David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue my contribution to this debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008, a debate which was interrupted by question time. Prior to question time I was commenting on a Facebook scam that I had become aware of. One of my staff members drew to my attention the fact that someone in the gallery had contacted my office shortly after my earlier contribution just to confirm that they too had been the subject of a similar type of scam. So it is something that is reasonably widespread and something that users of Facebook should be aware of.

I simply reiterate my support for the measures in this bill, which go to addressing this growing problem of identity theft throughout the community. Continuing on with some of the local examples of identity theft I have witnessed, those examples that have been brought to me and my electorate office, I also had another instance that involved a credit card matter. In this particular case the resident who came to see me estimated that they would have had approximately $1,400 available in their bank account as their balance. The victim checked their account through the internet using their internet banking and realised that their account had exceeded its limit. However, the details of the transactions had not yet been made available. They contacted the bank directly to seek further information. It was then pointed out to them by the bank that there were two transactions, one of $700 and the other of $750. The particular resident knew nothing about these transactions. As a result of her quick action, the bank was able to act in regard to these transactions. It resulted in there not being any loss of money for her. However, if she had not contacted the bank so promptly then it would have been much harder to prove that the transactions were fraudulent. This is yet another case where electronic technology, the internet in particular, has been used and someone’s identity has been assumed by someone else taking advantage of that technology to that person’s detriment.

Before I conclude, I want to make a few observations. At the local shopping centre where I shop, recently there has been a new practice develop when you use a credit card. Previously I always had to sign for the credit card but now they seem very intent on encouraging you to use a PIN. I must say there were plenty of occasions when I used my credit card and signed and, frankly, did not think that the shop attendant looked at my card to confirm whether or not the signature resembled the one that I had just penned. That does not serve to reflect poorly on shop attendants. Having worked as a casual shop attendant for some seven years, I have got much sympathy about the demands on those in those roles. But it does in my mind reinforce the need for having stringent controls and offences available to ensure that, in regard to those individuals who do seek to assume the identity of others to engage in identity theft or identity fraud, there should be adequate remedies available. It is not just about ensuring that those who transgress are able to be brought to justice but about ensuring that the victims, who generally have not been at fault, have avenues available to them to quickly rectify the record and make sure that they are not disadvantaged any further.

My final observation is that, talking to a local retailer in my community, he was advising me that there has been a growth in demand for shredders at his particular shop. He believes, and his opinion seems to be borne out by other anecdotal evidence that I have been able to procure, that this is because of the growing prominence of identity theft and that more and more families and households are becoming aware of the need to take greater care with disposing of documents that might disclose information of a private and confidential nature, information that ultimately would allow others, if it got into their hands, to use that information to assume the identity or to steal the identity of those people. I think that is a good thing. While this bill is clearly an important part of the overall mix, we should not underestimate the significance of ensuring that there is adequate education in this regard, to make sure that people do take necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of their material and to ensure that they are not, through their own carelessness, handing over material that makes the job of those wanting to steal their identity that much easier.

I think it is a great bill, one worthy of this parliament’s support, and I am very pleased to be speaking in support of it.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill because it goes to the core of some very contemporary issues. It brings to mind the issue of identity in the Victorian bushfires and how that has affected people’s lives. For a lot of people in Victoria the fires have meant a whole range of tragedies, from loss of life to loss of property, and for some it has meant the complete loss of identity. That drives home just how important this legislation is. When somebody loses their identity or has it taken away from them, a range of barriers, complications and difficulties are created in areas of life that the rest of us take for granted. Going to the bank to access your funds, opening accounts, renewing a licence or just carrying out normal day-to-day business can be a real challenge.

The bill makes a range of changes and amendments that are supported by everyone in this House because they are exceptionally important. As we heard from the last speaker, it has come from work that has been carried on for quite a number of years. The bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Crimes Act 1914, the Privacy Act 1988, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, the Judiciary Act 1903 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The amendments in the bill range from inserting new offences in the Criminal Code, specifically directed at dealing in identification information, possessing identification information and possessing equipment to make identification documentation, to reframing the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act to bring them in line with the Criminal Code. They allow for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons and to provide legal immunity to the director or a member of staff carrying out functions and duties under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. The bill improves the operation of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and establishes a more consistent approach on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information. It goes to streamlining the processes for alcohol and other drug testing under the Australian Federal Police Act and expands the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. It also repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act and includes the Victorian Office of Police Integrity in the definition of an ‘enforcement body’ in the Privacy Act 1988. Finally, it includes a minor amendment that corrects a drafting error in section 477.1(5) of the Criminal Code Act.

For a person to have a crime committed against them is bad enough, but for that crime to then involve a continuing crime whereby they can no longer establish who they are is a great travesty of justice. Everything that can be done in this place ought to be done, and that is what the bill is about.

Technology certainly has a huge hand in the way identity fraud and identity crime is carried out in today’s world. Identity crime in itself is not new; it is something that has been around since biblical times. There is many a story in a range of books that talk about identity crime. Today, what is most frightening for someone who has their identity stolen is that the onus is then placed back on the victim to re-establish their identity. It is a huge, onerous and expensive task that takes an awful amount of effort and time and can be very complicated in how it is achieved. I hope and expect that the changes in the bill before us today will go a long way to ameliorating some of the difficulties and lowering the costs and time. It will specify how a person can gain assistance in re-establishing their identity in the community, particularly in relation to other people committing criminal acts, taking out loans or carrying out business activities under their name. There is a very wide-ranging scope of crimes to be dealt with by the detail in this legislation, and this legislation will go a long way towards pulling all of those things together.

The recommendations that have driven the legislation before us come from the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee, the MCLOC, which identified a range of deficiencies in the current law. The bill will include in the Criminal Code three offences recommended by the MCLOC, which will allow for victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate that may assist in re-establishing their credit histories and identity. That is a critical point in re-establishing who a person is and helping them to get on with the day-to-day circumstances of their life.

Schedule 1, in particular, inserts identity offences victims certificate provisions under the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act. This was part of the final report on identity crime. It deals with the three areas of identification information, the possession of identification information and the possession of equipment to create such information. So it specifies exactly what the crime is about, and it contains measures to assist those victims of identity crime in re-establishing who they are. Schedule 2 reframes the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act to bring them in line with the Criminal Code—another important part in the administration of justice. The administration of justice offences are directed at conduct that would otherwise undermine the integrity of the Australian courts or prisons, including such offences as the fabrication of evidence, the intimidation of witnesses and the aiding of a prisoner to escape from lawful criminal detention. The amendments in this area of justice offences correct what was a drafting oversight. Their effect is to increase the penalties for those offences, with the penalties increasing to 10 years for such things as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and a range of other related matters.

In schedule 3 the amendment is in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, and it will allow for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons. This clarifies who can and cannot be delegated functions and powers, and then moves to examine the way joint trials arrangements are taken with state and territory counterparts. It also provides immunity from civil proceedings for persons who carry out those functions. So it draws in together a range of clarifying amendments to put beyond doubt what has been the cause of some uncertainty—that the director can actually delegate both functions and powers under the DPP Act. It also allows the director to authorise a particular person to sign indictments on his or her behalf and to delegate those powers and functions as is needed, and to further ascertain and make certain that immunity will only apply if the acts or omissions were done in good faith and in the performance of the exercise of a person’s functions as they were delegated under those powers or duties.

Schedule 4 is an improvement on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and is a very important part of making certain that sensitive AUSTRAC information is dealt with in the proper manner. This provides for a robust regime for detecting and deterring money laundering and terrorism financing—two very important parts of any government’s role in making certain the security of its citizens and in acting in a global fashion. But the key obligations that will be imposed under the legislative amendment are the identification and verification of customers. There will be an obligation on business, when dealing with suspects in this area or suspected activity in this area, to identify and verify who their customers are. They must report suspicious matters and certain transactions, and they must maintain and create the proper records for a period of seven years. They must also establish and maintain an anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing program to ensure that these matters are dealt with. So this bill contains several amendments to bring into line a more consistent approach and to meet the needs of AUSTRAC by strengthening the safeguards to protect against the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information.

The bill also streamlines the processes for alcohol and other drug testing in the Australian Federal Police Act, and there are a range of amendments in terms of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards in this area—alcohol screening tests, in addition to alcohol breath tests—and having a single direction requiring an AFP employee or special member to undergo one or more of the alcohol and drug tests as set out according to the act. Further, the bill repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act 1903 concerning the criteria for eligibility to practise law in the territories. This section will actually enable a person who has been admitted to the roll of the High Court, kept under the rules of the court, state or territory, to practise in a territory—a worthwhile and necessary amendment.

Finally, proposed section 7 amends the definition of an enforcement body in the Privacy Act 1998. That is included in order to bring into line the jurisdiction of the Office of Police Integrity in Victoria. The bill contains several minor consequential amendments, including to the acts of the Federal Court of Australia—the International Criminal Court Act, the International Transfer of Prisoners Act, the International War Crimes Tribunals Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act as well as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983.

This is not a controversial bill. This is a bill that is supported by all members of parliament and which will go some way to continuing to improve the regulatory and enforcement regimes that we have in this country to ensure that crimes are properly dealt with and that we have the right mechanisms in place to ensure that we can deal with people in those areas in an appropriate manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 is one of the more important pieces of legislation that we have had to deal with, in that it will protect many Australians, whether they are living here in Australia or whether they are overseas. It is a fact that there is an enormous amount of identity fraud occurring. This occurs when a person’s personal information is used by somebody else, without the person’s knowledge, to obtain credit, goods or other services fraudulently. It can even extend to securing a passport in a person’s name. Recent research commissioned by Fellowes, a company dedicated to antifraud, showed that, whilst the majority of Australians are worried about the risk of identity fraud, an alarming 75 per cent of us are throwing out enough personal information—such as credit card statements—in our rubbish and recycling to put us at risk of identity fraud.

Criminals use a mixture of tactics to acquire information that is needed to steal your identity and some of these tactics are very crude, such as taking personal information from a stolen purse or wallet, going through rubbish and phishing or stealing somebody’s identity online. I will address my grave concerns about that later on. Worryingly, victims often do not realise that their identity has been stolen until it is too late, and it can take a considerable amount of time, effort and energy to right the damage that has been caused by somebody taking your identity. Sometimes it takes years to resolve. Around 87 per cent of Australians are aware of identity theft. They are concerned about it but they are not doing a lot to protect themselves, or they are putting themselves at risk in numerous ways that they have not recognised can contribute to having their identity stolen.

Identity fraud costs the nation over $1 billion per year. When it comes to concerns about identity fraud, women fear financial loss and a poor credit rating, they feel personally violated and embarrassed, they feel this problem far more than men and they can certainly be attacked in a greater proportion. It is the 81 per cent of Australians with a household income between $40,000 and $69,000 who are most likely to put themselves at risk of identity theft by throwing out personal information such as utility bills—electricity and telephone bills—and, worse still, other things like credit card statements. When people are finished with such bills and statements, they very often just throw them into the waste paper basket, providing a huge source of information. Personal information, such as date of birth, address, mother’s maiden name and passwords are now equally as valuable as money. They can now be traded like currency. This is enough information for a fraudster to open bank accounts and apply for credit cards, loans and much more.

How can your identity really be stolen? As I said previously, it is a fact that, whilst Australians are terribly concerned about this, they are not so aware of how they are contributing to identity fraud or what they can do to prevent it. Internet sites are a classic case. Anybody who uses the internet will regularly be asked to share personal information to gain access to websites and to buy goods. Fraudsters can easily combine the personal information you provide to unsecured internet sites—they might get your mother’s maiden name—with other bits of valuable information that they glean about you to obtain credit using your name. All of a sudden you will start getting the bills in the post.

