Private Investigator Portal

Claire Lowe - Canberra Times

Extramarital affairs could really cost you, with new laws set to allow former lovers to get money from their ex-partners through the courts.

Changes to the Family Law Act could also threaten the bank balances of polygamous husbands or those with a string of former partners.

These changes, passed in the Senate yesterday, will grant de facto partners, who have been together for two years, the same rights as married couples when seeking spousal maintenance.

But a de facto relationship can be widely interpreted under the act, legal experts say. The act states that such a relationship can exist even if one of the partners is legally married or in another de facto relationship.

Family lawyers warn that a de facto relationship might exist even if the parties do not think it does.

A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said that a payer of spousal maintenance could return to court to show "just cause" for discharging or varying the order.

Improved benefits are available to opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples under the newly amended law.

Mr McClelland said the act introduced significant reforms to allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the federal Family Law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters relating to relationship breakdown.

"The bill is long overdue," he said. "[It] gives effect to an agreement between Commonwealth states and territories made as far back as 2002."

The changes give more protection to separating de facto couples and simplify the laws governing them.

They will also bring all family law issues faced by families on relationship breakdowns within the federal family law regime.

"The bill is consistent with the Government's policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality."

It amends the Family Law Act 1975 and related legislation to create a Commonwealth regime for handling the financial matters of de facto couples on the breakdown of their relationship.

A consistent and uniform approach would alleviate the administrative and financial burden de facto couples now face as a result of multiple regimes applying across the states and territories.

"It is a more effective use of court resources, legal aid and the like."

The bill will allow a court to declare or alter the interests of rights of a party in relation to property. It will also allow de facto couples to split their superannuation interests if their relationship breaks down, a benefit that has been available under the Family Law Act since 2002 for married couples but not de facto couples.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell welcomed the changes.

"These are a welcome improvement in terms of providing access to justice for same-sex couples who face relationship breakdown."

A senior consultant of Canberra law firm Farrar, Gesini & Dunn, Chris Crowley, said before the laws were passed de facto couples often needed two proceedings - one in the Family Court, one in the Supreme Court - which proved "expensive and cumbersome".

Copyright Canberra Times

 

Mark Russell SMH

RETAILERS expect thieves to steal $5.8 billion in cash and goods this year because of tougher times.

This would represent a jump of $2.2 billion in losses compared with $3.6 billion lost last year from theft.

The Australian Retailers Association - the peak body in an industry that employs more than 1.2 million people - said its research showed theft was on the rise this year as people struggled to cope financially.

The association estimates that more than half the $5.8 billion (which equates to 2 per cent of the retail industry's total estimated sales revenue of $290 billion for 2008), would be lost because of employee theft.

The rule of thumb for retailers is that about 55 per cent of theft is committed by staff and 45 per cent by shoplifters.

The problem for the public is that the losses are invariably passed on to the consumer through higher prices.

Association executive director Richard Evans said the predicted percentage increase in theft from 1.5 per cent of total sales revenue ($240 billion) in 2007 to 2 per cent this year was significant.

"When you're dealing with money, it's tempting to put it in your pocket in tough times," Mr Evans said.

"With staff it could go directly from the till or it could be offering discounts to friends when discounts don't apply.

"What retailers have to do is spend more time reducing the opportunity for people to steal."

Mr Evans said some staff did not think it was wrong to steal because they were working longer hours and not being paid well enough.

"They don't see it as stealing. They see it as their right to take it."

The Australian Institute of Criminology's principal criminologist, Dr Russell Smith, said employee theft was on the rise in Australia as times get tougher, with most cases involving problem gamblers.

Dr Smith said the institute recently released a report showing employers were the biggest victims of gambling-motivated fraud.

The new study, based on a review of online reports of 528 legal judgments of 12,662 criminal offences heard in Australian courts, found that in the past decade more than $250 million may have been lost to fraud-related gambling.

Of the offenders prosecuted for gambling-motivated fraud, more than 58 per cent were male, and most were between 31 and 50.

"The likely victims were employers [67 per cent] but the largest amounts were stolen from state governments [an average of $3.8 million per government] and from clients of financial advisers, accountants and solicitors [an average of $1.45 million]," the study said.

