Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. Just one quick question to the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin. A lot of the debate tonight has been around how technology is advancing and how electronic communication is making our lives easier and communication faster. But I did just want to ask one question in relation to clause 56(4) which replaces section 217(3) where in this instance it's I guess what we'd call traditional means of communication i.e. post—the old post service—and the regression of that service. New section 217(3) talks about replacing a clause in the Copyright Act around a summons being sent to a person. I'll read it out for the benefit of the committee. It says: A summons sent to a person in accordance with subsection (1)(b) must be treated as served on the person at the time when it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of"—and the select committee has removed the word "post" and inserted the words "business for the service it was sent by."I think that kind of points to the way that the normal post service as we have traditionally known it has changed over time because we are sending much more electronic traffic. The reality for New Zealanders is that the post that used to arrive six days of seven days of the week is now arriving sporadically. Some people may get it on a Monday Wednesday and Friday and other people in maybe more regional areas of the country may get their post only two days a week.I am wondering if officials have thought about that in terms of a summons being served on a person and that person's ability to respond to it if they have cause to challenge the summons. Someone may have a longer period of time to deal with a summons being served because their postal service as it stands now is more regular or irregular than it might be for someone in another area.You might get your post only on a Monday and a Friday which I understand might happen with some people who might not necessarily be served by New Zealand Post as their delivery service as opposed to a New Zealander who might get their post delivered on a more regular basis which in traditional terms wouldn't be as regular as it has been over decades.Whether or not—if they did want to challenge their ability or the summons that is being served on them from one person to the other I wonder whether the officials have thought about whether or not the length of time that they've actually had to consider a summons is something they could challenge in the court. If someone is served a summons and it has a time frame about when they might have to appear or when something has to be delivered as part of that summons if you're getting your mail on a more regular basis you've got more time. If you're not getting your mail on that regular basis you have less time depending on when the date of the deadline in the summons might be. That might put some people in areas that aren't being served as regularly at a disadvantage to others.So I'm just wondering if officials have thought through that potential conundrum because of the way that our traditional postal service is now operating where the mail doesn't come as often as it used to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to."