Statutes Amendment Bill

We are up to Part 34. This is the debate on clauses 143 to 147; amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1989. The question is that Part 34 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to really thank the Minister for that previous response. The Minister is absolutely right; the commencement date is the day after the Royal assent, so everything does line up, which is a huge reassurance. Thank you, Minister.

I’ve got two questions for Part 34. The first one is to do with clause 147 subclause (1). It’s actually very helpful that we’re now allowing for an electronic address of the person in cases when they are not there. But I guess while that closes one loophole, I’m still curious to know what happens if we don’t have any of those when we’re issuing an infringement notice: neither electronic nor physical means. Are there any other mechanisms that it could be using?

My second question is for subclause (2), “Replace section 128B(3)”, and I’m specifically looking at subclause (3)(b). I’m specifically looking at this clause, and I wanted to ask the Minister to help interpret it, which is, what does “first enters an information system that is outside the control of the Secretary or the authorised person.”, mean? Does it mean the moment that the secretary or the authorised person presses send and that is no longer in their control? Or the moment that the person who is being served receives that in their inbox, so to speak?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry to the member, I just missed the beginning of the second part of that question, but I can answer the first part and invite the member to try again for the second.

The first part is making an amendment to include that an infringement may be sent to a person’s electronic address. The member said, “Well, what if they don’t have an electronic address?” Well, there are other means, which is by sending it by mail. There could get to a point if they do not collect it that they end up having bailiffs serving upon them, so there are always other ways. This is modernising the Act; recognising that there are faster, more efficient ways to serve people.

I’m sorry, I missed the member’s second question.

No, you’re all good, Minister. My second question: in section 128B(3)(b) there’s a line that says, “is to be treated as having been served at the time the electronic communication first enters an information system that is outside the control of the Secretary”. I want to check what is the “moment”? Is it the moment when, for example, the secretary or the authorised person presses send, or the moment when the person served receives it in their inbox?

Thank you, and thanks for your patience in repeating the question a second time. I am going to make a presumption that it is when the person presses send. My reasoning for that is because you will not be able to know when an email has been received, so my thoughts are it would have to be on the send.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think my first question has probably been answered, because it’s when it enters the information system, but we all know of cases where mailboxes are full and it never quite gets delivered. But I suppose you’re saying that the sending is what is important, and if somebody’s mailbox is full, then perhaps you would say that that is their problem, not the sender’s problem.

If you could hold your thought on that for a moment, I have a different question, which is on clause 147(3)(a), and it’s about when it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post. With the relatively recent changes to the post, rural delivery is received five days a week, but you’re terribly deprived—for once—in towns and cities, with it arriving only three times. So I just wonder whether there is an unintended consequence, where there is a difference between people who are living rurally and people who are living in towns.

Thank you to the member for that question, and they’re really good points that have been made. I think it would maybe even require a member’s bill to be thought of, because the issue that is raised is probably more than a minor and small technical issue that needs to be raised. I think that the effect of the postal service would have implications over many Acts as well, so I understand the reasoning for that member’s question.

I’m just going to go back to the first comment that the member made about the sending, and what if a mailbox is full. As a person who has had a full mailbox just recently, I have been contacted by people to say, “I’m getting replies that your mailbox is full.”, and I think that there is the ability for that notification to go back to the sender. What happens then, I’m not sure; I’m looking at the smaller amendments that allow the person to send it electronically in the first place.

Part 34 agreed to.

I’ve just been corrected. Part 33 was actually removed at the select committee, so there are now only eight parts left.

Part 35 Amendments to Real Estate Agents Act 2008