The money was used to fund poker-machine addiction in 56 per cent of the cases, with $65,000 being the average amount stolen.

Then came casinos, with 23 per cent or $71,000, horse racing, with 8 per cent or $71,500 and TAB gambling, 6 per cent or $5600.

Copyright SMH

Will the current bank and credit disasters around the world impact on earnings of private investigators in Australia?

Recession obviously impacts on just about everyone, small business, big business and individuals; investment slows, businesses go under, unemployment rises, mortgages and business loans become unmanageable and drive many into helpless situations. Insurers are hard hit just like banks. There is talk at Suncrorp to slash jobs and sell off even more assets to improve liquidity. These may be ominous signs for us because most private investigators do work put out by insurance companies. Just as banks are now tightening credit and getting out of bad ventures, insurers are going to tighten the screws in any way they can to maintain security. On that basis one would expect a downturn in business for private investigators in Australia.

Yet historically there are certain types of businesses that improve during recession. The Mars chocolate company has seen a rise in sales when an economy is in recession. The reasoning is that recession means more stress and depression for people and people have a greater urge for chocolate when down and out.

Retail and housing markets were down even before the Wall Street crash and forecasts are now more gloomy for just about everyone. We no longer talk of prosperity, but more often of survival. And it is said this is going to be the theme for a few years.

The question for private investigators is, will insurance claims rise as a consequence, driven by failing businesses and job losses? Does this have a bearing on an increase in fraudulent claims and will insurers be keen to more carefully test claims so as not to strain their cash reserves and underwriting costs? Will more companies merge and businesses be sold, consequently requiring more research and investigations in the process? Does legal liability arise more frequently and will there be more legal action?

Looking back over the last 35 years in the investigation business, I think there has been a pattern of workload increase during general economic downturn. It might be said, our increased earnings occurred at the cost of people's suffering.

Mine is a subjective view of course and expressed without pressure of having to set up a new PI business, the cost of which seems to be rising from year to year due to compliance, regulations and higher market expectations of delivery of a sophisticated service. Do you think this is a good time to start a new PI business? Or is it time to get out?

MH. ed.

 

Do you want these kinds of special services?

Have you been offered these kinds of services?

We want to hear from you!

Because we are keen to dob in the private investigators who either say they can do it, or do it.

Make no mistake about it, it's a crime.

We get regular emails here at investigateway.com.au from people who were 'clients' of sneaky thieving PIs, who were charged high fees (AKA bribes) to commit these criminal offences.

There are two kinds of PIs offering these services:

1. the crims who do it

2. the cheats that say they can do it, but can't. Yet they will take your money and come back to you with excuses or false information. Who is to know it's the truth? How do you test it? It's easy for them to say "no, no criminal record" and pocket your money.

We want to know about your experiences. We want the names and details of these crooks, fortunately a small minority, who give the honest professional investigators a bad name. Some of these crooks are quite well known, most are smart-assed small time crooks who are not capable of doing any better.

Tell us what you can and we will dob them to the authorities. If the service was offered or dealt with in emails, then we need not only the copy of the email, but also the email header data. If it's hard copy, then send it to us. Or just tell us what you can.

Don't allow yourself to be ripped off. A thief is a thief, no matter how supposedly 'helpful' he is.

MH. ed.

 

Quiz for Organisations:

This quiz will test your knowledge of the National Privacy Principles (NPPs). The NPPs form the law that applies to many private sector organisations. For more information about the NPPs, please go to: www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html

Question 1:

Generally, if an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request. Which of the following is an exception to that rule?

(a) where providing access would have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of other individuals

(b) where providing access would excessively irritate the administration staff

(c) where providing access would be detrimental to the reputation of the organisation

(d) where the individual has not paid in full for goods or services already rendered, the organisation can deny the requesting individual access to any personal information held by the organisation

Question 2:

Generally, an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection. Which one of the following is not an exception to that rule:

(a) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure

(b) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law

(c) another organisation asks for the information for a marketing campaign (and this was not the purpose for which the information was collected)

(d) the organisation reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious and imminent threat to an individual´s life, health or safety

Question 3:

Generally, an organisation must set out in a document clearly expressed policies on its handling of personal information. Which of the following is not a responsibility regarding the privacy policy of an organisation?