Fraudsters can use simple things such as mail forwarding—completing a change-of-address form to redirect your mail—to receive a wealth of information about you delivered directly to their doorstep. There is a term called ‘phishing’, describing identity theft via email, where fraudsters will send an email claiming to be from a bank, a credit card company or some such organisation that you may have a relationship with. They only have to send it out—we all get them on our screens every single day—to determine whether you are a NAB or Commonwealth Bank customer. They only have to send out mass emails to pick up quite a few people who are most surely going to be a Commonwealth Bank, NAB or Westpac customer or something like that. And they look enormously authentic. I have had an apparent ATO site look so authentic, seeking information while telling me that I had a certain amount that I had not received as a refund and they wanted my bank account details in order to deposit it. It was quite extraordinary how legitimate it looked. It is only a small amount of money; they are not talking about hundreds of millions. They say, for example, that there is $36.72 that is required to be put in your bank account. People see that as legitimate and as something that is realistic. It is not hundreds and thousands, so they log in and these websites are extraordinarily authentic looking. The next minute, they have inadvertently put in their details and created a way by which somebody can illegally use their tax file number or, worse, access their bank accounts. This is like a phishing expedition and a source of an enormous number of problems. Typically, if you click on a link in the email you generally can risk even your details being downloaded by some exceptionally clever people. Even if you open your link you can be subject to hacking.

As I said, there are simple actions like the theft of wallets or purses, but even unsolicited contacts like phone calls from people claiming to be from a bank to update your personal information are significant issues. It can include very raw stuff like bin raiding, going through rubbish and, basically, looking through one’s personal things that have been sent out. It is surprising in this day and age of recycling just how much information now goes out to people who have not been security checked but are working in recycling areas. They can glean an enormous amount of information just from the paperwork that you put into your recycling without shredding it. You have no idea who has access in those areas, which are not subject to security checks. They can most definitely access an enormous amount of information. Card skimming takes place when you make a transaction. Somebody will skim your card and it can be used to create enormous debt. It is not just the individual who is at risk. Companies are also at risk—there is corporate identity theft. By accessing publicly available company records, fraudsters can change the names of company principals and registered addresses. They can then trade off the back of the real company’s good name and obtain goods and services on credit from suppliers.

That is not the only area of risk. A company’s bank details may be in the public arena in order to encourage customers to pay for goods directly into the company’s bank account. How often does something come to your house giving you the BSB and all the other details of a person’s bank account for you to directly deposit money into? If you have evil on your mind, there is a lot you can do to access people’s bank accounts. Just by collecting information—looking, phishing and finding out about people generally—a lot of information can be gleaned that can leave them open. Businesses, in particular small businesses, are particularly at risk and need to be aware because they tend to have websites explaining their services, highlighting their own identity and promoting themselves. Businesses give out an enormous amount of information about themselves, and on their invoices they have their BSB number and their bank details. When it is all coupled together, it would not be hard to put together a process that could see a bank account entirely wiped out or identity fraud take place. We have even seen ruthless criminals go through the death notices in the papers to identify deceased people and note their date of birth and address. That then becomes valuable information for them to construct a new entity that can actually be out there as a live dead person, so to speak. That is pretty scary.

On 5 February Facebook had its fifth birthday. Facebook is the bane of my life, thanks to my children and grandchildren. The information going on to Facebook is just absolutely extraordinary. There are over 150 million people around the world using Facebook. The popularity of social networking is exploding, and it is just amazing how it is being used. Hackers can use compromised profiles in Facebook to host trojans, such as key loggers, that steal banking passwords and credit card numbers, because people give out so much information on these sites. The fact is many people use the same login and password—it becomes something that they use for everything. So if someone can find your login details, it is likely that it could also be your credit card or bank account password. In this world of passwords, we really need to be very cautious and make sure we change them regularly.

Many organisations now search the internet and Facebook as an unofficial step in their recruitment process. As I said, the extent of the information available on a person’s Facebook page differs from person to person and depends on the security and privacy measures an individual chooses. When you look at the general profile of a Facebook user, the worrying thing is that, while you can choose just your delegated friends to be able to see your information—so you can control that if you like—you cannot control your delegated friends. They might give your information out to somebody else. You think that it is just a small group of people, but you cannot control how many people they pass your information on to. It could be that they are quite innocently giving out your details. When I looked through the profiles on Facebook, I saw that some members put everything, from their mobile telephone number to their CV, on line. Some list only their name and age.

