Ms JANN McFARLANE (11:48 AM) —It is a pleasure to rise today to speak generally in support of the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . It amazes me, at times such as this, when I reflect on the technological advancements that I have witnessed so far in my lifetime. I can but wonder what the future holds! I very much enjoy the benefits of the `e' phenomenon. Email is a fantastic tool which I would encourage all my colleagues from all sides of the House to explore. But be warned, once you start using it, you will get hooked.

The Internet is a resource that is beyond comprehension. I notice in news reports that there is growing concern about people becoming addicted to spending time surfing the Net. I am not surprised. Its interactivity, visual interest and sheer scope of activities are attractive to anyone. For many it is not just a plaything but a business tool, and it is the more serious business side of the electronic industry that we are discussing today.

I must say that I had some concerns about this bill before I saw it. The government's recent Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 was such a fiasco that it left many of us with the view that this government did not understand the positive potential of the online industry, or support it in its aims and objectives. As the Internet censorship bill was being processed through to the parliament, the government did not hear, or refused to hear, the voices of families and individuals who said, `Let us take responsibility as end users for filters and what comes down the line into our computers.'

A recent Australian Broadcasting Authority attitudinal survey showed that some analysts are concerned that this ill thought out, politically motivated legislation will cost the industry approximately $150 million in compliance costs. Telecommunication analyst, Paul Budde, commented that not only did this legislation place enormous compliance costs on the industry, it also, even with complete compliance, would be less than 10 per cent effective. This bill will impact adversely on the emergent Australian e-commerce and Internet industries which are strong employers of young Australians. This will mean opportunities lost for industry and Australia.

It was therefore a pleasant surprise to discover that the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 is, as promised by the Prime Minister in December 1997, a `light handed regulatory framework' that does appear to be workable. The bill seeks to facilitate electronic commerce in Australia. It enshrines the principle that electronic communications can satisfy the requirements of Commonwealth law in relation to writing, signatures, and the production of original documents and records.

This bill intends to promote business and community confidence in the use of electronic transactions and enable business and the community to use electronic communications in their dealings with government. This is a giant leap forward. As a society, our psychological orientation is very focused on the superiority of the concrete, in this sense the written word, the original signature. Up until now the law has confirmed that hierarchy. We must now alter our thinking. For some, this is a great challenge—how to feel secure without putting pen to paper and signing the cheque or other such document. But like everything, we will get used to it.

Perhaps now is a good time, however, to enter a small plea to remember those who may be left behind in this new and somewhat frightening e-driven world. It is fine for us to talk blithely about e-commerce and e-trade, but this government also has a responsibility to ensure that older members of our community, and those who are not technologically literate, are not locked out of access to employment opportunities or fundamental services. It is a good thing to facilitate electronic transactions, but we should not allow the commitment to providing services the good old-fashioned over-the-counter way to disappear for those who choose to continue to operate in that way.

Of concern to many people is an escalating trend to cut costs by reducing staff and increasing reliance on technology. Phone queuing, voice mails and automated systems are examples of that. Automatic teller machines and reduced counter staff at banks are another. Yes, we must move on, but let us not forget the universal social and moral obligation to continue to provide services to those who, for whatever reason, cannot grasp technology with both hands. The government must also ensure that its economic goals and policies have outcomes with net positive social effects, rather than the current negative impacts people are experiencing.

Australians have always embraced new technological developments. This is especially true in the field of e-commerce. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 650,000 Australians used the Internet to purchase goods for private use in the 12 months to May 1999, up from 409,000 Australians in the 12 months to May 1998. These figures highlight the need for protective legislation for both business and the consumer.

As I have already indicated, in general, Labor supports this bill. I am pleased also to be able to support the process that led to its development. So often this government has failed to consult with the community and small businesses, or it has held token consultations and then ignored the stakeholder's view in pursuit of its own agenda. But I note that most of this bill reflects the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Electronic Commerce Expert Group which was formed in 1997.

There are, however, a number of weaknesses in this proposed legislation. Firstly, the bill only applies to transactions under Commonwealth law. This is contrary to the recommendations of the expert group. I know the Attorney-General is of the view that to attempt to apply the bill to states law could be unconstitutional. I can only hope that he has researched this matter carefully and taken advice from all quarters on this because what we have left is a proposed Commonwealth law, with the possibility of the states and territories bringing in their own contrary laws, thus leading to chaos.

We have been assured that the government has obtained an in-principle agreement from states and territories that they will legislate in line with this bill. Based on the history of agreements between the states, territories and this federal government, I say, `Don't hold your breath.' I would therefore urge the House to support our amendments that seek to firm up the commitment of the states by way of a referral of powers or at least a national uniform scheme.

My colleagues on this side of the House have spoken eloquently and at length about this matter and the need to legislate to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, I want to turn my attention to another issue which is of great concern to me. This bill represents, I believe, a lost opportunity to reform Australia's hodgepodge of consumer protection laws. As I understand it, the legislation will, by default, apply the consumer protection laws of a given jurisdiction in each case. This just exacerbates the problems businesses and constituents in my electorate, and across Australia, are already dealing with.

If one of my constituents in Stirling purchases a product or a service via the Internet from a business registered in New South Wales, they are then subject to the consumer protection laws in that state. So businesses and consumers are placed in a situation where the only way to be sure about their rights and obligations in relation to trade is to understand each and every jurisdiction they deal with.

We are familiar with this problem. It comes up all the time—for instance, defamation laws, state industrial relations legislation and the list goes on. I worked for a community legal centre for the past 6½ years and many of the issues we helped people with were sorting out interstate transactions, purchases or matters of employment. It is a difficulty, particularly when departments and community services in each state have different names.

I am disappointed that, when a prime opportunity arose for this government to nationalise consumer protection laws, they did not seize it. I suspect that, in the future, as we hear of cases where people have been caught out because of this jurisdictional demarcation, we will regret this opportunity lost. Not all people have the money to employ a lawyer in their own state and in another state to sort out a problem because there are no national consumer protection laws.

As I and other speakers from this side of the House have pointed out, this bill is somewhat flawed. We have put forward amendments to address the most problematic of these flaws. But I think we all agree that, despite its flaws, the Electronic Transactions Bill is a positive move in the right direction and it will allow for the continued development of electronic commerce in Australia.