IDENTITY THEFT is squarely in the sights of the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, who wants to introduce criminal penalties and a new certification system to help victims of the crime.

“Identity crime is an international problem, and while the true extent of it is unknown, a few years ago it was estimated to cost Australian business more than a billion dollars a year, a figure which has no doubt grown,”he said.

As well as pushing the states and territories to introduce new offences, he would like to see measures to assist victims to re-establish their credit histories.

False identity documents can be used for citizenship, Centrelink payments and medical services, or to gain professional qualifications.

Identity theft victims can face two-year waiting periods to re-establish their credit histories.

“I’ll be recommending that all jurisdictions be empowered to issue certificates to victims of identity crime to help them re-establish their credit histories,” Debus said.

“It will allow victims to get an order from a local or magistrates court to reclaim their identity, after a prosecution has occurred, or if they become aware their identity’s been stolen.”

Nick Abrahams, chairman of Deacons’ Sydney office and the national leader of the technology, media and telecommunications group, welcomed the introduction of specific criminal offences as “a step in the right direction”.

He also applauded the introduction of the certification system. “That’s actually a very positive step, it might sound like a simple thing but for people who’ve gone through identity theft it’s a massive problem to try and convince, particularly financial institutions, that you have been the victim of an identity crime.”

The minister’s recommendations arise from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General model criminal law officers’ committee final report on identity crime, made public at its meeting on 27–28 March.

The report recommended that legislation be passed to fill loopholes in the law, relying on general offences “wherever possible”.

“Any proposal for specific or narrowly applied offences should be based on a clear need. The committee considers that, in the case of identity crime, there is such a need,” the committee report stated.

Three new identity crime offences would be created if the report recommendations are implemented.

The first, with the heaviest penalty, would apply to making, supplying or using identification information with the intention of committing an indictable offence, with a penalty of up to five years’imprisonment.

Other offences would include possessing identification information with the intention of committing an offence, and possessing equipment capable of producing false identification documentation. A three-year imprisonment would apply for each offence.

However, Abrahams said the new regime should go further.

While the model criminal law officer’s report identifies the issue of victims who are unaware that their identity has been stolen, he suggested it should consider a requirement for banks or other financial institutions to tell customers when their details have been compromised, Abrahams said.

“[The question] is when Australia will follow the United States and put obligations on organisations to notify people when their information has been compromised,” he said.

“If [victims] are on notice that [their] information has been compromised therefore you can be more vigilant about what’s happening on your credit card or you bank and so you might actually pick up an identity theft earlier.”

This article first appeared in Risk Management’s sister publication, Lawyers Weekly