We have seen plenty of scams. For example, there was a guy with a Facebook page who started getting calls because he was supposed to have been kidnapped somewhere in the United Kingdom. The hackers then used Facebook to try to get money from all of his friends on Facebook. One friend supposedly even sent money across to a Western Union branch in London to secure his release. That is an amazing problem, and he took quite a long time to try to resolve it. That was one case of other people using private information to get money.

While looking into this issue we clicked on to the page of my office staffer, Lucy. She clicked on to a stranger’s Facebook page and she now knows who that person is married to, she knows she has two children, she knows that they have just started school, she knows the names of six of her relatives, she knows exactly where she lives—which is quite isolated—she knows the high school this woman attended and she knows her date of birth. This is significant information that we are providing, free of charge and with no understanding, to so many people. This morning I was looking at some internet stuff down at the AFP and it was staggering to see how people can use and abuse internet sites. The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill is great, but what we have to do is get out and educate the public. We need to tell them that what they are doing is of enormous concern. I support this bill and I urge a publicity and promotion campaign to ensure that people do not place themselves at such grave risk.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Riverina on her contribution to the debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I agree with practically everything she said, if not everything. I will discuss some of those issues a little later in my contribution to this debate. There has never been a time in history when it has been easier for a person’s identity to be stolen, misused or abused. With the expansion of cyberspace technology—the internet—this will become more and more the case. I believe that this particular bill before us today is of vital importance. It makes some amendments that will go a long way towards protecting the public here in Australia.

It inserts new offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995, directed at dealing in identification information, possessing identification information and possessing equipment to make identification documents in certain circumstances. Given the availability of that information, that definitely needs to be made an offence. It also allows for the reframing of the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act 1914, to bring them in line with the Criminal Code. It allows for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons and provides legal immunity to the director or a member of staff carrying out functions and duties under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. It improves the operation of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and establishes a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information. It streamlines the processes for alcohol and other drugs testing under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The amendments also expand the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. It repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act 1903. It includes the Victorian Office of Police Integrity in the definition of ‘enforcement body’ in the Privacy Act 1988 and corrects a drafting error in section 477.1(5) of the Criminal Code Act.

I think it is important to get to the substance of this legislation and to talk about some of the issues that the member for Riverina raised. I think every member of this parliament would have been approached by a constituent who has had their information misused on the internet in some way. As I was listening to the member for Riverina’s contribution to this debate, I remembered that a constituent came to see me in my office two weeks ago. She was sending a birthday card via the internet and, at the side of the screen, there was a pop-up. It was an IQ test, and she liked the idea of doing an IQ test. She completed it and then, a month later, she received an enormous telephone account. She had been getting some SMS messages, which she did not even read. She thought, ‘Why am I receiving these messages?’ When she had completed that IQ test she had, in fact, signed up for a particular telephone program. She was totally unaware of it; she had no intention of doing it. It just shows how easy it is for your information to be misused.

As has been said previously, scam emails can obtain very personal details of an individual—their bank account, their email address, their telephone number. These are all things that can be very much misused if this legislation does not pass through the House. One issue that was raised, which I think is very worthy of consideration, is that of Facebook. I know many members in this House have an entry on Facebook, but we are quite careful about what information is placed there. I know other people are less careful. By obtaining the information that many people place on Facebook, it is very easy to create an identity that is very similar to theirs. Maybe there need to be a few more stringent measures put in place in relation to some of the websites that are currently available. The Rudd government has acted very decisively with this strong legislation that we have before us today that will move towards improving the situation.

This legislation contains important measures to bridge gaps in the current legislation on identity crime. It also has measures designed to improve the administration of justice and the effective operation of the AFP and the CDPP. It will implement identity crime offences and victims certificate provisions recommended in the final report of the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee on identity crime. I would recommend that report to members of the House. It highlights just how important this legislation is and also the types of issues that need to be addressed.

The offences criminalise a range of conduct associated with identity crime. The legislation will make it an offence to make, supply or use identification information to pretend to be another person for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence. As I have already highlighted, it is very easy to get that information about people these days. This legislation will make that a crime and will act as a very strong deterrent to people wishing to adopt the identity of another person. It also deals with possessing identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, or possessing equipment to make identification information with the intention of dealing in that information. With the technology and equipment that is available it is very easy to duplicate identification and to, in effect, steal a person’s identity. By adopting this strong legislation that we have before us today, we in Australia are moving in the right direction.

