HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 May 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:43): I rise to speak on the Electronic Transactions (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. The opposition supports the bill. In May 2010, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to implement the provisions of the 2005 United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. The government advises that there is no variation between the UN convention, the model law and the South Australian bill.

The bill makes a number of changes. First of all, it clarifies the definition of 'transaction'; it provides that a signature may indicate a party's intention, not necessarily their approval; provides that proposals to enter into contracts electronically will be treated as an invitation to make offers rather than a contract offer; it deals with the capacity to correct errors made during the creation of a contract by automotive messages; and it defines the place of business and the relevant time receipt determinants, such as the time the dispatch leaves the originator's information system and the time the addressee receives the electronic dispatch.

The provisions within the bill apply to both business and individual consumer transactions. Again, this is a bill which the opposition considers shows poor process in consultation by the government. The bill was tabled in the House of Assembly on Wednesday 9 March 2011, and the Law Society was notified about the legislation on the day after, 10 March 2011. The Attorney-General's office advised the council that it was contacting other stakeholders for feedback on Wednesday 16 March, the week after.

On the same day, the Attorney-General's office briefed the opposition and advised that the government would not be progressing the bill in the House of Assembly during the next sitting week as the government was commencing the majority of their consultation only that day. Later that day, the Attorney-General's office said that it would be progressing the bill during the next sitting week, in spite of the fact that there had been lack of consultation.

Apart from the Law Society, legal stakeholders had been contacted by the opposition for consultation before the government had notified them of its intentions. The opposition also contacted the industry stakeholders, such as the Australian Information Industry Association. Indicative of the problems caused by this botched consultation were comments in a letter penned by the Law Society President, Ralph Bonig, who stated:

Due to the short time available to consider the bill, we have not been able to obtain responses from some of the Society's committees who would have had an interest in this legislation, such as the Society's Commerce, Corporate and Tax Committee and its Civil Litigation Committee.

Once again, we have been delivered a bill by the Attorney-General which we believe fails to attain adequate standards of consultation. Stakeholders who were contacted for their input were given insufficient time to properly analyse the legislation.

In a letter to my office from the Australian Information Industry Association, penned by the policy and government relations general manager, the association expressed concern and advised caution. For example, Ms Johnson drew attention to section 6 of the legislation, the section dealing with exemptions. She cautioned that if too wide a class of transactions is exempted businesses may well perceive the act as being compromised. Confidence in the act will consequently be diminished and that lack of confidence will lead to 'a decrease in the use of efficiency-enhancing technologies across the business sector'. This is an important point and an example of the value of consultation.

There does not seem to be any reason why consultation has not been applied to this legislation: for example, there was no indication of urgency. In the past, South Australia was proud that we led the nation in many areas. Under this government we are increasingly becoming a tail-end Charlie. This is a case where one of the few distinctives that would suggest urgency is the fact that we are a tail-end Charlie in this area. The opposition, nonetheless, believes that this bill warrants support, and we support it. We just hope that the government can give better attention to consultation in the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT