Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River-ALP) (9 February 2010, 7.40 pm): I rise to support the bill before the House. I join with other members in congratulating the Attorney-General on bringing forward this very important and significant amendment to the Queensland Criminal Code. I also echo the comments made by many other members in recognising and acknowledging the important work that various organisations in our community do to support survivors of domestic violence. Many of them have contributed to the development of these important and significant amendments. I want to mention a couple, in particular the North Queensland Women's Legal Service and the Women's Legal Service in Queensland.

I want to also recognise the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Service and all of the other agencies in the tropical North Queensland region from which I come that play such a crucial role in supporting people against whom domestic violence has been perpetrated. These range from the people in
the front-line agencies to whom people turn for support in times of crisis right through to the people who work in the police and the police themselves, those officers in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a number of other state and community based agencies. All of them would know only too
well the tragic set of circumstances that, unfortunately, afflict so many in our community-far too many in our community-that give rise to the sorts of circumstances to which this amendment is directed, as we have heard during what I think has been a very good debate during the course of this evening from members of both sides of the House.

The types of circumstances that bring people to take a life are really, for most of us, quite unimaginable. They do arise in the context of continuing and serious abusive relationships. It is to that set of circumstances that these amendments are directed. Some would say they are overdue, but they are
very timely. They have come about as a result of a very thorough and well-considered consultation led by the Attorney-General. Many agencies that have had long experience in these types of situations have contributed to the development of these amendments.

The types of situations that bring about the ultimate decision to take another person's life are unlimited really. Certainly they are often characterised by extreme fear, feelings of entrapment and feelings of being unable to escape from prolonged periods of serious domestic violence. The point has been
made-and it is correct-by others during the course of the day that the overwhelmingly majority of people who find themselves in those circumstances are women. Very often, tragically, they are children, but that is
not always so. Of course these amendments do not discriminate in that way at all and will be available to all persons who find themselves in that situation.

I think the amendments strike a very cautious and sensible balance by being able to afford a partial defence to the crime of murder which, upon conviction, results in the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment. The key aspect about this partial defence to an offence of murder is that, upon conviction,the court will have a discretion to impose a sentence that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case in all of the circumstances. That is the type of discretion in these terrible circumstances that we ought to give the court because, at the end of the day, it brings about a just result.

There have been many cases in which I have been involved in my practice as a lawyer in the criminal jurisdiction which have been touched by domestic violence. It is probably fair to say that in some cases-not only those with which I have had direct experience-in Queensland there may have been cases involving domestic violence where evidence came before the court to the attention of a jury which might have persuaded it, notwithstanding the fact that technically a person may have been guilty of the crime of murder, to acquit that person because of the terrible circumstances that preceded that crime even though, as I say, technically it may have been the case that a conviction for murder could have been warranted.

Equally and most definitely, it has been the case in cases with which I have been involved and many others that I have referred to-workers in the domestic violence services, workers in the court system, workers in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid lawyers-that the facts point
unarguably and unambiguously to a relationship of extreme violence over a very long period of time which without doubt has led to a frame of mind and a set of circumstances where in the person's own mind the only option was to take the life of the perpetrator of that prolonged and serious domestic violence. Yet jurors have had to convict that person of murder, unable to take into account those circumstances and judges have had to sentence those persons to life imprisonment without any discretion whatsoever to do
anything else. Everyone who has been involved in those cases would have walked away thinking that that was not a just result.

Fundamentally, these amendments to our Criminal Code allow courts and jurors to reach decisions and to impose sentences that fit the circumstances of the case. That is why this is an excellent amendment.

Many victims of domestic violence are trapped in these relationships from which it is very difficult to escape because of the fear, intimidation, harassment and lack of options available to them and because of their psychological state for a variety of other reasons.

There is another reason that I wish to refer to. Although there may be many subjective factors which do not enable a person to escape from a violent
relationship, there are also a couple of objective ones. One very important one is applicable to those who live in isolated communities. The member for Algester remarked in her contribution to the debate that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 35 times more likely to be the victim of domestic violence.

Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women live in isolated communities. Not only are they subject to all of the emotions that make it very difficult for them to escape violent relationships-fear, intimidation and a lack of options-but also there is simply nowhere for them to go. Their communities are isolated and there is nowhere for them to go where they have family and support. For the people living in those communities, the benefit of this amendment will be very significant and important.

I will briefly mention the aspect of the bill that relates to the possession of equipment for the purposes of obtaining or dealing with identification information. The bill creates a new offence of possessing equipment that can be used to make identification information with intent. The maximum
penalty will be three years imprisonment. The offence will fill a gap in the legislation that prevents the Queensland Police Service from prosecuting a person if they possess but have not yet used equipment that can be used to make identification information.

For example, the offence could be used to prosecute a person who had possession of a miniature camera, a magnetic strip reader and a quantity of cards with blank magnetic strips and who intended to skim credit card details from an ATM. Currently, the police are constrained to wait until the person has actually skimmed those details. The inclusion of the intent element will ensure that the possession of otherwise commonplace items does not become unlawful. Such items include photocopiers, mobile phones with cameras and bluetooth technology and laptop computers.

To commit that offence a person need not use the equipment. Possession with intent to use the equipment or obtain or deal with another's identification information for purposes of committing an indictable offence is sufficient. The identification evidence need not be information relating to the entire identity of the individual. It is enough for it to be just the name, address or details of family members-anything that might lead to the identification of a person.

Identity crime is an issue of international concern and a significant problem in Australia. Identity crime covers a wide range of criminal conduct, including the unlawful use of stolen credit card details to make purchases over the phone or internet, or the assumption of another person's name to conduct financial transactions or business. While there are economic costs resulting from identity fraud that can be roughly calculated, its impact on its victims, both financially and emotionally, is unquantifiable. Some people who have had their identities stolen are arrested for crimes they did not commit and may spend a
lot of time and anxious effort clearing their name.

In Australia there is a lack of statistics on the extent and cost of identity fraud. However, according to the Australian Federal Police identity fraud costs the nation up to $4 billion a year. A 2007 Newspoll survey found that 62 per cent of Australians are very or extremely concerned about the risks of identity theft or fraud. In June 2008 the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its personal fraud survey, which was the result of research undertaken from July to December 2007. Over 800,000 people reported having been the victim of at least one instance of personal fraud in the 12 months preceding the survey. Nearly 500,000 reported being victims of identity fraud and 77 per cent of those were victims of bank or credit card fraud.

The definition used in the bill is technology neutral, so the legislation can stay up to date with advances in technology without needing to be amended every time a new method is developed to skim information from cards.

This amendment complements the existing provision contained in section 408D of the code so that possession of equipment, which is only preparatory to the other offence provision, is also captured. Victims will appreciate that there is no need for the police to wait until an actual dealing with the information has taken place before they can charge an offender. It is important for governments to keep up to date with changes in technology and to ensure that the range of offences contained in the Criminal Code will cover all aspects of criminal conduct in Queensland. This is again an innovative and important amendment and I commend the bill to the House.