The bill also provides a mechanism for the victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate from a magistrate that states the manner in which his or her identification information was used. The certificate may assist victims of identity crime in negotiating with financial institutions to re-establish their credit ratings. If a person loses all the money from their accounts—like one of my constituents, who lost the money from a very large account—and this has an impact on their credit rating, then this form of certification will assist in remedying the situation.

Amendments to the administration of justice offences correct a drafting oversight by applying absolute liability to the jurisdictional elements of the offence, which will overcome uncertainty—and uncertainty is, I think, something that we cannot allow to exist in this particular area. It is important that we increase the penalty for the perverting the course of justice offence to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, as this better reflects the seriousness of the offence. So the legislation overcomes uncertainty whilst, at the same time, imposing penalties that really reflect the seriousness of the crime.

I wholeheartedly support this legislation. It is long overdue. It really goes some way towards affording some protection to Australians, be they victims of identity fraud or people who could possibly be victims. This is a deterrent that will hopefully work to put a brake on identity crimes but, at the same time, ensure that, in the cases where there is a crime relating to the stealing of a person’s identity, there are ramifications.

I would like to join with the member for Riverina in what she had to say about the need for education. I feel it is vitally important that people are aware of the fact that when they are using the internet the information that they put into their computer is not always protected. I would encourage people throughout Australia to be very cautious about the information they place on the internet, be it on a personal webpage or on Facebook. I would encourage them to be very careful about the information they provide about themselves. Similarly, I would encourage small businesses to be careful, because once someone has access to all your personal information then it is very difficult to provide protection. So this is very good legislation. It is legislation that is long overdue, and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 for three reasons: firstly, as for most other speakers here this evening, the issue of starting to address the most insidious of crimes, identity crime; secondly, the recognition in this bill of the work of AUSTRAC and the increasing importance of the role that they play in law enforcement at both a national and an international level; and, thirdly, the issue of victims certificates and the exploration of this new area of law at the most local of levels and at the front line of victim support.

As most other speakers here tonight have mentioned, some of the most distressed constituents we all deal with are those who have been victims of identity crime. There is a silent element to the crime and it leaves people in complete shock at the situation they find themselves in. Through my electorate office I recently dealt with some examples of identity fraud. The member for Riverina previously mentioned a Facebook scam. We have also had an example, through my office, of the crime where very clever password software is used to crack into and take control of various social networking sites. In our instance it was a Facebook site. That then leads to all sorts of follow-on problems in getting control of your identity back.

We also had the example of someone who had not left one of our local towns for over two years yet racked up all sorts of driving offences in Sydney and could not understand why. They had all sorts of difficulties with the various agencies in trying to get the message across that they had not even been to Sydney let alone driven against the law.

The third example I would give to highlight the point of how quickly scams can come along is a report from this week from my electorate office that there is now a fiscal stimulus scam floating around where people are being rung up at home and bank details are sought on the promise that ‘it is the government here to help’ and ‘we’ll provide you with a cheque if you give us your bank details’.

The reason for giving those three examples is to make the point of just how quickly scams can evolve and therefore how quick the response of law enforcement needs to be. But hopefully those examples also make the point that, in the battle in information, communications and technology, the good guys have as much access to information technology as the bad guys. Password software, the scrambling software that is now increasingly becoming available, is keeping pace with law enforcement, and it is a huge challenge as more and more scams come online more quickly.

The point of those examples is also that this is an international issue. Information technology by its inherent nature has an international aspect to it yet identity crime is also a most local crime. The work that AUSTRAC does in following the movement of money shows that, even though it is a significant international issue, it is also the most local of issues. It comes down to the poker machine in the pub, the local racetrack and legitimate businesses in towns such as the ones I represent. Casinos are obviously highly identified with the work of AUSTRAC. Basically, it is ‘game on’ in all its forms, local and international, and thankfully we are starting to see some action and direction from government in response to it.

