Bills

Real Property (Priority Notices and Other Measures) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At clause 1, if I can beg the indulgence of the council, I wish to respond to a couple of issues that the Hon. John Darley raised in his second reading speech. Yesterday the Hon. John Darley asked several questions of the Registrar-General in relation to verification of identity, the liability of practitioners, and duplicate certificates of title. I have consulted with the Registrar-General and wish to put the following responses on the Hansard.

First, in relation to forward claims over the last 20 years I am advised that the total number of claims in South Australia is 13; however, as I have previously mentioned, there have been quite a number of fraud claims interstate in recent years particularly of international fraud. The payouts for successful claims in the last 20 years range from $4,000 to $217,000. The total amount paid out for the assurance fund in relation to fraud claims is $662,000. The majority of claims involved related parties; however, four out of the last five claims made in South Australia have not been related parties—the parties were business partners or friends. The Registrar-General believes that the face-to-face verification of identity process would have eliminated at least some of the family fraud. The balance of the fund is approximately $7.3 million.

Secondly, in relation to the liability of practitioners, I am advised that the responsibility to identify clients has always rested with the practitioner and that these provisions simply codify that responsibility. Currently, a practitioner could be held liable where there is fraud as a result of their failure to take reasonable steps to identify their client. By taking reasonable steps to identify their client either by following the standard procedures for identifying clients or by taking some other reasonable steps, practitioners reduce the opportunity for fraud and, consequently, reduce or eliminate their own liability. The assurance fund is available, as it always has been, to meet claims in appropriate circumstances.

In relation to duplicate certificates of title, I am advised that the current bill does not deal with the abolition of duplicate certificates of title. Nationally, financial institutions have lobbied for duplicate titles to be abolished, and locally there will be extensive consultation on the proposal to abolish duplicate certificates of title with the final position to be included in the next bill. I wish to thank the Hon. John Darley for his questions and trust that that satisfies the concerns he raised during his second reading speech.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I thought I might take this opportunity at clause 1 to set out the Liberal Party position as we will be withdrawing the amendments that we have filed. The bill allows for the introduction of electronic conveyancing and the Liberal Party, as I articulated in my second reading speech, has a number of reservations with aspects of the bill and, as a consequence, filed two amendments.

Of principal concern to the Liberal opposition was that any dealing with land should be notified to the registered proprietor and, in this instance, we saw an amendment which would require the Registrar-General to notify the registered proprietor of any priority notice. I have had an opportunity to meet with the Attorney-General and the Registrar-General and, as a result of the undertaking given by the Attorney-General—which was set out in Hansard by the Hon. Kyam Maher—we will withdraw the amendment in relation to notification of the registered proprietor in relation to priority notices.

I note for the benefit of Hansard that the Attorney-General will work with the Registrar-General on implementing a policy of notification in the coming tranches of legislation, as further legislation will be required to effect electronic conveyancing. The Liberal opposition is mindful that, as conveyancing becomes increasingly electronic, there will also be greater opportunities to notify parties with a variety of interests in relation to real property.

The second amendment which we proposed was to provide that the Registrar-General had a discretion to exempt certain parties from the verification of identity requirements. The Liberal Party, because of its country constituency, is acutely aware of the challenges to South Australians living in remote locations. It was our intention to make provision for certain individuals, potentially, on very rare occasions where they found it virtually impossible to have their identity verified in the usual course of business.

I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter at length with the Registrar-General. He has assured me that there are a number of options for South Australians in remote locations. These include private businesses such as ID Secure and Australia Post. Australia Post has outlets in Woomera, Roxby Downs and Andamooka, and ID Secure also has some capacity to travel to an individual's location. A citizen seeking to convey property also has access to conveyancers or lawyers they have previously used. For verification in foreign countries, I note that commonwealth officers are available to facilitate the verification of identity.

The Liberal opposition is also mindful that the verification of identity policy for dealings in the current paper environment is designed to harmonise with the national model participation rules for electronic conveyancing and, therefore, we have made the decision to allow the bill to pass unamended.

I note that the Law Society Property Committee has written to the Registrar-General regarding a number of technical amendments. The letter, dated 20 March 2015, was copied to both the Attorney-General and me. I note the commitment of the Registrar-General to hold further discussions with the Law Society and make the appropriate amendments where applicable in the subsequent legislation that will be required.

The Liberal opposition shares many of the concerns expressed by the Hon. John Darley. We think the honourable member has touched upon some key considerations that also should be considered in the next tranche of legislation on this matter.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 18) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.