Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to turn the attention of the committee to the part of the bill within Part 3 obviously which we're discussing in relation to the serving of notices or documents. The significance of this little part of the bill—or the part within the part—is of course that notifications to consent holders and so on are very important for the purpose of notifying where something might have been done wrong to put it rather bluntly—for example conditions within a consent might not have been met and so forth. So it is a significant area of the bill notwithstanding that it's somewhat technical in its nature and I would ask for your forbearance as I take you through Madam Chair and those others listening a few points that are quite significant in relation to how those notices and documents are to be served.First it's section 54 as it will be set out in clause 32: we see the address for service specifies that a postal or street address in New Zealand must be given but later on in section 54A we see that it's in fact acceptable to serve notices by electronic means. So it seems to me sensible and perhaps the Minister has a view on this himself that actually as an alternative to a postal address or a street address in New Zealand simply the provision of an electronic address—for example an email address—might be just as acceptable. If I were to reach into the not so distant past I could almost suggest a facsimile or some other means but I think an email address would be pretty sufficient for those purposes. By providing that clear ability to serve notices in an electronic fashion we would be able to get around some of the difficulties that are set out in section 54A whereby it's not always clear where the documents have been served; whereas by email that's much easier to evidence. In terms of the delivery and indeed the receipt the service of the document is generally faster—invariably faster in fact—and it doesn't require someone to be waiting by the postbox anxiously for the service of a notice at any given time. In the case of someone who might be from overseas for reasons that my colleagues—in fact members on both sides of the Chamber—have outlined that might well be the case in certain situations forestry or other and that being so to provide a means for service of documents electronically would actually be useful in that sort of transnational or indeed overseas buyer kind of a way.A further small anomaly and again I would be grateful if the Minister were to address it is that in section 54A(1)(b)(i) we've got a situation where a lawyer or conveyancer who's provided services to that person defined as person A can receive the documents satisfactorily. But I don't know why it would be that a lawyer for that person in general—for example someone who has received instructions more recently—could not receive those documents or those notices as well. And I draw the attention of the committee to subsection (4) which states that the section would apply despite any other rule or law." which is a pretty brave statement I think in the sense that it displaces the usual notion that an agent can be exactly as implied by the term "agent"; that is to say someone who is acting on behalf of the person—in this case the landowner or the would-be landowner—for the purpose of receiving those notices.So with these slight anomalies I would encourage the Minister to take a call on that and in particular further to those points that I've made with regard to subsection (1)(b)(iv) again within section 54A talking about the fact that an agent in New Zealand can only be the official recipient of a notice if A "is absent from New Zealand". But of course if A is a person who is still in New Zealand but nevertheless would rather that an agent receives the documents then there seems to be absolutely no reason that the agent couldn't stand in the place of that person. And it might be for example that the person A doesn't have good English language skills—perhaps if they're an overseas person or a member of Parliament—and for that reason I think there's a number of little clarifications that might be usefully advised by the Minister perhaps in conjunction with his officials who no doubt are very familiar with the construction of this particular part of the bill."