STATUTES AMENDMENT (REAL PROPERTY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 February 2007. Page 2019.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:58): I indicate that I am the lead speaker—

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: —and may I dare to suggest that I might be the only speaker on behalf of the opposition. I note the member for Mitchell's excitement at the prospect of speaking on the real property amendment bill. And I must say that, in fact, I actually do have some level of excitement about this, because, as members probably have gleaned from various comments that I have made in this place, I was never a criminal practitioner, and most of the work I do as the shadow attorney-general concerns the criminal law. I have, however, extensive experience in real property and conveyancing. So I could speak at some length on this—but I think that it might just bore everybody to sleep, and I promise not to do that. But I do note that we have moved an amendment, and I will discuss that in a minute. We therefore will need to resolve into committee at some stage.

However, I do not intend to do a lengthy dissertation on all of the 80-plus amendments that are encompassed by this legislation. They are mostly technical amendments and they deal with a number of acts, in particular the Real Property Act 1886, a very venerable act in this state—since 1886 we have been dealing with our real property, and, of course, we were world leaders in the way we set up our system of Torrens title, as we know it. Other jurisdictions know it by different names but, nevertheless, it commenced in this jurisdiction.

Also from 1886, there is the Bills of Sale Act, and then, moving into the next century, there is the Stock Mortgages and Wool Liens Act 1924, the Strata Titles Act 1988, and the Community Titles Act 1996. The Bills of Sale Act in particular, and the Stock Mortgages and Wool Liens Act 1924 contain provisions for the registration of third party interests on to people's titles to real property.

As I have already indicated, some 80-plus amendments to those various acts are contained in this bill, largely to the Real Property Act. My understanding from both the briefing that we were afforded and the second reading speeches is that those amendments have been in train for some considerable time. Luckily we have not been in too much of a hurry. Originally, it started before this government came to power. I think the original discussions commenced under the previous Liberal government and then a draft consultation bill was released in July 2003, a year and a bit into the Rann Labor government.

I guess everyone would accept that it has not been with any urgency and, from a personal note, I was very happy that things progressed somewhat slowly in relation to entering into an electronic system of land transfer because I am not fond of computers, which is an understatement, and I was very glad to be able to go to the settlement room to do my settlements by hand and meet the people on the other side. I think there was a certain comradeship in there. When they moved the Registrar-General's office to its current location in Grenfell Street, the settlement room was a little too small for the number of settlements that took place every Friday. In fact, so congested did it become that they imposed a penalty at one point for having settlements on a Friday to try to move some of the settlements to a different day of the week so that it was not so crowded in the settlement room, particularly between about 11am and 12pm on a Friday.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why between 11am and 12pm on a Friday? Please explain.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney seeks an explanation as to why the settlements would occur between 11am and 12pm on a Friday and, basically, it was to do the fact that people like to settle on a Friday because they had made their moving arrangements to settle into their new place over the weekend and they chose between 11am and 12pm because the banks generally were not going to be able to draw their cheques and so on in readiness until about 10 o'clock and then it was over to the settlement room. So, there were logistical reasons for that.

In fact, I had one client who was obviously a person of some influence because he consulted an astrologer about when settlements should take place and that one had to take place at 1 o'clock in the afternoon and, indeed, he was able to persuade his bank to have the settlement at 1 o'clock. But generally, there was a huge influx of people between 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock into that settlement room, and it was such an inadequate room that one day the then registrar-general was invited into the settlement room and cornered in the back corner, unable to get out, because people just kept pushing into the room to make sure that he got the message that the settlement room was not big enough. Indeed, it was anticipated at the time of that settlement room being allocated that, within a very few years—and I would be talking about 10 years ago now—there would be a move to have electronic settlements and, therefore, there would be no reason for us to have the need of a large settlement room.

As I said, there was great comradeship and it was generally pretty good, although it could be quite an interesting experience doing conveyancing. You would go along to attend to the purchase of a property, for instance, for a client and you would have to go and find the person who was acting for the vendor of that property. In turn, the vendor would have to find the bank that had the mortgage on the property and I would have to find the bank that was getting the mortgage on the purchaser's new title to the property. Then the documents would have to be passed along one way, then the cheques would go back the other way and everything had to be checked along the way to make sure that all the documents were signed and certified properly and so on.

