Page 1613 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
arguments why members of incorporated associations should have to provide their residential address rather than merely addresses at which they can reliably be contacted, such as businesses addresses or a telephone, email or post office box address. Perhaps the absence of an option to provide an electronic contact is a carryover from pre-internet communications technology. It would seem that an electronic contact should suffice if there is also a requirement to confirm the currency of the contact details every so often.
These amendments do not go so far as to authorise the giving of electronic contact details, but this is something which the government should consider and would seem to offer cost savings over paper records and contact details. I understand that the registrar currently scans paper documents in order to create his database. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to be a particularly resource and labour-intensive method compared to a fully automated electronic system or even a mixture of the two. Bear in mind that the registrar retains the power, under section 66, to require a person, including a public officer, to lodge a notice with the registrar indicating the person’s current residential address. I have been informed that the registrar will retain this power regardless of whether or not someone chooses to provide a post office box or business address as their publicly available contact details.
These amendments merely give a person the option to provide a non-residential contact for public display if they so choose. It should be borne in mind that most people who serve on incorporated associations will be happy to provide their contact details, and they will retain that discretion.
There may be an issue with the service of legal documents, in that people should be able to know an address at which they can personally serve legal documents. But I am not aware that this is spelled out under the act. It may be that an amendment will be required whereby such service could be effected by the registrar-general. Again, it has become apparent that non-government members in this Assembly require better access to public servants and departmental resources in order to develop legislation. I think that some of the question marks we have here demonstrate some of those shortcomings, and it may be an area in which we can seek to improve the situation.
There are other issues raised here in this legislation. We should be doing all that we can to facilitate community groups to form and operate as effortlessly as possible. I am sure that Ms Porter will agree with me when I say that community groups are an integral part of the social fabric that binds us together as a society and a community rather than being merely so many disassociated and disaffected competing participants in a dispassionate and compassionless society.
The reason I have brought this legislation forward is to try and iron out possible glitches, areas of concern, so that we can make it as possible as we can for community associations to operate. Where a person’s participation in that group may present a threat to their personal safety or their peace of life, we think that this legislation will facilitate removing some of those obstacles. I commend the legislation to the Assembly and I look forward to further discussion with members on the details.
Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .