Section 20 is a new provision which obliges the bankrupt (1) to notify the Official Assignee immediately of any change in his name or address and (2) when required, to notify the Official Assignee of the nature of any business or profession in which he is engaged. A change of name for the purpose of the section will be deemed to take place if the bankrupt in fact assumes the use of a different or additional name. The committee recommended the adoption of this section because in the course of the administration of a bankrupt's estate it is often necessary to contact the bankrupt and seek his help in the realisation of his property. However, because of his adjudication, the bankrupt is often forced to change his residence and/or place of business with the result that the Official Assignee loses touch with him. The committee's recommendation, that failure to comply with the duties imposed by the section should be an offence, has not been followed. If the bankrupt defaults, the Official Assignee may seek a court order requiring him to fulfil his duty. Failure to comply may result in the bankrupt being committed to prison under section 24.
SECTION 20.
The Minister has dealt there with the point I wanted to raise. I do not see any good reason why it should not be made an offence. Section 24 provides:
Where the bankrupt or any person summoned or brought before the Court refuses to be sworn or refuses or fails to answer any lawful question put by the Court and does not fully answer any such question or refuses to sign and subscribe his examination when reduced to writing (not having any lawful excuse allowed by the Court) or to comply with any order of the Court under this Act, the Court may order that such person be committed to prison. . . . .
It would appear to me that what would be necessary there is that the court would have to order him to say what his change of name and address was and in that way have him be committed to prison in due course under section 24. If it is considered significant enough and a significant enough problem to impose a duty on the bankrupt by section 20(1) to notify the Official Assignee, I cannot understand why it is not made an offence not to do so. Why impose a duty and then have no corresponding offence?
I take the point the Senator is making. My position on it is that there is an offence once removed, that if the bankrupt defaults the Official Assignee may seek a court order requiring him to fulfil his duty and if he fails to comply with the order then he can be committed to prison under section 24. So, even though there is not a direct offence there is an indirect offence if he fails to comply.
I understand that and I agree with the Minister's analysis of the position but, unfortunately, the situation is that presumably the problem at present is that people are changing their names and not telling the Official Assignee. There is no problem if the Official Assignee knows it has happened. He already knows that this fellow by the name of Smith is now using the name "Murphy". If he already knows that, getting the fellow to admit it is a very minor portion of what is involved. Surely this is trying to overcome the situation where you are imposing a duty even in cases where the Official Assignee does not know it? He will not be able to act under section 24 unless he already knows that he has changed his name.
I see the point the Senator is making but it would be more often a case of change of address than change of name because the consequences of an adjudication might be that a person would have to change his address anyway. There would also be the contempt jurisdiction of the court for not complying with the orders of the court. I will look at what the Senator is saying between now and Report Stage.
I would ask the Minister to consider it. I do not see any good reason why it should not be made an offence. After all, you are imposing a duty and I accept that there are ways in which it can be got over at once removed but if you are imposing a duty, it should be an offence not to do so. It could be done very simply and section 118 which deals with offences generally under the Act where there is no specific provision, could be brought into play. We should consider that.
I will have a look at that and consider it between now and Report Stage.
Thank you.