Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. It is good to follow on from that conversation because some of the questions I wish to raise in respect of clause 45 and the proving of delivery of a notice sent by a courier service kind of go to the nub of the same issue. I was also going to raise some of those issues around emailing and I want before I get into too much detail just to lift our sights for a moment and commend this bill because what we are doing here—simply put—is bringing these interactions into the modern age.If we continue doing things as we've always done we would be running round on horses and carts with people wearing funny hats and delivering things and talking in funny accents to each other all for the sake of propriety. Here we have a modern way of communicating via email or via courier or in whichever way we're doing it that is about making sure that things are done efficiently that the business needing to be carried out is carried out without undue waste and that the resources that we all have—and they are limited—are used in the most sensible fashion possible. So I want to preface my comments with a general commendation because I do think we are moving in the right direction with this bill.I kind of want to despair a little at my colleague from Napier's comments about his email address because I do think in the case of email we need to apply common sense. It's one of those things where I think most people in the modern world would have an email address that works and I respect the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin's comments around making sure that businesses have one that's current. They wouldn't be able to trade in the modern environment without a current email address so it's such a reasonable proposal that it would be hard to quibble with it. Certainly in Dunedin most businesses have an email address and they're required to supply one for communications purposes—very sensible.I want to delve into the courier service issue because it seems to me that it's the same kind of thing we're doing here but there are a couple of questions that come out of it for me. So in general my starting point is that I think it's a good idea. What we have here in amended section 102(2) in clause 45 is that in proving delivery of a notice sent by courier service: it is sufficient to prove that the document was properly addressed and provided to the [courier] service." So I guess I want to ask what happens when that goes wrong—you know who does the burden of proof fall on if the courier service does not actually deliver what was intended to be delivered? Is it then the responsibility of the courier service or is it the problem of the person on the other end of it?What would seem reasonable to me would be that somehow the courier service would bear liability for that. It can't be that the Government sends things off via an unreliable service or I guess the Government might—you know if it's interacting—bear responsibility for that. So I guess: what is the intention and what kinds of thoughts has the Minister had about how that responsibility is apportioned for delivery?Let's face it: we've all had that experience. Somebody says they've sent something in the mail and we should expect the courier to deliver it and it doesn't show up. Sometimes it just plain doesn't show up. Sometimes we find out months down the track when we've found some old postcard that says "We called and you weren't here." and it's been shoved behind that piece of wood that's falling off the side of the house or sometimes it's been blown down the street. Certainly I imagine people in Wellington would have that experience. In sunny Dunedin it's not quite the same. It's more likely to be a sun-bleached notice which can hardly be read. Each part of the country will have its own challenges in that regard. But assuming one's missed that notice whose responsibility is it because there can be serious consequences if that thing that is being delivered is incredibly important as it often is with a courier service? Where does the responsibility lie and what kind of logical process does one go through?I assume it's common sense we're working towards here as was the case when we discussed the email issue earlier. But in respect of a courier service the fact that it was sufficient to prove that it was properly addressed almost doesn't seem to go quite far enough because we have tracking services for example. Are tracking services to be considered the gold standard if the communication is particularly important or if it considers financial affairs or other such measures? Is there a bar above which a tracked courier service should be used to ensure that there is a traceability of—[Time expired] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will hear from the Hon Dr David Clark.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you Mr Chair. You know is it enough—Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are Speakers' rulings and convention that when a Minister is seeking the call the Minister automatically gets the call. I think you may have erred in giving the call to Dr Clark. The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member. It is a convention not a rule and I have already given the call to Dr Clark.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you Mr Chair and I thank Mr Lee Ross for his constructive engagement on this issue.Jami-Lee Ross: I'm here to help. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As he says he is here to help. I think he's trying to string out the debate. I think he's just trying to string out the debate opposite there. He's trying to make sure we all have interrupted calls and need rulings from the Chair and so forth. I mean it is an important issue Mr Lee Ross and I understand—[Interruption] Sorry what was that?Jami-Lee Ross: I thought you had sick people to save.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh sick people to save—sick people to save. Well I mean this is an issue. If we're talking about courier services we could be talking about things that pertain to people's health and well-being because the stress associated with not receiving a package that one was expecting and that may or may not have been tracked does have an effect on people's health and well-being. I would like to know if that is being considered. I thank Mr Lee Ross for his suggestion because that was actually something that until that interaction I hadn't considered. And that's the beauty of free-flowing debate in the House. The House does often have the debate become things that may not have been considered and of course the committee of the whole House stage is the place where we can make amendments if they are needed or lay down the intentions to the committee in passing the law.How is that taken into account in consideration of whether a courier package that wasn't received how that affected the recipient and their subsequent response whether they looked out for a package or not or whether they'd received the email or not? One wonders whether there might be some good practice guidelines issued that suggest a courier delivery ought to be accompanied by or preceded by email communication. I guess if there are multiple routes followed and that's typically in the modern world what we do—I mean sometimes if a message is particularly important we'll send an email to somebody text them to say we've sent it and then the email itself might say "Expect a courier package." I guess then there's belts and braces.But what we're trying to do here of course is actually reduce the burden of responsibility on those who are sending the messages to a reasonable level. I wonder what thought has been given to the process of making the decisions about what level of communication is required; how frequent should the communication be? We live in a world where there is an enormous amount of communication and sometimes—and I will concede Mr Nash's point that sometimes we can be bombarded with all this communication. It's hard to sift through what the most important stuff is if there are lots of email addresses running and I take the point about setting up a forwarding address that another member helpfully raised earlier.But if there are all of these competing things what is the best practice for communicating when something important is to be received? Does the ministry responsible—if there's a ministry issuing notices—also have to give consideration to text messaging at a certain level of interaction if it's regarding a significant transaction with companies and has consideration been given to this? I hadn't spotted it in the bill. I hope it's not because I've missed it in my careful reading of the bill but there's certainly plenty of consideration given to email. I'm sure it will be something that came up in the select committee stage. I know Ms Dyson chaired the Government Administration Committee and I'm hoping she will make a contribution. I'm sure the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin will know—but whether text messaging was considered as another level of interaction and how would you know whether a text message had been received or not?The reception of a text message is another thing. I think most people do check the text messages. Then of course the next thing that comes is your communications via other electronic messaging apps and those kinds of things that I hear the young people are using these days. Was your Snapchat received from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment or whatever? Where is this headed? I guess the Minister will have in mind the next bill that follows this because developments are happening all the time and methods of communication are continuing to evolve. I expect this progressive Government will be looking at further legislation to ensure that we are not just ready for today but that we're ready for tomorrow. So I wonder if the Minister in the chair has some thoughts about those other methods of communication that are becoming increasingly popular.We know of course that when these things become too much we see with mental health—and I am concerned as Minister of Health with the amount of social media that young people are receiving and there's some speculation that actually that bombardment of messaging is actually problematic. What thought has been given to that?I thank the member Jami-Lee Ross for raising the issue of stressed caused and so on and the effect on people's health of messages received or not received tracked or not tracked."