Page 5328 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
supports, would place a further red tape burden on licensees. It would require them to record in the register every occasion when false identification was confiscated at licensed premises.
Licensees are already required to send confiscated identification documents to the commissioner within seven days of seizing the documents and to keep a record. The purpose of the incident register is only to record those incidents which involve serious, violent or antisocial behaviour, which the commissioner should be made aware of so that a proper investigation of incidents can occur and it can be determined whether any licence or regulatory activity needs to be undertaken.
I think members should have regard to the logistics of this. Go to any large nightclub in the city and you will find that they seize hundreds of false IDs almost on a monthly basis. There is unfortunately widespread proffering of false IDs. This amendment will mean that they will have to keep reams and reams of paperwork on those documents. It is simply unnecessary.
There is sufficient provision already in relation to record keeping without this additional obligation. I think it is going to make the life of licensees much more difficult to impose this regulatory burden on them. I would ask members to think again in relation to this particular amendment. It is simply not necessary.
Mrs Dunne has mentioned her other amendments. I will deal with those as we proceed in the debate, but in relation to this matter, I simply ask members to think again about this. When I was out with the Chief Police Officer at one of the larger nightclubs in the city, I had the opportunity to speak with the manager of that large nightclub. It was a very well known nightclub in town that has thousands of patrons visit it every week.
They have hundreds of false IDs that they seize. This is going to require them to keep expansive records on each and every occasion of seizure. It would seem to me to be an unnecessary administrative burden. There is sufficient provision for them, first of all, to provide the seized document to the commissioner and then also to provide a record that they have done that. On top of that, the proposal is to require it to be recorded in the incident register. So they have to record it twice. It just does not make sense. Mrs Dunne is requiring licensees to record the seizure twice. It just does not make sense and the government does not support it.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.37): The Greens will be supporting this amendment and this grouping of amendments. Mrs Dunne has spoken to the whole set and I think it is relevant to do so. We have looked closely at both the point that Mrs Dunne has made and the amendment that Mr Corbell has on this as well. We have formed the view that the most important element here is to ensure that there is a level of protection or a level of anonymity available to the bar staff against what I think Mrs Dunne described as retribution or disgruntled customers who might wish to pursue a staff member who has been involved in the confiscation of their ID.
I think that while that is a protection that is available to security staff—that level of anonymity—there will still be the issuing of a receipt. So that side of things is covered.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video