I do pick up on the point that was made by the previous speaker with regard to dividend savings and efficiency savings. If the government is serious about increasing the width and breadth of the powers of the various law enforcement agencies in dealing with identity crime, theft and fraud, increasing the width and breadth of the powers of AUSTRAC and starting to empower victims in response to identity crimes, then it is surely illogical to at the same time have efficiency dividends and efficiency savings which limit the work done by the law enforcement agencies for economic reasons.

I think the victims certificates are a fascinating area of the law. I reserve judgment, but I am sceptical about how successful they will be and certainly hope to be proved wrong. Victim support in identity crime is certainly needed and I am pleased to see that action is being taken in that area. Various policing strategies on identity crime have identified more need for support for victims of identity theft as well as the need for a consistent response to the needs of victims of identity theft. But it is a vexed question; it is a difficult one. If financial savings have been lost and if it is outside of a jurisdiction, how do you provide that support to victims? So I am pleased that there is an attempt at this in the legislation with victims certificates. However, it does raise some challenging questions for the law. I would really be interested in a response from the Attorney-General or the Minister for Home Affairs, who is at the table, with regard to whether the various law societies and peak law bodies have the view that magistrates will be using these certificates and will be comfortable in the legal issues with regard to their use.

As well, I will be interested to see whether the financial institutions will pay attention to these victims certificates. The wording is nice in that they may assist in the process of trying to regain certain elements of the identity crime. However, from the point of view of an individual who, in a practical sense, has been through the horrific experience of identity crime, the cost-benefit of going through a court process for a ‘may assist’ option from a financial institution—without a guarantee that a magistrate will tick it off and accept the argument—I think has several caveats which may prove the victims certificates worthless. As I said, I am sceptical, but I certainly hope I am wrong. If, through the minister or through staff, there can be a response as to what those various bodies, such as the financial institutions, are saying with regard to these victims certificates, I would be very interested. Also, over time, as they start to get used more and more, I think not only I but many other members in this place will be interested in the role that these victims certificates will play at a community level with regard to what is an increasing type of crime—that is, identity crime—and therefore does need increasing work from members of parliament with regard to help and advocacy for the victims of those crimes. If there could be feedback once these certificates are starting to be defined within the court process and with regard to what worth the financial institutions place on them, I think it would be appreciated by most people in this House.

Finally, I also pick up on comments from others, and send a message to the constituent body that I represent on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. It is startling how many people do not place a value on their own identity. Quite often, the issues that are being dealt with through this legislation can be avoided by some simple protections. The stand-out message that I hope we can all take back to our constituencies is a strong message about protecting yourself as an individual. The Galaxy survey that was mentioned earlier, which showed that over 70 per cent of people do not do anything to protect their identity—whether by shredding documents or by being aware of passwords and various internet issues—is an issue of concern and therefore an issue for an education and prevention message from all of us to our constituencies. There are the simple tick-offs: there is the obvious one of shredding documents, particularly bank statements and the like, as well as regularly checking funds, cutting up cards when they expire, and using different passwords—and, representing an elderly community, I know that can be difficult. However, the use of different passwords will assist. The other obvious one, and probably a good message for all of us as well, is to not put too much information in the public domain. It is extraordinary what you can find in the public domain about pretty well anyone these days, and my strong message is that it is not only friends who are looking on various internet sites; it is enemies as well.

This is valuable legislation. I do hope it works. I do want to mention AUSTRAC. I think they have an increasingly important role to play within law enforcement in Australia. The figures that they talk about as far as the movement of money into and out of Australia are extraordinary and, in a lot of ways, reflect badly on this chamber and the other place in that, as the law makers, this is happening under our noses. It should be an embarrassment that not millions but billions of dollars are moving illegally in and out of this country. And there are all the implications that go with that. It may be drug trafficking, terrorism or paedophilia—there can be all sorts of illegal elements attached to that movement of money. So the role that AUSTRAC play is incredibly important as a central point for detecting illegal activity, and I certainly hope that the government also recognises that, places great value and weight on its work and gives it full lead to do the good work that it should be allowed to do. With those words, I certainly support this bill.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.