Question: Can an Explanatory Statement exceed a 300 word limit and do they have to be circulated to voters?
An owner has obtained the required 25% of owners to call an EGM about a particular issue. The meeting date has been set.
The motions to be considered have been circulated. The legislation states that the information provided to voters can be accompanied by an Explanatory Statement as long as it is no longer than 300 words. The statement has been provided but it includes a link to an attachment that is itself more than 500 words.
Is the attachment part of the 300 word limit and does it have to be circulated to voters?
Answer: Word limits in any context are sometimes tough to achieve but they are usually there for a reason and really, 300 words isn’t too onerous to comply with in my view.
This is a very good question! On the one hand, it can be argued that the note is under 300 words and that the link is merely an appendix or optional bit of extra reading. On the other hand, if by clicking on the link you get to read the actual ‘explanation’ of the motion, then surely that’s the note and it needs to be under 300 words.
I can’t, based on my rudimentary search, see any adjudicator’s orders on this specific topic, although you may wish to undertake a more fulsome search at www.austlii.edu.au. Ultimately, in the absence of any definitive legislation or ruling, the committee will need to make a decision based upon what is reasonable in this case. It might, for example, be reasonable to go back to the submitter, drawing their attention to the word limit and asking them to redraft their explanatory note to comply with that and without using the link. If they decline to do so then it’s decision for the chairperson as to whether that motion gets ruled out of order.
Let’s think of this another way: the point of an explanatory note and its word length is so that voters who otherwise know little or nothing about the motion are given a succinct and clear overview of it. That then helps them cast their vote and is the fairest way of having motions considered. Does your situation allow for that? Is it reasonable to ask voters to click on a link to get that overview? My gut feel – and this isn’t legal advice, of course – is that it isn’t. Word limits in any context are sometimes tough to achieve but they are usually there for a reason and really, 300 words isn’t too onerous to comply with, in my view.
This post appears in the March 2021 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
Leave a Reply