ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2011.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:26): I thank members for their second reading contributions, and I thank the Hon. Mr Wade for his contribution to the debate on this bill.

There are a number of matters that I need to qualify. First, in terms of a statement that the Hon. Mr Wade made, he said:

The government advises that there is no variation between the UN convention, the model law and the South Australian bill.

My advice is that that is not quite accurate and may have arisen from a slight misunderstanding in the briefing process. The bill faithfully follows the national model bill prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel's Committee and agreed upon by the Attorney-General.

The national model, in turn, adapts the UN convention for the purpose of domestic law, but the national model is not word for word the same as the convention, which is an international document. However, it is true to say that the changes made in this bill derive directly from the convention and that all states and territories are expected to make the same amendments to their electric transactions acts as we are making to ours. Indeed, New South Wales and Tasmania have already done so and the Western Australian parliament is currently considering the bill.

The second issue I want to clarify is that the Hon. Mr Wade stated that there was a lack of consultation. I am advised that in fact a consultation paper was published in November 2008 by the federal Attorney-General setting out the proposal for amendment of both commonwealth and state laws and inviting public comment. The consultation paper was announced by media release at the time and has remained available on the website of the federal Attorney-General's Department ever since.

Comment was received from, among others, the Law Council of Australia, informed by its E-Commerce Committee. I understand that the Law Society of South Australia is a constituent body of the Law Council of Australia and it is therefore surprising that the society, as quoted by the honourable member, complains of a lack of consultation. But, so be it.

The Law Council's submission expressed general support for the proposals but identified some issues, which were duly considered in the preparation of the model bill. The model bill has been publicly available on the SCAG website since last year.

The Australian Information Industry Association, mentioned by the Hon. Mr Wade, also commented on the 2008 consultation paper and thus cannot have been taken by surprise by this bill. To the extent that its concern relates to the possibility of exemptions, I would point out that section 12 of the present act already includes a power to make exemptions by regulation, and that has been there since the act was passed in 2000.

As I have said, I thank honourable members for their contributions and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to respond to the minister's comments in summing up briefly, because the issues do not require detailed exposition. In relation to the minister's point on clarification, I appreciate the more technical expression of the situation, but the fact of the matter is that nothing the minister has said accords with my understanding. I was briefed on the understanding that this is consistent in substance with everything from the UN Convention down, and nothing the minister has said has indicated that that was not the case.

In relation to consultation, I just think the minister takes an opportunity to yet again show the lack of commitment this government has to consultation. What the government is saying to us in relation to this bill is that some years ago—at least three years ago—the federal government had a consultation on this issue and that that should somehow absolve this government of the responsibility of consulting with normal stakeholders on bills.

I can recall a bill that was put into the parliament last year that the Attorney-General's office assured us was routine and simple. Since then, we have had a raft of amendments; in fact, it has been referred to a parliamentary committee for further investigation. I would suggest to the government that this opposition will not assume that because the government regards things as routine and because some other government has talked about it at some other time in some other place that absolves it from the responsibility of consulting.

Consulting on routine matters can be as simple as referring a bill to the associations. I do not make a judgement in my consultations as to whether or not a matter is worthy of consideration by stakeholders. I am amazed at how apparently simple bills can raise all sorts of issues. Considering the mess that the government has got itself into in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill—in other words, the police prosecutions issue—the fact that it was not able to foresee a whole range of factors that have been brought forward to us by legal stakeholders shows that the opposition approach of consulting key stakeholders on all bills is a good one.

I would certainly encourage the government to try to overcome its arrogance and start consulting directly. To suggest that because the Law Society is a member of the Law Council of Australia and because the federal government some years ago consulted on an issue hardly means that it is not worthy of referral to our stakeholders. They can say that they have no comment to make. They certainly often do on bills that we send to them, but at least we show them the courtesy of an opportunity.

In relation to concerns that the Law Society raised regarding the treatment of property matters in the regulations, the opposition is relying on commitments given by the government in the House of Assembly that those matters will be dealt with by the regulations. We will look forward to those regulations to ensure that those commitments are kept.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 12) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.