(a) the organisation must make the document available to anyone who asks for it

(b) when someone asks, the organisation should take reasonable steps to let the person know what sort of personal information it holds and for what purpose

(c) when someone asks, the organisation must take reasonable steps to let the person know how it uses and discloses personal information

(d) the organisation must have a designated contact who is responsible for the proper management of privacy within the organisation

Question 4:

Private organisations that have an annual turnover of $3 million or less are generally exempt from the Privacy Act. Which of the following is not an exception to that rule?

(a) organisations that trade in personal information (e.g buying or selling a mailing list)

(b) organisations that are related to a larger business (a related body corporate)

(c) a contractor that provides services under a Commonwealth contract

(d) your local fish and chip shop

Question 5:

The Privacy Commissioner may decline to investigate a complaint if the complainant has not given the respondent an adequate opportunity to deal with the complaint. How long is generally considered ‘an adequate opportunity´ for an organisation to deal with the complaint?

(a) 7 days

(b) 30 days

(c) 60 days

(d) 90 days

Question 6:

Generally, when an organisation collects personal information about an individual, it must make the individual aware of a number of things. Which of the following must an organisation make individuals aware of?

(a) the identity of the organisation and how to contact it

(b) the fact that the individual is able to gain access to the information

(c) the purposes for which the information is collected

(d) all of the above

Question 7:

An organisation in Australia may transfer personal information about an individual to someone who is in a foreign country only under certain conditions. Which of the following is a condition?

(a) the organisation reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a regime that is substantially similar to the National Privacy Principles

(b) the organisation requires the transfer of the information to enhance business efficacy

(c) the individual to which the information relates to would reasonably expect the information to be passed onto a foreign country

(d) the organisation is required by the law of a foreign jurisdiction to disclose the information
Question 8: In total, how many Privacy Commissioner´s have there been in Australia?

(a) 1
(b) 4
(c) 6
(d) 9

 

Question 9:

True or False, if an employee of an organisation breaches the Privacy Act, it is the employee that must bear personal responsibility for the breach not the organisation as a whole?

Question 10:

Does your organisation have a privacy policy?

(a) yes
(b) no

ANSWERS

1: (a) where providing access would have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of other individuals
All the others are not valid reasons for denying access to personal information.

2: (c) another organisation asks for the information for a marketing campaign (and this was not the purpose for which the information was collected).

All the others are valid reasons for using or disclosing personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection.

3: (d) the organisation must have a designated contact who is responsible for the proper management of privacy within the organisation. However, the Office encourages organisations to have an appropriate contact (sometimes called a Privacy Contact Officer or Chief Privacy Officer) who is willing and able to handle privacy enquiries and complaints and who can ensure that the NPPs are properly implemented within the organisation.

4: (d) your local fish and chip shop
As long as the fish and chip ship is a small business earning $3 million or less, is not related to a larger business and does not trade in personal information.

5: (b) 30 days.
If a privacy complaint is lodged against your organisation, we consider 30 days to deal with or start dealing with the matter to be reasonable. In some circumstances, 30 days may be considered too long and it might be more appropriate to deal with the complaint more promptly.

6: (d) all of the above.
Apart from the those listed above, organisations must also take reasonable steps to ensure the individual it has collected information about is aware of: the organisations to which the organisation usually discloses information of that kind, any law that requires the particular information to be collected and the main consequences (if any) for the individual if all or part of the information is not provided.

7: (a) the organisation reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a regime that is substantially similar to the National Privacy Principles. The others are not valid reasons under the Privacy Act.

8: (b) 4.
The four Commissioners have been:
Judge Kevin O´Connor AM (1989 – 1996)
Moira Scollay (1996 – 1999)
Malcolm Crompton (1999 – 2004)
Karen Curtis (2004 – )

9: False. Under the Privacy Act, individuals cannot be found to interfere with the privacy of another individual because the Privacy Act only provides obligations on organisations and Australian and ACT Government agencies. However, organisations may be able to take action against employees who are responsible for the organisation breaching the Privacy Act.

