Goldsmith Paul: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoldsmith Paul: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):Now we come to clause 3 of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill which relates to the principal Act. It says: “This Act amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 (the principal Act).” If we look at the details of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 which was brought through this House by the Hon Paul Swain—and I would like to pay tribute to him. I used to play with him in the parliamentary rugby side back in the 1990s. He was the left-winger; I was the right-winger. He was not quite as fast but he was a good man the salt of the earth and the sort of politician who represents the Labour Party in my mind—a good man.In essence if I look at the third reading speech that he delivered when that bill was passed in October 2002—just to give you an idea of the idea behind the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 which this bill of mine seeks to amend—he said: “The bill will also allow many interactions with Government that are presently required to be in paper form to be done in an electronic form. Because the bill is based on the international standard of the model law on electronic commerce prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law it will make it easier for business to trade electronically. The bill follows closely the Australian Electronic Transactions Act and this minimises transaction costs for exporters in our largest export market.” So Paul Swain was very pleased and that bill was actually passed unanimously.But interestingly enough supporting the bill and speaking during that debate was the Hon Richard Prebble who now is devoted to plotting my downfall in the seat of Epsom but back then he was the leader of the ACT Party. He made some interesting comments on that bill. He noticed that the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 was rushed through this House under urgency by the Labour Government. I just wanted to remind people of that. The concern was—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well the concern was—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.PAUL GOLDSMITH: I will come to the relevance and it will all become clear because the concern was at the time—and I will quote another voice from the past Pansy Wong whom you will all recall. Pansy Wong spoke during the debate in 2002 and said: “The Minister also mentioned that the bill will remove uncertainty. I doubt that it will achieve that effect because first I pointed out that clause 6 states that when a person interprets the Act reference may be made to the model law on electronic commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [but that] introduces a lot of uncertainty. Imagine when a dispute arises as to whether an electronic signature is acceptable whether the electronic document has been received at a time when the sender or the receiver is in dispute. I can just imagine the lawyers reaching into the model law on electronic commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission.” The circumstance of that was that she was being ironic at that point. I did not quite capture the mood of that as I was expressing it but what she was trying to say was imagine—imagine—the lawyers reaching into the model law.She went on to say: “However more than that they can reach a whole raft of documented material that relates to the development of international law.” So Pansy Wong at this time was concerned that the Electronic Transactions Act which was passed under urgency by the Labour Government in 2002 was being rushed through and that there were elements of it that were going to cause trouble further down the line. One of the areas that she particularly drew attention to—and funnily enough she was quoting her colleague Tony Ryall who I see is at the back of the Chamber today. She said that he “pointed out that because of the language used in clause 11 an electronically transmitted message may be deemed to have been received by a person on the receiving end. The legislation states that as long as the sender ensures that the message left his or her system and goes to the address given by the receiver it is automatically assumed that the information would have been received.” So the point I am trying to make is that Pansy Wong was predicting—quoting Tony Ryall—in 2002 that the Electronic Transactions Act of 2002 which was rushed through in urgency would not deal effectively with some of these issues about the specifics and the details of the manner of the moment of instantaneous receipt.So 12 years later I have had to come along and tidy up the mess that was left by a hurried piece of legislation in 2002. I do not want to blow my trumpet too far but I would say that 12 years on we have dealt with that issue which was left untidy and ineffectively dealt with by that previous Government. I just also want to refer to a mention that was made by a fellow called Paul Adams an honourable member he was from United Future back in 2002. I do not think that—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well the relevance is that this is the legislation that I am amending. I am trying to get an understanding of what the House was trying to achieve through the original legislation and then from there to understand what needs to change. But I thought the Committee might be interested in this contribution from Paul Adams. He said: “New Zealand as a nation is ripe to receive positive change. The discerning have picked up on the fact that many many New Zealanders are tired of the old systems that simply are no longer relevant to the hour in which we live. For example today I wear a pink shirt and have coloured my greying hair. Just 20 years ago if I walked into the House and looked like I do today I would not have received positive comments. So I believe that that in itself shows that I am indeed open to positive change as are the three ladies in my life—my wife and two daughters who heartily approve of the change that they now see.” I do not like to be unkind but I think that may explain why United Future did not—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the issue of relevance. I cannot for the life of me see how the colour of the shirt of a former member who was in here what 10 years ago or his attire has anything to do with electronic transactions. I know that the speaker in the chair is desperate to sort of waylay this as long as he can but there are limits. I do not think that a debate about a dress code even though Mr Ryall has broken the mould and is in the Chamber is in any way relevant to this bill.Tim Macindoe: Apart from that gratuitous comment at the end in reference to the Minister of Health which had no relevance I want to point out that the member who is objecting on this occasion is the one who has probably spent most of the last half-hour doing his level best to try to distract not only the fine member who is sponsoring the bill but also many other members. As members are trying to gather their thoughts around what is at times a fairly technical matter it is important that they are able to retain their train of thought. The problem is that members such as Mr Cosgrove are doing their level best to distract the member. So I would just point out that I think he really needs to look at himself if he has a problem with where the member is going.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. Remember that and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas. I just ask the member to try to speak to the bill. I know that he is trying very hard and I am listening intensely to what he is saying. It is important that we debate the issues in front of us. I understand where he is coming from.PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you Mr Chair. I would not like to regard myself as simply a trier; I thought I was achieving the ability of talking about this bill. What I was trying to get across to the Committee was the whole purpose of this bill which I have had the good fortune to see drawn in the ballot and also the good fortune to have the support on from all members in the House for the last reading stage. I do not think too many members can claim to have unanimous support for a bill that they have brought into the House only 2 years into a parliamentary career.Hon Todd McClay: Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi did with his Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill.PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you for pointing that out. The point I was trying to make was that this bill seeks to amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. Going back to the original debate it is worth reminding us that people were predicting—and I can quote Richard Prebble saying in 2002: “When we draft legislation as loosely as this I think we are being reckless and irresponsible.” So really the point I am making is that this bill amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 because it was flawed and it did not give that level of detail and clarity in this area around the acceptance of contract formation of electronic transactions. That is why I have brought this piece of legislation to the House for its consideration in the hope that we will provide that clarity upon which the smooth regulation of commerce in this country depends. That is why I wanted to make that point. Thank you.