They were quite interesting transactions at times because sometimes people would not just be selling their own property but they would be buying another one. We would have settlements where, if one document was wrong at one end of the chain, everything fell over in a heap. So, it was actually quite precise work but very enjoyable for the most part. I have enjoyed a long association with conveyancing both here and in New South Wales, and I would have to say that South Australia was streets ahead of New South Wales as it was then practised when I left many years ago.

Dealing with the terms of the bill, basically all the amendments it contains are aimed at improving the administration and efficiency of South Australia's land management system. As I said, I do not intend to go through and detail the 80-plus amendments. I just want to highlight nine or 10 which, in my mind, as an experienced conveyancer, are the most relevant and easy to understand. Firstly, the definition of 'allotment' is expanded. There are two different contexts in which the word 'allotment' is used in different acts and, basically, the definition of 'allotment' is expanded to cover both the different contexts in which the word is used. The term 'licensed land broker' is replaced by 'registered conveyancer'. I note that South Australia led the way. When I started practice, in most other jurisdictions you had to be a solicitor to be allowed to undertake conveyancing but South Australia recognised land brokers long before the other jurisdictions. I knew someone here who was a fully qualified land broker who dashed over to Sydney to set up the first land-broking firm over there when they allowed land brokers into their system.

Provision is made to allow documents to be registered in the order in which they were clearly intended. Particularly when we are not dealing with electronic transfers but actually handing documents over a counter, it is important that there be sufficient flexibility to put the documents in to the correct order. For instance, in the transaction I was just talking about, which is quite a straightforward transaction and probably the most common one, you would want to make sure that the discharge of the vendor's mortgage preceded the transfer to the purchaser and that was followed by the mortgage to the new bank.

Common sense dictates that that is the way it should be, but sometimes documents could get into the wrong order, particularly if you had a series of documents that were interconnected with a series of settlements all taking place one dependent upon the other; it is only sensible to allow those documents to be registered in the order in which they were clearly intended. That amendment assumes a certain sensibility and level of knowledge among the Lands Titles Office staff. In my dealings with them over many years, they were exemplary in their performance and ability not only to do their jobs properly but also to bend over backwards to help practitioners in order to make sure that the job got done efficiently, as intended, so I welcome that change.

The next amendment I want to mention is the one permitting a registrar-general to issue a new certificate of title when amendments or corrections need to be made rather than making alterations to the document. I guess I welcome this now. In days gone by, I had some hesitation about this, because we had some rather beautiful certificates of title that people unexpectedly lost when they put in a transfer, or something like that, and out came these new computer-generated A4 certificates of title which, if you did not know better, did not at all look like a certificate of title—that wonderful, important document.

Members may have seen the old-style forms, which were rather large and done in beautiful copperplate writing. Often the originals had handwritten endorsements and then later stamped-on endorsements with details of the alteration of status as to owner, or whatever. A lot of them had beautiful hand-drawn diagrams of the plan of the property, and so on. They were lovely documents. Happily, when it was decided to move those to a computer-generated, green-toned piece of A4 paper, there was provision for payment of an additional fee to retrieve the old document with 'cancelled' stamped across it.

While that went some way to resolving the problem, the difficulty was that people who were not in the know lost the document, and it was gone before they had a chance to actually keep it. In retrospect, that could have been handled a lot better because, almost inevitably, people did want to keep those old documents. As I said, for some years we have had these computer-generated certificates of title, so to be able to issue a new one via the computer with the relevant information corrected rather than making an alteration to the document does make sense.

The amendments also expand the list of short-form easements, and I will not go into the details of what that means, but for practitioners—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: If you want me to, Attorney. It will make things a lot easier for practitioners, and also for registering the vesting of an estate or interest by operation of law without the need for an application. Perhaps I can ask the Attorney-General whether that would apply, for instance, in the circumstance of a joint tenancy—husband and wife—and one dies. At the moment, there is—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Do you know the answer? Is this a quiz?

Mrs REDMOND: An application has been required up until now, and that was simply an application to register the death, because, obviously, as the Attorney would be well aware, in a joint tenancy, the death of a joint tenant—if there are only two—would leave the surviving tenant as the sole proprietor by operation of law. My question, quite seriously, to the Attorney is: will this section actually operate? I would presume that in that particular case you would still have to notify of the death in some way and therefore an application of some sort would need to be lodged; but perhaps the Attorney can expand on it when he responds to this.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: After all the other speakers.

Mrs REDMOND: After all the other speakers. Reducing the appurtenance of an easement, which, again, the Attorney no doubt wants me to expand upon—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I can perhaps best explain that by reference to my own situation where I own a block of land with a right of way attached to it—a laneway that runs along the side of the block of land. That right of way provides access to certain properties at the back of my property. In fact, if they did not have that right of way, those properties would be landlocked.

As I understand the explanation we were given at the briefing—and I thank the Attorney for making available the Registrar-General's officers, and others, for that briefing—its effect is that if, for instance, the three properties which have right of way across my laneway to access their property were to have a realignment of their boundaries and reduced to two properties, that would reduce the obligation on me, as the owner of the servient tenement, and the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Servient. The servient tenement. The obligations on me would thereby be lessened because I would only be providing access to two properties instead of three. The effect of this amendment is that there is no need to actually notify me about that, but it does not affect the situation in reverse. If someone was actually subdividing their property and creating even more allotments next door, so that the imposition on me as the owner of the servient tenement would be increased, the need to notify me about that would still be imposed.

There is also a recognition for computer-generated receipts, and that again is just a part of the modernisation process which is gradually occurring. There is provision for the lodgement of a memorandum of standard terms and conditions for encumbrances, bills of sale, stock mortgage or wool liens. It allows for these documents to be dealt with in the same way as mortgages and leases.

I think most people would probably be aware these days that, if they go to the bank and get a mortgage over their house, they will get a relatively small amount of documentation with their name and details about their property printed on it. Attached to it will be quite a small booklet, usually, that says 'standard terms and conditions'. The way that comes about is the relevant bank files with the Registrar-General's Office—and gets a registration number—its standard terms and conditions. So, that registered document is then in the Registrar-General's Office and, in your documentation about any specific mortgage, you need only refer to the registration number of that particular document, which then enables us to at least proceed without the need to present the somewhat cumbersome level of documentation that used to be involved when every mortgage had to be separately drawn up in full.

I used to do a lot of commercial leases and I registered my own set of terms and conditions for commercial leases which I could then vary on the actual standard form, but I had to register my own set of terms and conditions because I was not able to use anyone else's. I was doing so many that it was unreasonable to have to print out all the terms and conditions onto every lease that I drew, especially if we were doing multiple copies of leases which clearly we often did.

The last one I want to mention is, in fact, the area about which I have filed an amendment and I have done that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To make sure that we're all still awake.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney accuses me of doing it to make sure we are all still awake but, no, I did it because, after the briefing which we had on 21 February which was quite comprehensive and useful, I wrote to both the Australian Institute of Conveyancers and the Property Committee of the Law Society asking them about the amendments, because we had been told at the briefing, and it was clearly the case, that there had been considerable consultation with those particular parties over a period of time in deciding on exactly what would be covered by this bill.

I was therefore somewhat startled to receive by email a response from the Australian Institute of Conveyancers SA Division. I do not intend to read the entire letter, but it is clear from the letter and from my discussions with Mr Geoffrey Adam, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers SA Division, that there is considerable disquiet in both that institution and the Property Committee of the Law Society about clause 68 of the bill.

Effectively, this is the clause which provides for certification of documents. When documents are to be lodged in the Registrar-General's Office or the Lands Titles Office for registration, it has been necessary (for as long as I have worked in the area) to certify the document as being correct for the purposes of the Real Property Act. I indicated at the briefing—and I have said publicly on many occasions—that in all the years that I did conveyancing in this state (close on 30 years) I never ever used anything like a 100 points system to check the bona fides of the people that I was acting for; I simply certified, as I understood was my obligation, that the document which had been drawn, in fact, complied with the Real Property Act and was suitable and appropriate for registration.

I made no effort to confirm that the person for whom I was acting was indeed the person whom they said they were. So, theoretically, a fraud could have been perpetrated but, as it happens, I don't think there ever was. However, I understand that there is a need to address this potential for fraud. In fact, I think the Institute of Conveyancers and the Property Committee of the Law Society agree with that.

Regarding this particular provision, the letter that I received from the Institute of Conveyancers said that it had had an industry briefing on 17 February and that it was basically satisfied with the changes that were highlighted at that briefing—that was with the new bill in place—but that that briefing also unveiled a new provision (the multiple certification provision) which sought to amend section 273 of the Real Property Act by inserting the requirement for multiple certification of instruments lodged in the Lands Titles Office.

At this point I will just explain about multiple certification. Normally, if you are acting for the purchaser (therefore, you are the person lodging the transfer at the Lands Titles Office) you would certify the transfer as being correct. Clearly, even if I had been in the habit of doing a 100 points check or some other check to satisfy myself that the person I was acting for was really whom they said they were, I would not be able to certify anything in relation to the person who was selling their property.

So there is certainly some common sense in saying, 'Well, if we are going to have certification of that aspect then we do need to have it so that both parties are certified.' That is what the bill seeks to insert, but the problem with what has been put forward is that the panels (as they are constructed) do not make it clear which party is certifying which part of the document. I take it that that is the fundamental objection of the Institute of Conveyancers and the Law Society Property Committee. They are not opposed to the thrust of the legislation.

In committee, I will move to delete the section, but there is no doubt that the intention is that there should be an appropriate certification provision setting out that the certification does need to be by both parties. The way in which it is currently constructed is objected to by both the Institute of Conveyancers and the Law Society Property Committee. I indicated at that briefing that I would need to consult with members of the institute before providing a response on the multiple certification provision, and a similar statement was made on behalf of the Law Society.

Geoffrey Adam, the CEO of the Institute of Conveyancers, goes on to say that the issue of multiple certification of instruments was discussed several years ago by a working party and the institute argued that the existing certificate, which says 'correct for the purposes of the Real Property Act', was unrealistically broad and onerous for the reasons noted in the second reading explanation of the 2008 bill. He goes on to say that the institute supported the concept of a certificate from each party to a transaction on the basis that the act—not the regulations, but the act itself—specifies the extent of responsibility and the consequential liability.

Therein lies the rub. If people are going to certify certain things—clearly, if you are acting for a purchaser, you are unlikely to be able to certify things that relate to the vendor and vice versa—they then felt that those things needed to be quite clear and should be provided for in the act, not the regulations.

He then goes on to explain that they in fact discussed the provision as drawn in the current bill at the February meeting of their council. They again came to the conclusion that they supported the concept of certification by each party to a transaction in relation to that part of the instrument for which that party was responsible, but they felt that the multiple certification provision as drafted was not going to achieve that outcome, and it was unanimously opposed. Furthermore, they concluded that it did not include any new mechanism that was likely to reduce the incidence of fraud.

In my discussions with Geoffrey Adam—I spoke to him when I received the letter—he said that he had spoken to the Attorney-General's Chief of Staff, Peter Louca, from whom he had a letter asking for comment, and he had got back with a response to that indicating the problems that they considered they faced with this particular provision. As I said, there is no doubt that they are all in favour of a suitable provision.

My suggestion is that the best way to deal with it is to delete it at the moment, or at least have an undertaking from the Attorney that it will be considered between the houses with a view to rectifying the apparent problem. Again, there is no dispute that if you are going to have the certification it is appropriate to have dual certification, but we do need to clarify, quite clearly—both the institute and the Law Society believe it should be in the act—just who is certifying what part of the documents.

They believe that it is necessary to have consistency across all states and, indeed, the committee of the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECKS) think it is important to have consistency, although I note that, according to my information, we have certification at present only in South Australia and the Northern Territory.

The essence then is that they do want to agree to the provision. They simply think that the way the provision is worded at the moment exposes them to an increased potential liability. It does not solve any problem and it is in fact not going to be able to be dealt with appropriately, simply because it is not apparent, on the face of the forms, who is certifying what under the panel form being provided and lodged in the Lands Titles Office.

As I understand it, both the Law Society's property section and the Institute of Conveyancers have made well known their views about this section. Given the length of consultation that has occurred and the degree to which they are very happy with everything else, it is not as though they are trying to thwart the intention of updating the measure; they accept the need for the certification and the dual certification, but they do believe that there is a better way to achieve the outcome that everyone has agreed with. In conclusion, I note that we will have to go into committee briefly to deal with my proposed amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:28): I thank the member for Heysen for her careful attention to the bill. I note that she has been able to respond to four government bills this week, which is commendable. The member for Heysen asked about an amendment to section 115A and she asked: does this apply to joint tenants if one dies? The answer is no.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am glad that the member for Heysen is not surprised by the answer. Updating the register will occur only when the change is allowed for by a further act of parliament. Further, regarding the forms, it is quite clear—from the new panel forms already designed—as to precisely who is certifying what part of the form. I am advised that the panel forms for multiple certification have been designed by the Lands Titles Office management, so they make it clear which professional is certifying for which party.

On the question of the Law Society's criticism, we expect that when electronic document lodgement is introduced its use will not be mandated, at least initially. The ability to lodge paper documents will continue. The Registrar-General's view, and one that has received a favourable response from the industry, is that the multiple certifications requirement will apply to both modes of lodgement.

It is thought, therefore, that the early introduction of the requirement is an improvement and will permit the conveyancing industry to become used to the changes that come with the introduction of NECS in a gradual manner, rather than all changes being introduced simultaneously. Although the Law Society states that this step would be inconsistent with all other jurisdictions, the Registrar-General's view is that it puts South Australia ahead of the other jurisdictions as all states head in this direction in readiness for NECS.

The early introduction of the requirement also serves to focus the attention of conveyancers and solicitors as to what their responsibilities are when certifying a document. The additional certification does not impose any more responsibility than that which already applies to a document. What it does is to reflect more accurately the responsibility of the vendor and purchaser or their conveyancer or solicitor. A purchaser's conveyancer or solicitor currently certifies that a memorandum of transfer is correct for the purposes of the act. However, he has no personal knowledge of the vendor's identity or other information about the vendor.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the member for Heysen agrees. That a memorandum of transfer is only certified correct by the purchaser or his conveyancer or solicitor does not mean that the vendor or his conveyancer or solicitor is absolved from all responsibility. The Registrar-General believes that this shift in focus may lead to a reduction in fraudulent land dealings perpetrated by a person forging a registered proprietor's signature on a transfer document. I apologise for dealing with what will be an amendment in committee, but when we get to that point—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It might be shorter; the member for Heysen is correct

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 67 passed.

Clause 68.

Mrs REDMOND: I move:

Page 22, lines 6 to 27—Delete clause 68.

This clause deals with dual certification. As I have already indicated, both the institutes that contain the people who deal with these things on a day-to-day basis have indicated their disquiet about the clause and, in fact, they have said that it should appear in the act, not the regulations. My understanding is that the act at present is not satisfactory, even if the panel form (as alerted by the Attorney-General in his response) will satisfy the issue. I would think they would have seen those panel forms (if they have been drafted) at the time of raising their concern.

They did propose various reasons for their concern; and I will put some of them on the record. They said that the proposed provision ensnared more persons but did not eliminate the existing problems, nor did it include any new mechanism that was likely to reduce the incidence of fraud. Off the top of my head, I think the most likely fraud would be if a purchaser's solicitor currently is certifying a document as correct, and a property is being sold by a husband and wife who are in an acrimonious divorce situation.

If the vendor's solicitor does not satisfy himself that both the husband and wife are genuinely signing the document, then an unscrupulous party could fraudulently put their partner's signature onto a document which is then certified correct by someone who does not even know the situation. There are obvious reasons why we want to go to dual certification, so the person acting for the vendor (if the vendors are husband and wife in an acrimonious divorce) would have to satisfy himself that it was really the case and that it was not a fraudulent signature.

The second point they make is that, not having the extent of the responsibility and the consequential liability enshrined in the Real Property Act, it maintains the need for another amendment when electronic conveyancing is introduced, if only to ensure consistency with legislation in other jurisdictions. I note the Attorney-General has commented already on the introduction of the electronic conveyancing system. I understand that, ultimately, that will take place where we will press a button and the money will transfer, and press another the button and the transaction will take place. That is still some years away. It has been on the horizon for some time and a national committee is looking at it. Only this state and the Northern Territory currently have certification; and I have no problem with our leading the field in terms of that. But they say, notwithstanding the argument that it will get the conveyancing profession used to doing these certifications, there will be a need for another amendment when electronic conveyancing is introduced.

