Page 1350 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Communications in International Contracts. Importantly, the bill makes changes that are not intended to disrupt settled principles of contract law. Instead, what the bill does is translate those well-settled principles into the electronic age where increasingly contracts are entered into in a paperless work environment.
It is interesting to note that last week the federal Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, issued a discussion paper on the potential to reform the Australian contract law. The attorney noted that Australia’s first, second and fourth biggest trading partners—China, Japan and the Republic of Korea respectively—have systems of contract law which differ significantly from Australia’s common law system. The contract law of our third biggest trading partner, the United States, has diverged significantly from its English origins as well.
These represent big differences in the fundamental building blocks of not only the legal system of each country but their economies as well. The questions raised by the federal attorney last week in the discussion paper are big questions. At the heart of the discussion paper is the question whether Australia should create efficiencies by simply restating the existing Australian law on contract in modern terms or whether a more radical rewriting is required in order to align ourselves with the law and practice in countries such as China and Japan.
That is a very complex question and one I think is well worth investigating by the commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Given that the issue of uniform contract law was discussed at the time of federation, I think the discussion paper will receive a wide range of submissions, ranging from the reformers through to the traditionalists who prefer the English common law.
In the context of that large and ongoing issue, I think the changes we will make today are important and practical. The principles as set out in the law are there for use of parties that wish them to apply. The principles do not yet have the status of being automatically binding, as not enough countries have adopted them. Nevertheless, for those businesses that do want the benefit of greater ease in entering contracts electronically and without paper, they will be there for their use.
The amendments we will make today are relatively straightforward and clarify existing principles in the electronic context. The explanatory statement sets out the technical detail of each amendment and I will not add to that good level of detail. In conclusion, the Greens support the bill.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development (4.39), in reply: I thank members for their support of this bill. The bill amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2001 to implement the model Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill endorsed by the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, now known as the Standing Council on Law and Justice. The model bill was developed so that Australia may meet its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts which the UN adopted in 2005. To enable Australia to accede to the convention, all jurisdictions have agreed to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video