Graham Kennedy: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to confirm that the Green Party will support this member’s bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill but only through a spasm of exasperation with the increasing tendency on the part of Government members such as Mr Goldsmith who are putting this kind of bill in the form of a member’s bill into the ballot. Had it been a personal vote I might be saying entirely different things. I do see from the first reading when it was initiated by Mr Goldsmith back in November that he asked rhetorically: “Why is this bill important?”. He said: “Well on its own this bill is not going to bring about the brighter future to which we all aspire and to which this Government is so committed but”—he added endearingly—“it is a small and useful addition to the latter’s work.” I can only admire the gravitas and insight that buttresses those comments back in November and I think the House is now well informed with that insight and we can proceed very quickly to despatch this bill to the Commerce Committee if not to the void.The essential provision as he has drafted it with his own pen is clause 5 which adds new section 32A. It says: “Contract formation—An offer that can be accepted by electronic communication is deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror.” The difficulty is and I think it has not gone unnoticed that there is no definition of the act of receipt. Somehow this got through the parliamentary drafting process. I invite the author of the bill to return to his office at the end of tonight’s session and send an email to me as a parliamentary colleague on any subject that he wishes and then he can telephone me at 7.45 tomorrow morning and ask me: “Have you received my email?”. I can be sitting there at my office in front of my computer and say to him yes and no. Yes I have received an email from Paul Goldsmith. I see it here in my in-box. No I have not clicked into it. Yes I see the contents of the email in the window panel to the right. No I have not clicked into it. How are we going to resolve this issue? Perhaps when it goes to the select committee and wise minds attend to it—Hon Member: Just open the damn email.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: But there may be no indication that I have or I may choose not to and so I could leave it there for 6 months. He could ring me at 7.45 every morning and we could go through this routine. Let us pray that the select committee led by the author of this bill with his diligence and skill will add perhaps the following: “Section 32B—receipt of the electronic communication specified in section 32A must be signified by return of electronic communication to the offeree. Section 32C—receipt of the electronic communication by the offeree specified in section 32B must be signified by return electronic communication to the offeror.” At some stage—as the division bells ring—that would be the receipt of the email. There is a little bit of work tobe done on this bill and we will go in and treat it very positively in the select committee and in the second reading.