Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Look I would like to talk about clause 75. This is an amendment to the Trade Marks Act 2002 and it's about section 139A Chief executive may suspend accepted notice" which is amended. There are a couple of questions I have here. Look I understand the efficiency that digital communications provide—of that there is absolutely no doubt. In fact the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is doing some fantastic stuff in this space around providing efficiency and they've actually quantified it to a huge extent.This is the thing that I'm just—and I'm sure the Minister in the chair has an answer; it's an easy question but I just wouldn't mind knowing the answer. What it says here is and I quote "(2) After section 139A(3)(b) insert: (c) by emailing it to [a] person at an email address that is used by the person." Now—at the risk of sounding glib—you're never going to email it to an email address that isn't used by the person of course but I'm keen to know: how do you determine whether an email address is actually used by the person or not?The reason I ask that is you know: does it have to be acknowledged? Does the CEO or someone on behalf of the CEO have to seek authorisation or have to seek confirmation that in fact this email address is one that is being used or is it a defined time period—for example if this person has emailed the CEO or an agent or someone within MBIE within one month within three months within six months?Let me give you an example: I used to have a Hotmail address which I used the whole time. I moved to Gmail. I don't even know if the Hotmail address exists in any way shape or form. In fact as Dr Clark mentioned with the amount of stuff we get through the parliamentary server these days I haven't checked my Gmail address for a length of time. It is still operational.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh that's why you haven't answered.Hon STUART NASH: Ha ha! Send it to my senior private secretary. The reason I ask this question is: what defines an email address that is used? Is it a time period is it an email confirmation back from the person or is it some other test? The reason I asked that is because what it actually says in clause 75(3) for insertion after section 139A(3) is it says "insert:"—and I quote—"(4) In the absence of proof to the contrary written advice that is emailed to a person must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it is emailed and in proving that the advice was emailed it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address."Now the Companies Office could send something to Hotmail because I have no doubt that at some point they had that as a valid email address. It will go to that address and there will be no bounce-back that says "Sorry Stuart Nash no longer uses that address." So according to this what it says is they could send an email and they—well the officials I should say; the CEO—will have to make an assumption that that email is received. What I would have liked to have seen to be honest in this bill is—the test on whether an email address is used by the person should be a response from that person that they have actually received that advice. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not against emailing documentation.Hon Dr David Clark: You've got to use common sense—got to use common sense.Hon STUART NASH: You do have to use common sense. The use of technology will drive innovation in a way that we haven't seen for years—you know ever. There's no doubt about that. I'm all for innovation to drive technology—certainly in the small to medium sized enterprise - sector—but I do think we need to be a little bit careful. If we make assumptions that you know a good hard-working tradesperson that's been out there plumbing your house or digging your ditches or wiring your house is going to come home and check their emails every single day then I think we need to test that assumption. It may be that email addresses are used once a week it may be once a month and that may be enough but I think we have to be very careful about assuming that people use technology on a daily basis.Let me give you an example—a very recent example: the Napier water crisis. The council put out something on Facebook and we were supposed to know that. As someone of my age who was on Facebook but not particularly competent I don't check Facebook the whole time. So we cannot make assumptions around the use of technology.Lawrence Yule: I knew it Stu—I knew it.Hon STUART NASH: Ha ha! Mr Lawrence Yule you should probably keep out of any debate around water in Hawke's Bay at this point in time. What I would like to say is we need to test these assumptions and what we absolutely need to do is I think in terms of validating any sending of electronic transactions be assured that in fact it has been received."