Page 5332 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am aware that this specific amendment is about adding a requirement that fake IDs be recorded for the purposes of the incident register. That is quite clear. I understand that that is what Mrs Dunne is seeking to do here. In the comments that I made, I did follow Mrs Dunne’s lead to an extent and sought to speak about the whole package. Perhaps that is what has caused some of the confusion here. But I am quite clear, I think, in my understanding—and the minister has not said anything yet to persuade me otherwise—that this works as a package.
Mrs Dunne described it as being a different approach. If we go to Mrs Dunne’s amendment 7, and again I seek indulgence to speak off the specific question, it removes the offence of failing to keep a record of all ID confiscated. I understood that Mrs Dunne was moving that amendment because she is seeking to remove the offence, because it is now redundant due to the fact that the confiscation of a false identification is picked up in the incident register, which will now record instances of fake IDs.
So I do not agree with the minister’s interpretation that we are now duplicating the paperwork requirement, because we are actually removing it in one place and putting it in a different place.
We can have an argument, which the minister started to move to just now, that the incident register is not an appropriate place for this, but that is a different debate. From a process and paperwork point of view, I do not believe that we are duplicating it; we are moving it. On that basis, we are comfortable that then sits within a package that Mrs Dunne is intending to move, which then relates through to the anonymity question, which there is clearly some agreement on.
That is my understanding; that is the basis on which the Greens are supporting these provisions, this grouping of amendments. I hope that that clarifies our position and perhaps clarifies the discussion.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.52): Just to clarify the matter, Mr Corbell has had these amendments since Tuesday last week and was offered a briefing. Mr Rattenbury was also offered a briefing, which his staff took up on his behalf, and obviously he has clarity about what is going on here and about a process that reduces the paperwork. There are not two sets of paperwork; it will be kept in one place. Perhaps if the minister had taken up the offer of the briefing, he might be better across these amendments.
Proposed new amendment 1.29A agreed to.
Amendment 1.30.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.53): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5349].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video