is assist both victims and organisations affected by identity crime. The certificate will be a piece of information that victims can present to financial institutions, for instance, to support a claim that they have been the victim of identity crime. They will assist third parties to assess the veracity of a person’s claim that they are such a victim because those third parties will know that a magistrate has already determined that it is more likely than not that the facts that will be described in the certificate exist.

I can tell the House that the Australian Bankers Association has already written to me to say that they are broadly supportive of these identity crime provisions. They raised some questions about how they will operate in practice, which is a reasonable thing, and the Attorney-General’s Department is continuing to consult and work with the ABA to ensure as far as is possible that victims certificates will be able to be applied and used in an efficient way.

I should also say that I have written to the attorneys-general in all other jurisdictions asking that they do all that they can to help and to encourage the appropriate attitude and response to this particular legislation amongst magistrates in courts around the nation. This is a new idea and we do not expect that it can solve every problem that victims of identity crime may suffer, but we feel a growing confidence that these certificates will in fact provide significant benefits to many people as they negotiate with financial institutions.

I should probably mention a couple of observations made by the member for La Trobe, who had something to say about the budget of the Australia Crime Commission—even though that was not strictly relevant to the bill. I respond by pointing out that this year the government is providing nearly $97 million for the Crime Commission to continue with its work. The ACC is subject to an efficiency dividend of 2.3 per cent, in the same way as all other government agencies are. Indeed, it should be acknowledged that its funding varies from time to time because it is the kind of organisation that gets a significant number of specifically funded projects that do come to an end. The commission is taking reasonable steps to adjust staffing and to meeting this budget, which is, as I say, subject to an efficiency dividend but not to any other measure that reduces its core financial arrangements. The AFP has a budget of about $200 million over five years specifically for the recruitment of 500 police officers. I should say again in response to observations made by the member for La Trobe that the government remains committed to recruiting those officers over that period. The member for La Trobe also raised an issue concerning the entry into Australia by Somalian nationals on false passports. It is perhaps of relevance for me to tell the House that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is aware of that issue and is aware, too, that measures must be taken to address it.

The member for Pearce suggested that the penalty for the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation should be higher than that proposed in the bill. The maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for this offence which is contained in the bill is consistent with the penalty recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee after careful consideration and was indeed supported by all attorneys-general. It is the belief of the government that that penalty is appropriate for an offence that applies to what is known in the law as preparatory conduct. It is not so much the commission of an offence but the conduct of activity preparatory to that offence.

In conclusion, I remind the House that this bill contains three new identity crime offences and other amendments that would improve the operation of Commonwealth agencies, including the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and AUSTRAC. As members know and have pointed out during the debate, identity theft poses a most substantial threat to individuals and to the Australian economy. It is obviously growing rapidly, and it is absolutely necessary that government take measures to deal with it. The identity crime offences in this bill bridge gaps in existing legislation and limit the impact of crime on individuals and business. The bill makes amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill. These amendments are designed to improve and simplify the administration of the AFP, the DPP and AUSTRAC. Given all those measures, it follows that the bill will indeed advance Australia’s capacity to respond to identity crime and improve the ability of Commonwealth agencies to perform functions in that regard. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context