Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Thursday, 28 October 2010) . . Page.. 5329 ..
The person with the alleged false ID still has a record and a course of action to come back to should they feel the need. But the proposals that Mrs Dunne has put forward I think are the stronger approach and the Greens will be supporting those amendments.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.38): I would invite Mr Rattenbury to reconsider. The amendment currently before us, Mr Rattenbury, is an amendment that makes the seizure of a document an incident under section 130 of the act, requiring it to be entered into the incident register. There is already a legislative obligation on licensees to provide the confiscated ID document to the commissioner within seven days of seizing it and to keep a record of that. So there is already a record-keeping obligation.
Mrs Dunne is proposing in this amendment to establish a second record-keeping obligation. In addition to that, she is now saying that this is also an incident under section 130 and it must be recorded in the incident register. If Mr Rattenbury’s concern is about the identification of people who are seizing documents, then that can be dealt with in the other amendments that Mrs Dunne is moving, but it is not relevant to this amendment.
This amendment makes it a legislative requirement for the seizure of a document to be included on the incident register, in addition to the existing legislative requirement to keep a record of that seizure. That is unnecessary. In fact, that is just double handling. That is just recording an incident or recording an activity twice, and it does not make sense.
If Mr Rattenbury is concerned about the other issues that are being raised, about the identity of people who seize documents and protecting their anonymity and protecting them from retribution, then those relate to the other amendments that Mrs Dunne has not yet moved. I will deal with those when we come to them just for the sake of not confusing the debate. But it is very important to make clear that we are dealing with a separate issue here from the issue that Mr Rattenbury has raised in his comments about why this particular amendment should be supported.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.41): I think it is the minister who is confused on this. These sets of amendments go together to create a new approach—not an additional approach: a new approach. Let me just talk you through it here, and this will trespass into the other amendments which have not yet been moved.
As things stand under the current legislation, if someone enters a bar and proffers ID which is believed to be a false ID, the bar staff are required to take it from them and issue a receipt. If that is done by a security officer, they can just put their security number on it. If it is done by a security officer under the regime proposed by the minister in his amendment which is coming up, the security officer would just have to give their individual identifying number and that is it. However, if it is seized by a member of the bar staff, they have to give their full name and some contact details, either an address or a phone number. They cannot put “Joe Smith, c/o ABC Bar”. It has actually got to be their address.