ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2011.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:57): Members will be pleased to know that I have just a brief contribution to make on this bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Hear, hear!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I was expecting that. It is not the most exciting bill for members who have gone through it in some detail like I have, but it is, nonetheless, a significantly important bill with the area it deals with, so I rise to put on the record Family First's position briefly. The bill works to improve on the 1996 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law recommendations that are currently incorporated in the Electronic Transactions Act. The 1996 agreement works towards facilitating international trade by ensuring that contracts and other communications exchanged electronically were as valid and enforceable as if they were done in the traditional paper-based manner.

As members have been advised, in 2005, the United Nations reached agreement on a convention on the use of electronic communication in international contracts to improve the 1996 regime. This convention was based on the older provisions but amended in several minor ways. In May last year, SCAG agreed that all states and territories would amend their electronic transaction laws to update those laws to match the 2005 agreement. I cannot pretend to be an expert in international trade law, and that is despite the fact that I have an economics degree, but I have had the opportunity to peruse some United Nations documents regarding the need to update the 1996-based provisions.

One information paper released by the United Nations advises that certain requirements contained in some international trade law treaties, such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards (the New York convention, as it is called) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods place obstacles to the wide use of electronic communications in international trade. Those are conventions to which Australia is a signatory. Without getting into all the details, I indicate that, basically, the 2005 United Nations proposals' primary aim is to address those particular obstacles in the way of acceptance of electronic agreements and transactions.

The three fundamental principles of electronic commerce legislation, according to the United Nations' documentation on this issue, are non-discrimination (that is, where paper or electronic agreements hold a precedence over one or the other), technological neutrality and functional equivalents. Family First accepts that those principles seem valid and necessary in facilitating international electronic commerce.

There are various exclusions, of course. Contracts concluded for personal, family or household purposes are exempt. Also exempt are agreements relating to family law issues and the law of succession, certain financial types of transactions, negotiable instruments and documents of title. I note the Attorney-General has made it clear in the other place that contracts for the sale of land, very importantly, will not come under the ambit of this bill.

It is important that South Australia continues to be regarded as a safe place to do business. The Attorney-General has made the argument that there are many benefits in having contemporary international commercial rules operating in our country so that our trading partners are confident and familiar with the rules operating within Australia. Family First is therefore in general agreement with the government regarding this proposal. However, obviously we will listen to the debate before reaching a final conclusion. I note that the opposition has not spoken to this bill yet.

In particular, we trust that all relevant stakeholders have had the opportunity to make comment, and we will need to be sure of that fact before expressing our final view. However, as I say, we are in general agreement with the purposes of this bill. As I said, it is not terribly exciting, but it is very important.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.