Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Madam Chair Tolley and I'm quite surprised to see members opposite not standing up and taking a call to talk about something as significant as Part 3 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill because I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister just said and ask her a couple of questions as well in relation to Part 3. In particular—Hon Member: Don't filibuster your own bill Grant.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Their boat's shaking.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Brownlee has a lot to say yet nothing of any meaning whatsoever and so it's a strange world we live in you know that a man who once had such greatness is reduced to this. It's quite a sad thing really.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Far from the point that's trying to be made by the Hon Grant Robertson I want to convey to anyone who's interested the knowledge—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is this a point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes it is. I'm simply wanting to make it clear that this is the greatest entertainment anyone could have to see a Government filibustering its own bill.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Madam Chair that—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look I don't need any further help. That is not a point of order.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed Madam Chair. No I am standing to take a call on a significant change in the way in which many Acts that have been before this Parliament for some time will be operationalised using electronic means. The point that—Jami-Lee Ross: Grant why aren't you writing next week's legislation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm way ahead of that Jami-Lee Ross—way ahead of that. That's done. That's dusted. We're on the way. I came down to this Chamber because this is a piece of legislation that changes the way New Zealanders interact with agencies that are important to them.I want to come to the amended section 98 in clause 44 on audio links for the Commerce Commission and I want to ask the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin whether or not evidence has been provided to her or through the select committee about some of the possible risks that apply when giving evidence via audiovisual link. I know from cases that I've dealt with in my own constituency of concerns in the justice system and the courts where the use of audiovisual links breaks down—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry could I just ask the member to what clause he's referring?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm on Part 3 clause 44—the amended section 98. And I'm more than happy to read it out.Hon Gerry Brownlee: We know you are!Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because that's always a useful thing to do Mr Brownlee to be able to make sure we know exactly what clause we're talking about. And so this is here—in clause 44 Part 3 which amends section 98 of the Commerce Act—to allow for people to appear by audio link or audiovisual link. I wanted to ask before I was so rudely interrupted by Mr Brownlee the Minister in the chair—I know this is unusual Madam Chair but I just want to foreshadow the fact that I will be seeking a second call because I'm only up to the first of my questions to the Minister. And so what I wanted to make sure had been done was an assessment of the lessons learnt from the court system and the justice system around some of the risks associated with the use of audiovisual links. And what we know from the justice system is (a) the propensity of such links to break down but also (b) if and there may well be—in the case of matters related to the Commerce Commission and the Commerce Act—secrecy and privacy type provisions that need to be maintained.I think if we're making a change as this Parliament I imagine will be of the will to do is that change being made with an awareness and a knowledge of what can go wrong with audiovisual links? And so that was why I wanted to raise that with the Minister to make sure that that is happening. They are very positive developments. They facilitate a much more efficient type of business in all of the Government tribunals and courts and agencies but they are not without risk in terms of those privacy and security concerns and so I would ask if the Minister might be able to comment on what lessons have been learnt if any in regard to that.More generally looking then at clause 45 and this is the question of the ability to serve notices through different forms of technology. This is actually a very important point and I'll give you a specific example. Many members of the House will have signed up to various organisations including Government ones using email addresses that they may or may not use on a regular basis. And I think—without wanting to bring political parties into the debate—political parties would be able to tell you that many of the addresses on their databases are no longer used and a significant and important point is that if we are going to have this as the regular form of communication how can we be sure that people are well served? Will they be given any advice about how to update email addresses? What will they do when they feel that they haven't had contact from an agency because it was an old email address? It's much different from moving around between residential addresses—[Bell rung]—Madam Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Grant Robertson.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you Madam Chair because I am only on the second of my points. So to me that is a really important point: how are we making sure that email addresses are kept up to date? How do people know that it is the place that they will be best contacted at? So I would ask the Minister in the chair to come back to us on that.I want to go now to clause 51 which is an amendment to the Copyright Act 1994 and I want to particularly look at what would now be new subsection (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." That to me raises a number of questions the first of which is that the whole point of electronic communications is their immediacy and so the idea that it must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it was emailed seems somewhat contradictory to the whole point of emailing—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It takes the member's office days to reply.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well now Mr Brownlee's problem is he hasn't got up to "R" in the alphabet for his learning. He gets to "G" and then he doesn't quite know what to do afterwards. So it's absolutely fine Minister—Hon Andrew Little: If you email it on a Saturday you need two days.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well that's true—that's true. Actually on a Monday because he often doesn't get to work till the Wednesday. I know for Mr Brownlee this will be hard to imagine but for most people—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fill up the void. Personal insults—not a problem.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Filling up a void—I wouldn't go there if I was the member but yeah that's fine. Really it is a question that actually seems quite contradictory to what the whole point of electronic communications is.But it is the second part of the clause—which does appear to me to have been added at a later point; I wasn't on this select committee—"in proving that the advice was emailed it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address." I would ask the Minister in the chair if there has been any advice given around other jurisdictions' use of that form of definition because the way that things work in terms of cyberspace and using emails is that messages sent are not necessarily messages received. There's an awful lot that can happen and so whether or not the obligation here that something is sufficiently properly addressed and sent—now we all know that it's quite possible to place read receipts on emails and whether or not Government agencies have been encouraged to actually put read receipts on their emails would that not be a possible or a better way of ensuring that there is some certainty about whether or not this has been sent—Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is rubbish Grant. It's complete—of course that's your obligation. You're talking absolute rubbish. You're wasting the House's time.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well Mr Brownlee has a number of opinions about this matter but isn't interested in taking a call to tell me whether or not he actually—Minister Brownlee in the 10 or 12 emails he's sent in his political career clearly believes that they all made it to the recipient. We can't necessarily guarantee that.So I do wonder if there has been some consideration given to the idea of read receipts or something else that could be used as a way of proving that an email was actually received because simply sending it—Brett Hudson: They can't Grant. They can't be used as proof.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well Brett Hudson has views too. He was on the select committee so he actually could take a call if he chose to.Brett Hudson: So I understand the bill. This is why we want to pass it Grant.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah well see this is the problem that members of the select committee won't take a call. I have to ask the Minister in the chair if that is in fact the way that this was done. And these are not matters that are trivial when you look at the kinds of things that have been sent through. These are notices of suspension for companies notices of determinations made by the Companies Office—all of these are important matters so it's not something to be taken lightly that simply sending an email that was properly addressed is enough to say that it was received. So I think that actually is a legitimate question that we can be asking of the Minister in the chair.As I go through Part 3 I want to come to subpart—the one on marriage what one was that one? There is a subpart around amendments to the Marriage Act which I do want to cover but I'll return to that perhaps in another call. But I do also want to note that this whole provision around emails—[Time expired]"