Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you very much Madam Chair Tolley. I just thank the honourable member for his contribution and I just want to acknowledge that yes Part 3 is actually the most controversial part of the bill that we're discussing today. And it is the most controversial part for the very reason that the member has just been articulating and that is around the recognition of the legality of an email being sent or a notice being sent by email and what that means at the receiver's end.There have been concerns raised by members on the select committee to make sure that while the Government department can prove—and must prove—that the email address that they were using is a working email address and that it was addressed correctly it only stands as a proof that it was correctly sent. For example—and I used this example for some colleagues of mine—if I receive say 300 emails a day and I didn't manage to get to that email on that day just the fact that it was correctly sent doesn't mean that downstream I can't say that actually I didn't open it on that day—there must be some downstream proof of that. I have the opportunity to say Well it might have been my working email last week but it's not my working email this week." So there are some defences around the recognition that notices are or are not received.But I think the other part of this that caused concern was that the same applies to couriers. With all due respect to courier companies we all know how unreliable some courier companies can be. However to send a notice by courier as long as the department shows that it was sent to an accurate address that it was addressed appropriately and correctly then they can say "We did send it so therefore we met our obligation to send." to an acknowledged address. If however it doesn't reach that address because the courier company lost the notification that is a defence against any downstream consequence of perhaps not taking action on that notice.Just one other thing though: Supplementary Order Paper 7 which is on the Table also amends Part 3 just slightly. It's the second amendment it's minor and technical in its drafting and it updates just the numbering of the inserted provisions in light of other amendments that have been made in that Part 3. The first part of the Supplementary Order Paper which has already been discussed there allows the chief executive to set the parameters by which a photo will be made.So I did just want to rise and acknowledge the controversy of Part 3 and that there is a tension there that will be tested I believe going forward. But it is something that needed to be updated: the language the method by which Government departments—if for no other reason than actually there is a financial saving for the taxpayer. But we mustn't lose that tension: just because you send something was it received? Is there a way a recipient can prove that "I didn't receive it. There are reasons why I didn't receive it."? So somewhere in the middle it got lost. But I acknowledge the member and the controversy and I acknowledge the interest from the Opposition benches on this particular issue because I know how concerned they are with regard to the tension that is in this document. I know how excited they are to have this piece of legislation in this House and I look forward to their contributions as we go forward."