Ann: Receipt of notice under section 249N of the Corporations Act, page-29

"Hi @JB1975 Your suggestion re 5% is invalid."

Okay I'm listening.

" The register of members is a public document and the Corporations Act already permits anyone to inspect it (a shareholder can do so without charge, the company can set a fee for access by others)."

This fits my recollection too but given the obvious level of interest it might be worth while digging out (linking or quoting) the relevant references in the Corporations Act so we can see them.

" The register is required to contain the members name and address as well as number of shares held."

Makes sense. But same comment as above.

" Registries these days have been collecting email addresses to make communication quicker and cheaper, but the Act has not yet been updated to require it (or require disclosure if held)."

That being the case, then I can't see why a constitution change couldn't direct what is otherwise left as a discretion of the directors if it is the will of a sufficient number of the members and provided nothing in the Corporations Act (or any other laws) as they are currently aren't contradicted. .

"You couldn't impose a 5% limit on access to the register or provide for differential levels of access between large and small shareholders."

If the email info isn't technically required to be in the register then perhaps arguably its not part of the register but is supplementary information held by the registry perhaps? So perhaps you (shareholders in agreement on a constitutional change) could impose differential levels of access?

Absent digging out the clauses of the Corps Act I believe your earlier comments are pretty much correct. But I don't think this last comment of yours follows on necessarily from the earlier ones being true.

I see no reason why a constitution of a company can't say pretty much anything that the members want it to say (its essentially an agreement between themselves) provided it doesn't contradict another law. You can't validly contract outside the law as I understand.

Seems to me it would be possible to say (amend the constitution to say) something like, "Any shareholder with a relevant interest of 5% of shares (shown to the company secretary) shall be entitled to contact any other shareholders whose email addresses are held by the registry".