The third reason is that there is a lack of certainty about whether a certificate is required for every person comprising a party; for example, a husband and wife where the two together comprise the transferor. Of course, there is no limit to the number of people who could be joint tenants or tenants in common. Therefore, does there need to be one certificate in relation to each party who comprise the transferor or a single certificate for the transferor comprising two different people, because, of course, in an acrimonious divorce settlement, for instance, there could well be different solicitors acting for the husband and wife.

The fourth point they make is that 'problems arise when obtaining recertification where a requisition was required'. In terms of a requisition, all that means is that you have lodged a document, it has been accepted on the face of it, it goes to be processed and, somewhere in the checking at the Lands Titles Office, an error is made, and it bounces out to you on a requisition and you need to correct that and relodge it back into its sequence in the documents that are perhaps still in the Lands Titles Office. They say:

Problems arise when obtaining recertification where a requisition was required. Lands Titles Office staff at the briefing raised this difficulty which already exists, especially where a person is unhappy with the transaction or seeks a benefit from another party to comply.

So they say that, if you were the vendor and you have already got your money and a requisition bounces out that requires the vendor of a property to sign something, there have been instances, apparently, of unscrupulous vendors perhaps saying, 'I don't want the bother of having to attend to this, I've got my money now, it's up to you, I want some recompense for attending to this.' Some of these problems can be overcome, for example, by giving the Registrar-General a discretion to dispense with recertification in appropriate circumstances but, according to both the Law Society and the Institute of Conveyancers, mechanisms do not exist in the current provision.

So, once again, I indicate that these organisations do support the passage of the current bill. Obviously, It is not going to be delayed by this. Indeed, whilst I expect to lose this amendment, I will not call for a division on it, because I do not think it is of such great import that we need to call everyone into the chamber to deal with it. However, I urge the Attorney and his advisers to think about the position being put by the Property Committee of the Law Society and the Institute of Conveyancers at least whilst this proceeds to the other place, because it seems to me that, if they are the experts in dealing with this, it should be capable of being resolved by negotiation and an appropriate amendment inserted instead of the existing clause 68, which I have moved to delete.

Mr HANNA: I carefully read the submissions I received from the Law Society in relation to proposed changes to the law and, as recently as 25 February, I received a communication from the Law Society about this particular clause. The Law Society seemed to advance quite reasonable concerns over the proposal in the legislation. Unless the Attorney can more clearly establish that those concerns are not justified, I think it is appropriate to oppose the clause.

I do take into account what the Attorney-General said at the conclusion of the second reading debate, but it seems to me that one must give very great weight to practitioners who work in the area and have to deal with the daily practicalities of obtaining multiple signatures to a particular document. So, for the reasons that the member for Heysen has outlined, I oppose the clause in the bill or—it amounts to the same thing—I support the member for Heysen's amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The arguments relied upon by the President of the Law Society in his letter to me have been the subject of Crown Solicitor's Office opinion. The office has advised that Mr Feary's arguments were not capable of being supported at law or in practice. The logic behind the introduction of this requirement for multiple certification is twofold: first, it should reduce the opportunities for fraudulent dealings being executed by parties who are not bona fide, and then the fraudulently executed documents, after lodgement in the Lands Titles Office and subsequent registration, may give rise to a claim against the Lands Titles Assurance Fund.

We would not want to see the member for Heysen doing to that fund what she does to every other fund, whether it be the Agents Indemnity Fund or the Guarantee Fund. Secondly, a requirement for multiple certification will become an absolute necessity with the introduction of the National Electronic Conveyancing System that is expected to occur in 2010 in all Australian states and territories.

Rather than introduce all the changes at once to the professionals who deal with the Lands Titles Office, the current strategy of the Lands Titles Office management is to introduce requirements such as multiple certification ahead of the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) where this is possible. This should enable the professionals to get used to these changes in a staged or gradual approach. So, we are only two years ahead with multiple certification.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (69 to 87) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.