Page 1611 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Under section 66 of the Associations Incorporation Act the registrar-general may require any committee member of an incorporated association to lodge a notice with the registrar indicating the person’s current residential address. Under section 11 of the Associations Incorporation Act—or the act, as I will refer to it in the future—any person may inspect any document lodged with the registrar-general under the act and obtain from the registrar-general a copy of or an extract from any document the person is entitled to inspect. This includes residential details.
This provision has caused problems in the past with committee members who, for one reason or another, do not want to have their personal contact details, much less their residential addresses, accessible to the general public. People who are on the committees of groups that deal with victims of domestic and sexual violence, women’s shelters and other crisis centres are among the groups that have extremely compelling reasons why their residential addresses should not be publicly available.
While there will be some resource implications involved in organising the data storage systems necessary to comply with these amendments, the bulk of the expense will be a one-off expenditure to set up the system. The consequences of not implementing these reforms are potentially serious.
Questions have also been raised with me about the possible incompatibility of the current system with the national privacy laws and/or the right to privacy under the ACT Human Rights Act. It does not seem likely that the benefit of providing unrestricted access to personal information is proportionate to the infringement on the right to privacy or the possible harm that could occur if people were injured or worse through having their residential addresses revealed.
I understand that when the Women’s Electoral Lobby were first established back in 1972 they received violent threats and worse from people who objected to their views on women’s rights, and to women’s reproductive rights in particular. The obvious danger was such that I understand that they decided not to register as an incorporated association because of the disclosure provisions I have mentioned previously.
I use WEL as an example, but there are many other groups and many other reasons why some people need or simply wish to keep their details confidential. These may be people who want to avoid attention from unwanted suitors, through to people who are under the protection of apprehended violence orders, restraints or other protection orders or other people who, for instance, privately fear that an estranged partner may intend emotional or physical harm to them or their children. High profile people, celebrities or people whose activities attract unwanted attention can also have valid reasons why their details should not be made publicly available. Some organisations by their very nature attract undesirable attention—such as those who might cater to HIV-AIDS sufferers, ex-prisoner peer support groups or groups who assist recovering drug addicts.
When I drafted these amendments I could not imagine any good reason why the discretion to keep one’s private details secret should not be available to anyone who for one reason or another wants to restrict the number and types of people who know
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .