Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3718 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In Victoria and New South Wales, the cooperatives sector has flourished. The new legislation is hoped to make it easier-in particular, the power for the registrar of cooperatives to make model rules, or a constitution, will help to reduce some of the costs and energy required to establish a group as a formal cooperative. However, there is also the issue of the cost of application fees. I understand that registering as an incorporated association, as do many small organisations which actually run on a cooperative basis, costs around $120, but to register as a cooperative can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000.

The main concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee were around broad discretions given to the registrar and the fact that many of the powers were not appellable to the AAT. Around 59 sections were listed in the scrutiny report on the 2000 version of the bill as unreviewable decisions. Of the first list, only around 14 powers now remain without a reference to the AAT.

I understand that the government has some different views from the scrutiny committee on the desirability of all of the decisions being open for review by the AAT. There is an argument that AD(JR) process is more appropriate for decisions that are only going to be open to a challenge of error in law and for registry-type processes, such as requiring an applicant to take back a form and fill it in correctly. At this stage, we will have to take a watching brief on this bill. As there are only three operative cooperatives in the ACT, it may be some time before all of these provisions are tested.

Clauses 192, 196 and 262 in particular may be of interest. The first two empower the registrar to disallow special motions before or after they are passed if they are likely to breach the law. Clause 262 allows the registrar to make directions about fundraising. Fundraising in cooperatives has been a bit controversial. In New South Wales there is a capacity to raise money by, effectively, inviting shareholders in. The problem is that this can be seen as undermining core elements of the cooperative, particularly the equal shares and one vote per member.

The aim of having the registrar as umpire is ultimately to protect members and assist them, but also in part to reduce the possibility of litigation between members. In this capacity, the registrar is a low-cost constraint on illegal acts, including on management teams doing illegal things. I can see some merit in this argument but, as I have said, it is something to watch.

I am pleased that the government in its amendments will make exemptions of all kinds notifiable instruments. This will remove any secrecy. One of the problems with an exempting power is that it could be open to abuse-of course, not by the current registrar-and the mechanisms of notification mean that it will be public. The government has also changed the model used for inspections, so that there is a clear requirement for informed consent to inspections.

One of the remaining issues for cooperative regulation is the broad range of activities that cooperatives carry out. They can range from dairy cooperatives to the very local-for instance, a babysitting club. According to ACCORD, a research centre for cooperatives and mutuals, most cooperatives are small organisations in terms of their financial turnover. For example, in New South Wales, nearly 75 per cent of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .