Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much Madam Chair Tolley. I would like to make my first contribution on this bill speaking to Subpart 3 clause 53 which amends section 139 of the Copyright Act 1994.I want to pick up on the topic that my colleague Gareth Hughes raised around the treatment of fax machines. But my questions to the Minister are slightly different than the ones that Mr Hughes raised. I note that as best as I can tell this is the only clause in Subpart 3 that refers to notices that are faxed. I don't know whether that is because it's not anticipated that the other types of notices will be faxed or if those are sufficiently dealt with in the primary legislation.New subsection (2B) says: A notice that is faxed to a claimant or any other person must in the absence of proof to the contrary be treated as served on the claimant or other person on the day after the date on which it is faxed and in proving that it was faxed it is sufficient to prove that a fax machine generated a record of the transmission of the notice to the fax number." Now first of all I'm a bit bemused as to why we get two days to find our emails but we only get one day to find our faxes. I'm not quite sure why that is. Anyone who's still using a fax machine—and I don't personally count myself amongst those people but I'm sure there are folks who still use a fax machine—if they're getting the kind of volume of faxes that one might get through email why only one day when you get two days to find your emails?But I've actually got a more pressing concern than that which is that in relation to both emails and posting—say an email was sent and your computer is not working that particular day. I think most of us have experienced our IT systems not working in our offices around Parliament and probably in previous lives as well. Now that doesn't mean that your email disappears. Once your machine once the device that you are using to connect to your email server is up and running again you'll be able to get your hands on your email.If your fax machine is not working on a particular day it's gone. The bill says that it is sufficient to prove that a fax machine generated a record of transmission i.e. the fax machine that's sent the fax has a record that the fax was sent but it's quite possible that the fax was not actually received. Unlike what we in the 21st century call electronic mail email that could mean the fax has disappeared altogether and it could be difficult to prove to the contrary that the fax arrived. If you cannot prove that your fax machine was not working on the particular day that the fax was sent then you have the record of transmission but you have no fax. You have no proof that you didn't receive it and therefore could be liable for whatever penalties or whatever consequences come about because of that.So I wonder if the Minister has considered that or if that was a matter that was raised at the select committee because it does appear that unlike a notice of determination that is sent through the post or a notice of determination that is sent by email—and I'm particularly thinking of email here—for a notice that is sent by fax it seems that there is a potential for the person who should've received that message to have not and have some difficulty in proving it.So two questions there for the Minister. One perhaps is a little light-hearted—why one day not two?—but the other one I think is actually a little bit more serious given that there are consequences for people who do not respond to these notices. Perhaps it is that a notice of determination—the consequences for not responding to a notice of determination are different to not responding to a notice of suspension or any of the other communication that is referred to in other clauses in Subpart 3. But it's a genuine question to the Minister that I would like a response to."