Page 3750 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those details do need to be protected, particularly in relation to organisations where the bodies involved often perform sensitive functions; for example, in relation to community organisations that may provide organisations such as women’s shelters or other refuges to harbour people seeking shelter from domestic violence and so on. It is important that in these circumstances the details of those officers, their personal details and contact details are appropriately protected.
The bill provides for that mechanism, and the government agrees with the proposal. The proposal is relatively straightforward, and the government will lend its support to the bill.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.49): The opposition will be supporting this bill, introduced by the Greens in April, and I will comment on it only briefly. This bill affords private individuals with an increased level of privacy by giving those individuals the right to opt in or out of having their residential addresses available to the public through documents held by the registrar.
The nature of the kinds of organisations, not-for-profit organisations that are subject to the Associations Incorporation Act is such that individuals who serve on the boards of those organisations usually serve in a voluntary capacity. Those people do it because they want to serve their communities of interest. It is their way of contributing to the good of organisations and their members and other stakeholders. As such, they are entitled to some privacy and protection from having their personal contact details available to the public in a broader sense.
In his presentation speech Mr Rattenbury flagged a range of practical issues that might arise if the Assembly passes this bill. I will not repeat them all here, but I need to concentrate on a couple of them. One is that if a notice or subpoena has been served on a board member of an organisation, that person’s address would not be readily available. This bill does not empower the registrar to release information about a person’s private contact details.
Another is that there is a risk that this bill may add to the registrar’s workload. This may have practical resource allocation implications, not only for the government but also for the office of the registrar. Mr Rattenbury raised these and other issues because he believed the government needed to consider and address them. The opposition agrees with that view. The government has the resources to be able to review those issues and make an assessment of them. Other than that, I make no comment on the specific matters that Mr Rattenbury raised.
Notwithstanding the issues Mr Rattenbury flagged in his presentation speech, the bill, as it is currently drafted, will stand on its own. Its operational ability will not rise or fall on those issues. They are matters that the government can, and should, consider and resolve in due course.
This bill will provide our volunteer community, in particular, with a higher level of privacy and therefore security. It will be particularly beneficial for boards and board members of organisations that deal with emotionally charged social issues and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .