Page 5333 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This amendment deals with that other set of issues that I was referring to earlier. This amendment extends the information required to be included on a receipt given to the person whose identification document has been confiscated at a licensed premise by a crowd controller or staff employee.
It is important that the person who seizes property should provide their name or some other form of identification to the person whose property has been confiscated, for authentication purposes—that is, to establish that they are a person who has authority to seize ID in licensed premises. This information is important information, particularly in circumstances where it is alleged that the seizure was improper. Making provision for crowd controllers and staff members to give alternative means of identification instead of their name protects their privacy.
The government’s amendment also includes on the receipt the date and time the false identification was seized and the name and address of the premises where the false identification was seized. This information is also important information to facilitate proper administrative practice. The government amendment goes further and removes the requirement for a crowd controller or staff employee to provide contact details to the person whose false identification was seized.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.55): The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting this amendment. In fact, it is logically inconsistent with our approach. We have to vote down this amendment because otherwise we would create two parallel regimes. The fact that the minister moved this after we agreed to the previous amendment shows that he does not understand the mechanism that is going to follow consequentially from the passing of that first amendment. We cannot have this amendment and the previous one, because then you would have two systems.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.55): Just to clarify the Greens’ stance on this, let me say—as I have indicated earlier, and Mrs Dunne has touched on it—that, because we have now set in train and agreed to the package of amendments that Mrs Dunne has proposed, the Greens will not be able to support this one. We believe that it is an amendment that heads in the right direction; I think what the minister is trying to achieve in this amendment is correct. But having agreed to take the other approach, we cannot support this specific amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): The question is that amendment 1.30 be agreed to.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.56): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 5352]. This is the second of the series of amendments that create this new approach to dealing with confiscated documents. I think that we have had a lengthy enough discussion on that already.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 1.30, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video