10: If you answered no, then it would be a good idea to draft one. Many organisations are under an obligation to set out in a document clearly expressed policies on its management of personal information. If you would like to know more about what to include in a privacy policy, see our website www.privacy.gov.au or contact our Enquiries Line on 1300 363 992.

Rating scale

Score:

9-10 Privacy guru
7-8 Very privacy aware
6-7 Moderately privacy aware
4-5 Not so privacy aware
0-3 You may like to contact our Privacy Enquiries line on 1300 363 992 or write to privacy@privacy.gov.au for information about privacy.

Copyright - Privacy Commissioner

The Victorian government has started cracking down on identity theft by introducing new offences and increasing penalties.

Acting Premier Rob Hulls said new legislation would beef up protection against identity theft and help in the prosecution of identity crime.

More than half a million Australians were last year victims of identity fraud, and it cost big business more than $1.1 billion in 2001/02. "Identity fraud strikes at the heart of the way we operate in a contemporary Western society," Hulls told reporters today.

"The expansion of global internet use and its attendant trade in personal information has really multiplied the risk of this information being used in identity fraud."

New offences will be created that make it illegal to steal identities with the intent to commit fraud. Currently criminals can only be charged once they actually commit a crime. It will also be illegal to possess equipment for making identity documents and to deal in identity information. Maximum jail terms will range from three to five years.

Detective Inspector John Potter from the Victoria Police fraud squad welcomed the plans. He said fraud accounted for 31 per cent of total crime in Victoria.

Organised crime syndicates were largely involved in identity theft, and often established venues purely to manufacture new identification documents. The new laws will help police be proactive in stamping out those intent on stealing identities, Potter said.

"This will allow us to go on the offensive and allow us to target those groups that possess inappropriately both documents but also equipment ... our ability is substantially enhanced with regard to targeting criminal groups and their tools of trade," he said.

Simple actions, such as shredding any documents like electricity or gas bills, could help people stop identity theft, he said.

Hulls described identity theft as an "insidious" crime. He said while it was "virtually impossible to wipe out crimes of this nature", the government and police were doing their best to stay ahead of technological developments.

The new offences under the Crimes Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill will close legislative gaps identified by a report to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and will be introduced to parliament before the end of the year.

AAP

We receive 2-5 emails a month from people that have been cheated or outright scammed by an internet-based or derived relationship. People ask how to investigate such a case. The rule of thumb should be - don't trust anyone unless you have an opportunity to first meet in person and make a proper assessment of the potential partner. ed.

Queensland police have warned lonely hearts not to be fooled by internet romance scams.

The alert comes after a man lost $20,000 to someone he met online and a woman was left waiting at an airport.

State Police Minister Judy Spence said police were investigating a number of internet-based scams in which lonely and vulnerable people had been fleeced of thousands of dollars.

Ms Spence said two recent victims were a 45-year-old man and a 47-year-old woman.

"The male victim was fleeced of approximately $20,000 through a scam which began when he met someone he believed was a potential female friend on an online personal site," she said.

"And the female victim lost thousands of dollars and was left waiting at the airport after she sent money to a man she met on a web-based matchfinder.

"Many other cases of romance scams are never reported by victims who are too embarrassed to contact authorities."

Ms Spence said it was normal these days to begin relationships through internet-based sites.

But people should always treat requests for money or personal information with extreme caution.

Detective Superintendent Brian Hay said romance scams generally involved a love interest who claimed to be of English or American heritage with links to a west African country, such as Nigeria or Ghana.

Once a relationship has begun they then ask for money to by an airline ticket to visit the victim, seal a business deal, pay for medical expenses after an accident, or to tide them over after a robbery or because of corrupt officials, Supt Hay said.

He said anyone who thought they might be a target, or knew someone else who was, should contact police.

AAP

SMH

MORE than a year after a terrorism charge against him was dropped and more than $8 million later, the Australian Federal Police have finally confirmed they have cleared the Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef as a suspect in last year's terrorism attack on Glasgow airport.

In a short statement released to the media yesterday afternoon, the AFP confirmed it had informed Dr Haneef's solicitor, Rod Hodgson, the federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and the Home Affairs Minister, Bob Debus, that Dr Haneef was "no longer a person of interest".

"The AFP has concluded its active inquiries, although some longstanding overseas inquiries are yet to be fully resolved," the statement said.

"At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to institute proceedings against Dr Haneef for any criminal offence'.'

Mr Hodgson said Dr Haneef was "extremely happy" to hear the news and confirmed that his client would seek compensation and an apology from the Government. But he did not indicate if he wanted to return to Australia.

Dr Haneef, a registrar at a Gold Coast hospital, was arrested at Brisbane Airport on July 2 last year as he tried to leave Australia on a one-way ticket to India after Kafeel Ahmed, the brother of his second cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, drove a burning Jeep packed with gas cylinders into Glasgow airport on June 30.

Dr Haneef was held for 11 days without charge under Australian terrorism laws before being charged on July 14 with "intentionally providing support to a terrorist organisation" by giving Sabeel his SIM card, which police alleged was involved in the failed bombing plot.

Dr Haneef was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate on July 16 but just hours later the then immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, cancelled his 457 work visa, ensuring he remained in detention. Dr Haneef returned to India.

Charges against Dr Haneef were dropped on July 27 after it was revealed the SIM card was in Liverpool, nowhere near Glasgow airport when the airport attack occurred.

It was revealed that the crown prosecutor had incorrectly alleged during the Brisbane bail hearing that the SIM card had been found in the Jeep at Glasgow airport.

In December the full bench of the Federal Court ruled that Dr Haneef was free to return to Australia after it rejected Mr Andrews' appeal against a decision to reinstate his visa.

The court found the law did not allow the Government to revoke a visa on character grounds simply because a person had an "association" with an unsavoury individual.

During a Senate estimates hearing in February the AFP commissioner, Mick Keelty, revealed that more that 600 security officials had worked on the Haneef case and the related British bombings investigation, which cost more than $7.5 million. By May the figure had risen to $8.2 million. The return for the effort was the one charge against Dr Haneef, which was subsequently dropped.

An inquiry into the AFP's handling of the investigation is underway and due to report to the Government on September 30. Mr Keelty has so far refused to make public unclassified sections of the AFP's submission to the inquiry, arguing that he did not have the permission of British police to do so.

This is despite the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation releasing in full its submission saying it had no evidence linking Dr Haneef to a British terrorist plot.

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the Government should invite Dr Haneef back to Australia. He also said the former prime minister John Howard should apologise to Dr Haneef.

 

How the Haneef affair became carry on coppers

Recent article by Richard Ackland - SMH

More than a year ago, there was strong evidence that the terror case against Mohamed Haneef was a farce. Yet grimly the federal police and the top copper Mick Keelty held firm to the belief that this Indian doctor posed a threat.

Based on the word of the Australian Federal Police, Haneef was stripped of his visa. The then minister for immigration, Kevin Andrews, repeatedly said he was in possession of secret information from the police that he relied on to make that decision. It was so powerful and secret that this information could not be publicly revealed.

It has now emerged that there was no evidence of criminal behaviour in the document at all.

ASIO, too, advised that Haneef was not a threat to national security. The story about the doctor's SIM card being found in a burning car used in an attempt to blow up Glasgow airport was also false.

Indeed, that information was already available to the police before they briefed the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions lawyers for the appearance at the bail hearing on July 14 last year.

The DPP lawyer who appeared, Clive Porritt, even came with an explanation for the court as to why Dr Haneef would have provided his SIM card if he knew it was to be used in a terrorist attack.

Because he intended for it to be destroyed in the explosion, Porritt said.

Meanwhile, the British coppers thought this was a huge hoot.

The Herald reported them saying on July 21, 2007, that: "Australian police have got their wires crossed. This is very embarrassing for them."

On July 27, 2007, the terrorism charge against Dr Haneef was dropped by the Commonwealth DPP.

As at the end of last year, $7.5 million had been spent on investigating Haneef and related matters. At its peak, 249 AFP officers were involved, 225 Queensland police, 12 employees from the attorney-general's department, 54 West Australian police, 40 from NSW, six from the customs service, two Northern Territory police and one Tasmanian walloper. There were also two British bobbies posted to Australia.

Keelty told a Senate estimates committee in May this year that an investigation was still going on and that the doctor "remains a person of interest".

The AFP seemed to to be relatively prompt, just before the last federal election, in clearing a number of Liberal MPs of allegations of electoral expense rorting.

You'd think after more than a year and hundreds of police officers, they might by now have drilled to the bottom of the Haneef affair.

Earlier this year Police Commissioner Keelty, in a curious outburst, suggested that restrictions apply to the media reporting proceedings in open court and even the reporting of information in the public domain.

In March, a former NSW judge, John Clarke, was appointed by the Labor Government to examine the key elements of the Haneef affair: his arrest, detention, charging, prosecution, cancellation of his visa, and to report on the deficiencies of the law enforcement agencies.

The Commonwealth DPP made a submission and a public version was received by the inquiry on August 14. In it, the prosecutor jumps all over the federal police.

The police exerted "extreme pressure" to bring the charge, essential information was withheld making it hard to impossible to make an informed judgment about the case, and there were inconsistencies between the oral and written briefings provided by the AFP.

However, the DPP did advise the police that Haneef could be charged. Around the same time, Keelty was making noises to the chief prosecutor that he didn't think there was enough to go on, but they were pressing ahead seeking more information. That was contrary to what he had been telling the media: "I can assure you that the investigation … has been driven by the evidence and driven by the facts."

In substantial respects, the DPP reflects the same concerns as those expressed in the submission to the inquiry made by lawyers for Haneef.

In keeping with Mick Keelty's beliefs about media blackouts, the federal force doesn't want you to know the contents of its submission. This remains under wraps.

If the DPP is sheeting home the blame to the AFP, it's relevant to ask why Clive Porritt was placed in an impossibly isolated position by prosecution management.

At the moment, Mick Keelty is looking like one of the most wretched and plod-like public servants in Australia.

It's about time the Government put its foot on his neck. To allow him to continue to run a complex and massively resourced anti-terrorism agency is unthinkable.

SMH article

A Sydney private eye who posed as a federal police agent and sent a 77-year-old woman a menacing letter has been jailed for 12 months.

In the Downing Centre Local Court today, Magistrate Pat O'Shane ruled Brett Sutcliffe would be eligible for release after nine months.

The 28-year-old must then enter into a 12-month, $5,000 good behaviour bond.

The magistrate also imposed a $5,000 fine on Sutcliffe, a former director of private investigation firm Spousebusters.

He had pleaded guilty to impersonating a Commonwealth public official and using the postal service to menace the elderly woman, who challenged him for parking in a disabled parking zone near her North Bondi home, in Sydney's east, last July.

Sutcliffe sent the woman a letter, purportedly on Australian Federal Police (AFP) letterhead, warning that she had "wrongly interfered" with an AFP investigation.

Ms O'Shane said the letter had involved "significant intimidation" of an elderly woman.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has called for a major overhaul of out-of-date privacy laws to better protect individuals and the corporations which investigate them in the digital age.

Political parties and small business would no longer enjoy generous exemptions to the 20-year-old Privacy Act and a statutory course of action against serious invasions of privacy would be established.

The ALRC has released its 2,700-page, three-volume report looking at how national privacy laws apply in the current digital age and how they stack up against international standards.

About 250 workshops with individuals, community groups, the private sector and government organisations were held and nearly 600 submissions received during a 28-month inquiry by the commission.

The final report puts forward 295 recommendations for reform.

ALRC president David Weisbrot, launching the report in Sydney, said much had changed since the commission delivered its first report into privacy 25 years ago.

"None of the commissioners had or had even heard of email, there were no mobile phones, no digital cameras - no high-tech surveillance cameras in public places," Professor Weisbrot said at the launch.

Small business, which makes up 94 per cent of all Australian companies, and political parties should no longer be exempt from the laws, the report states.

It says they look after vast amounts of personal information and are not required to follow regulations on acquiring, protecting, using or disseminating that information.

"No other comparable jurisdiction in the world exempts small business from the general privacy law."

On the issue of data breaches, Australian organisations are not required to inform individuals when their personal information has been compromised.

