Macindoe Tim: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):I would actually like to pick up where my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain has just left off because I think he has touched on some quite relevant issues. I am a late starter in this particular debate on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill and so I apologise to the fine member who is sponsoring the bill Paul Goldsmith that I was unable to hear everything that he told the Committee earlier on in the evening.Nevertheless this particular clause clause 3 is amending the Electronic Transactions Act. I was very interested that the honourable member Chris Tremain had a copy of the Act there. That Act was passed only 12 years ago and I daresay that there could be members of the public listening to this debate who would wonder why it would be necessary to move an amendment to something of that nature in a relatively short space of time. In fact I am intrigued as I look around the Chamber that with the exception of the Minister of Health in the back area where the Green members are now there is not a single member on this side of the Chamber this evening who was actually a member of Parliament at that time. I do think that if we are going to make a decision of this magnitude in amending the principal Act we do need to be able to hear from the member as thoroughly as we can what the reasons are for his feeling that this particular principal Act needs to be amended.The member told us also and this really concerned me that the principal Act in 2002 was passed under urgency. I know that there are many members on this side of the Chamber who have been accused over the last few years—sometimes quite unfairly—of such grandiose things as an abuse of process or a breach of parliamentary procedure or whatever whenever the suggestion is that a matter should be passed under urgency. Of course there have been some significant things. Budgets are frequently passed under urgency. We passed the Auckland governance legislation under urgency and a number of other things have happened. Usually Oppositions howl and scream whenever that happens and yet here we are learning that the previous Labour-led Government passed that particular Act under urgency back in 2002.I therefore ask the member sponsoring the bill if he could please when he next takes a call give us a little bit of the history of the issue or maybe there will be a member of the Labour Opposition—I see Mr Cosgrove has been here since 1842. He might be able to tell us why the member Paul Swain saw the need—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’m younger than you you prat.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!TIM MACINDOE: I think that was a particularly unparliamentary expression from Mr Cosgrove.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What—“prat”?TIM MACINDOE: That is not the expression that he used and he well knows it. But anyway I will turn the other cheek and we will carry on. The point is that I would appreciate him taking a call to tell us why the previous Labour-led Government felt it was necessary to pass that principal Act under urgency. What were the reasons for that? An Electronic Transactions Act certainly does not obviously lend itself to that sort of treatment. As I say we have had to listen to many lectures in our time in Government as to why urgency is not an appropriate way of acting. I would also like to know what the actual vote was at the time that that happened. If it was passed under urgency—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Look at the Hansard.TIM MACINDOE: Well I have not had a chance to look at the Hansard because I have only just become aware of the fact. That is why I am saying to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove: take a call and fill us in as to why you and your colleagues at that time felt it was necessary to move this particular Act under urgency. Tell us what the vote was. I would be interested to know how the House divided. Of the parties that were here at that time which parties supported the measure which were opposed to it and what were their reasons for it? But more important what was the actual purpose of the principal Act? We do need to know that if we are going to be able to make a considered decision about amending it. This is not a trivial point.As the Hon Chris Tremain noted just a few minutes ago technology is evolving rapidly. It is actually quite frightening at times just how quickly technological change is taking over. Quite often you get to my age and you think: where is a teenager when you need one in order to understand the latest technological gadget. I have to admit that I had that experience just a few days ago. Every year it seems that there is a new gadget on the market. We are being expected to become more and more proficient with gadgets that are being used quite often now for electronic transactions. It is important not only that we know how to use them but that we can ensure the security of those transactions when we are using all this technology.Mr Chairperson you and I are both old enough to still have cheque books and I bet you still have one. I certainly have a cheque book. I have to admit that at times I feel a bit of a dinosaur when I use it. In fact when I look at it it tends nowadays to be mainly used for charitable donations. I certainly do not pay accounts with cheques any more. I do most of those things online. But I am sure that we have all had the odd occasion of being a little bit fearful about how that is going. In fact as an electorate MP more than once I have had constituents who have been concerned about the security of those transactions. I do ask the member in charge of the bill as we focus on clause 3 this particular clause in which the sole purpose is to amend the principal Act whether he could give us that history please as to why it is necessary to do this. What was it about the original Act that he now considers to be flawed and what is it about what he is proposing to do now that will enhance the security?I also make the point that the Government has set a very ambitious target under the Better Public Services target which is a cornerstone of our administration of ensuring that a substantial number of transactions that used to take some time and involved a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of waiting and quite often a lot of expense are now available online. We are talking about the sorts of things such as applying for a passport or maybe obtaining a visa to go to another country. We all I am sure welcome anything that reduces costs and improves the efficiency and the speed with which things can be done but it is of course absolutely vital that we can be assured of the security of these matters. We want to ensure that there can be no danger of theft of identity misappropriation of funds or misuse of the particular technology which could lead to danger.We need only think about the fact that if somebody was dishonest enough they could maybe look down from the gallery and see a member on this side or on the other side of the Chamber putting a pin number into a smartphone or something. That is something that could easily happen and does often happen as members use their iPads and their iPhones in this Chamber frequently. It is possible sometimes for members of the public to look over from the gallery. If they were sufficiently savvy to be able to pick up the pin number of a member and then to get hold of that appliance then they have got the ability with that contraption to get into the member’s account to do all manner of evil. That is a very real possibility so we need to know from the member in charge of the bill whether that sort of eventuality was contemplated by the member at the time that this bill was originally being pushed through in 2002. Is clause 3 by which the principal Act is going to be amended a way in which those sorts of concerns can be alleviated?These are not insignificant questions because with the rapid evolution of technology it is likely that we will become even more dependent on these technological gadgets in years to come. Electronic transactions will probably become the entire way in which transactions are conducted in the future and we need to be absolutely sure that the legislation the member is putting forward in this Chamber tonight will be sufficient as we move forward into that era. I do ask the member in charge of the bill whether he could address himself to that as well and perhaps alert us to whether there are any matters in the bill as he is putting it forward that would cover future eventualities. I believe that this is a significant issue. I realise there has been some levity in some of the contributions and that is good. On a members’ day it is always nice to feel that there is a degree of jocularity in the Chamber and that members can enjoy a little bit of banter. Nevertheless this is a significant matter.I am a little bit envious because this particular member has achieved something in half the time that I have been in the House that I have not been able to do and that is to get a bill drawn out of the ballot and to be able to have the honour of pushing it through. I congratulate him on that and I do look forward to his answers to the questions that I have put forward. I believe that they are significant and we need to get them on to the record. I look forward to hearing his next contribution. I know that my good friend the Hon Todd McClay has one or two other questions that he wants the member to consider as well so I hope that the member in charge of the bill will be able to deal with both of them in his next contribution.