Page 3501 - Week 08 - Thursday, 18 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
occasion, I accept that they are not substantive in nature and therefore I am happy to support them being brought forward in omnibus form.
In effect, there are six amendments proposed in this bill. The first is to the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 and the Associations Incorporation Regulation 1991. The amendment addresses the apparently common practice in which associations, deregistered for want of compliance, simply re-register under a new name, but with the same objects and committee members. This is an abuse of the law that could have a negative impact on the broader community.
This amendment would enable the registrar to apply to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order, which can include a time period, to disqualify a public officer or committee member from serving on an association in either of those capacities. The explanatory statement makes the bald claim that this amendment does not affect human rights. I suggest that it does, however. It may engage the right of everyone to freedom of association. However, this must be balanced with the common good and manipulation of loopholes in the law is not in the common good. This amendment closes those loopholes.
Next, there is an amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997. This welcome amendment would allow the registrar to change a person’s name on the births register if the name has been changed according to law, or if an Australian court orders or finds that the name should be changed. It fixes a technical interpretative issue that an order of the ACT Supreme Court may be required before the register can be changed, even if a finding or order has been made by another court.
I became aware of the need for this amendment in March 2010, when a local law firm sent me a copy of a letter they had sent to the Attorney-General in early February. The particular case involved the registered mother and father, who discovered by DNA testing that the registered father was not the biological father. By agreement of all the parties, an order of the Federal Magistrates Court was obtained, which required the parties to do all things necessary to change the name of the child on the births register. However, the registrar refused to make the changes unless parties obtained an order of the ACT Supreme Court, adding further expense and time to an already exhaustive process.
I wrote to the Attorney-General about this matter on 30 March 2010, asking what he planned to do about this rather onerous process. He responded on 6 May 2010 and said that his department was examining the matter. By January 2011 I had heard nothing further from the attorney, so I followed it up with him. He responded nearly two months later, indicating that it was still with the department and he was expecting advice on the matter soon. It took until 30 June, fully 17 months after the matter was first brought forward, for the attorney to introduce what is a very simple amendment to fix this process.
I am pleased that the attorney eventually did this because it has saved me the task of doing the same thing. I was about to commission amendments myself to fix this when the attorney introduced these changes on 30 June. That said, I am quite perplexed at the way that this issue has been addressed. I did receive correspondence from the legal firm who first raised this matter, when I asked them to comment on the legislation to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video