It is standard practice in most states in the US and the report recommends the same measures for Australia.

Regarding age requirements, the commission recommends anyone over 15 should have consent over the access and distribution of their personal information.

On the flip side of things, credit providers would have greater access to applicant's financial information such as current credit balances and loan repayment histories.

"The Australian regime is ... more restrictive than in most comparable countries," the report states.

Australian credit bureau Veda Advantage backed the changes, saying the current laws prevent people from building a positive credit history.

"The government needs to pick up the ALRC's suggestion that more data can be permitted when government and industry implement a responsible lending framework," Veda director Chris Gration said in a statement.

Under the recommendations, people would not be charged for keeping telephone numbers unlisted and Australian companies would become accountable, under many conditions, when transferring individual's information overseas.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the disclosure of a person's private information would be "an outrage".

"Equally, however, there is need for government effectiveness and for data to be communicated between agencies and government departments," Mr McClelland said at the launch.

Based on the size of the report, Cabinet Secretary John Faulkner, who is responsible for information law, said the government would review the report in two stages and begin to legislate on the recommendations within 12 to 18 months.

Opposition legal spokesman George Brandis warned the government against any legislative changes which would compromise freedom of speech.

"(Current common and statute laws) strike careful balances between the protection of legitimate interests in privacy, and the respect for freedom of speech which has been a hallmark of our legal system," Senator Brandis said in a statement.

The 1988 Privacy Act limits the collection of personal information by organisations.

They are only allowed to collect information necessary for their function or activities, and must not use it or disclose it for other purposes.

But political organisations and businesses with a turnover of less than $3 million a year are currently exempt and may use information in any way they please.

Senator Faulkner would not comment on the implications of reversing the exemptions political parties have enjoyed.

"My responsibility here is not to come forward as a representative of a political party," he told reporters at the launch.

"That's not the hat I'm wearing."

ACCESS THE FULL ALRC REPORT »

© 2008 AAP

I met with the (NSW ed.) Police Ministers' representatives (Tanya DADIEL MP and Chair, Parliamentary Secretary for Police, Mary Louise Battilana, Policy Manager Ministry For Police, Fiona Lansdown Senior Policy Analyst, Ministry for Police, Agnes Yi Policy Advisor, Minister Campbells Office) early last week along with about 10 other concerned and caring industry stake holders including Alan Harries IMA, Alistair Steel AIPI, Anthony Callaghan AIPI, John Bracey AIPD, Dan Deleau MJM Investigations, Peter Cox Peter Cox And Associates, Steve Kent IAB Services,  Bernie Galetti TAFE,  to discuss problems with the current legislation and a new legislative model.

The consensus of all stake holders was that the current legislation had been put together in a hurry despite the fact the State Government had this matter for over six years and that in its present form it was unworkable and in part unnecessary and unregulated or poorly regulated by police.

Some very sad experiences with serious consequence for industry stake holders and consumers with well known and adversely publicised investigators was discussed and it was apparent from these well documented experiences that the legislation in its present form coupled with poor policing of that legislation demonstarted the inadequacies of the legislation and the regulatory authority.

In relation to the legislation frame work, I proposed a registration board model similar to that which is currently in place for lawyers, real-estate agents, Accountants and Psychologists that would allow for industry input as to who comes and goes from our industry and thus allowing for co regulation which was put to the vote and adopted by a majority of those industry stakeholders in attendance.

In relation to Private Inquiry Agents I also raised the following issues and recommendations:

Mandatory licensing of all private investigators whether they work in house for banks or insurers or law firms. Agreed by the majority in attendance.

I argued that far too many organisations operate with an unfair advantage and at the same time carry out the exact same occupation as those of us who are licensed and pay a fee to the Government for that privilege. Not only this but there was no fingerprinting nor probity on those engaged in-house. Agreed my the majority of stakeholders in attendance.

Recognition that Loss Adjusters and Loss Assessors are also investigating and that they should fall within the legislation for CAPI licensing. Agreed by the majority in attendance. Agreed by the majority of stakeholders in attendance.

Loss adjusting is simply that, adjusting a claim for certain damage or losses. However it has been my experienec that the work of thedse people almost always goes beyond adjusting. Insurers know and expect  loss adjusters to report suspicious claims and they do so on a regular basis and thus at this point they are inquiring and reporting into the character, actions or nature of business of a person (old definition) and at that point require licensing. It is a rare occurrence that a loss assessor/adjuster does not give an opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of a claim and in fact most insurance reporting formats are framed this way.

That private investigators should not be joined under one piece of legislation with security personnel.

This was obviously one area being considered by the Police Ministers office. I proffered the argument that for many years we had strived for separation from the security industry as we are very different in terms of our work, skill sets and competencies. I argued that if were lumped in with the security industry this would place a serious imposition/disadvantage upon members in terms of Workers' Compensation and Professional Indemnity premiums for insurance cover, a premium that would not truly reflect the vast differences in our exposure to risks when compared to security personnel. Private Investigators do not carry guns, batons, guard, patrol, protect nor generally become involved in arrests or fracas.

That fingerprinting of applicants should be retained.

There was a move by many stake holders to have this rescinded however I argued that if investigators were to gain greater recognition from Government  we should also undergo greater scrutiny. Further, I argued that investigators regularly attend crime scene and gather exhibits as evidence and during that process their prints might corrupt the process and could be eliminated via retention of fingerprinting.

Another issue that was very much considered and discussed was a National licensing system allowing licensed investigators to hold one license for the whole of Australia. I believe this will become legislation in the long term future.

Warren Mallard
Lyonswood Investigations & Forensic Group

I wrote to the Australian government´s Office of the Privacy Commissioner seeking clarification on the full implications of the Privacy Act on private investigators because our experience has been that the majority of Australian investigators do not know what they can and cannot do since the NPPs in 2001.

I received a response published in full except for intro and closing. If you are a private investigator anywhere in Australian, you´d be wise to review this information. Either you knew it anyway, or you might be surprised to learn you´re breaching law.

ed.

Read the letter from the Commissioner's office»

 

(NSW) POLICE ACT 1990 - SECT 205

Use of police designations by others
205 Use of police designations by others

A person (not being a police officer) who, in connection with any business, occupation or employment uses:

    (a) the designation of "detective", or

    (b) the designation of "private detective" or any other designation that includes the word "detective", or

    (c) any other designation, or any rank or description, implying that the person is a police officer (whether or not the designation, rank or description was previously applicable to the person as a police officer),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Check your state's legislation as it may well be similar (ed.).

By Stephanie Peatling - SMH

Private detectives will be used to spy on child support defaulters under tough new measures announced by the Federal Government, as it chases $1 billion in unpaid payments.

The Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, announced yesterday that "covert optical surveillance" would be used from July 1 to chase the worst offenders from the pool of 254,073 parents who have not paid for the continuing support of their children.

"I want to reinforce this message to parents who fail to meet their obligations: if you don't do the right thing you will be caught and will have to face the consequences," Senator Ludwig said.

"Parents should do the right thing by their kids and give them the level of support they deserve."

The size of the child support debt grew by 5.6 per cent this financial year to $1 billion, with half the outstanding amounts larger than $1000.

Between 15 and 20 private detectives will be used in a small number of cases where parents do not make their payments or are suspected of consistently underestimating their income in order to minimise their payments.

Evidence collected by the detectives will be used by the Child Support Agency in court action against parents who continue to lie about their income.

Senator Ludwig would not say how many parents would be spied on but the private detectives would be used only against "the worst offenders". The detectives will be used in a year-long trial to see if more aggressive methods succeed in recovering larger numbers of debts. The agency will work with the Insolvency and Trustee Service to seize and sell assets, such as houses, in order to cover debts.

Income records held by the agency will be matched with Tax Office records to stop parents from salary-sacrificing portions of their income to lower their taxable income and child support payments.

The tough measures will be introduced on July 1, the same day the child support payments for hundreds of thousands of parents will change following a revamp of the way payments are calculated.

The architect of the changes, Professor Patrick Parkinson, says about 60 per cent of parents will pay less child support under the new system. Senator Ludwig declined to comment on that figure.

Copyright Sydney Morning Herald