HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2013.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (18:02): I confirm that I will be the sole speaker for the opposition and that we do not oppose this bill. We recognise the great history South Australia has with the Torrens title system (from 1858, I believe, the Real Property Act), but this is about some movement forward in technology to allow different methods to be used. The bill was introduced on 5 June by the Attorney, and it is designed to make provision for a national law relating to electronic conveyancing.

The establishment of national electronic conveyancing is an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments to provide a single national electronic conveyancing system for use throughout Australia. In February 2009, the commonwealth, state and territory governments entered into a national partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy. Development of the National Electronic Conveyancing System as a single national system was included in the agreement as one of 27 initiatives.

As part of the intergovernmental agreement, the Australian states and territories established the Australian Registrars' National Electronic Conveyancing Council to ensure a consistent national approach in the regulation of national electronic conveyancing. The Chair of that council is the Registrar-General of the Land Titles Office in South Australia, and he was appointed for a two-year period. In March 2012, the council released the national Consultation Regulation Impact Statement for the Electronic Conveyancing National Law seeking feedback from industry.

I am aware that individual state project teams have worked on legislation relevant to their jurisdictions. In relation to the South Australian legislation, minor amendments were made to the national model, and the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (South Australia) Bill 2013 is significantly similar to the national model.

South Australia's national project team is led by the director of business operations from the Land Services Business Reform Program. It is proposed that legal practitioners, conveyancers, banks and mortgage processors will access the national electronic conveyancing system, either through system-to-system web services or via the internet, bringing land titles administration into the 21st century.

The key benefits are designed to include business and consumer convenience; business and industry efficiency gains ultimately passed on to consumers—and that is a very important area; a single interface for national businesses; common functionality for users of all jurisdictions; increase the accuracy of transactional data lodged with land registries; easier cross-border transactions; and moneys from property sales available as cleared funds for immediate re-use.

It is estimated that the system will generate national gross savings of up to $250 million per annum, and reduce the cost of preparing and settling each transaction by around $230 once fully implemented. The system will become operational when all states and territories have passed the legislation. I am advised that New South Wales passed it earlier this year, it was also passed in Victoria earlier this year, and Queensland's legislation has been passed. In Western Australia, the introduction was delayed due to a state election there and has not been passed yet. It was recently introduced in Tasmania, and the Northern Territory has passed it. I appreciate Mr Brad Green from the minister's office in providing me with an update on that around a month ago.

The federal government's National Electronic Conveyancing System website confirms that, when the system is fully operational, the system will be self-funding from the subscriber fees charged; however, in its early stages, the initiative will need a capital injection of funds. I note that a draft funding model is being developed with various proposals for the initial capital investment. The model will be based on the assumptions regarding market size, take-up rates of jurisdictions and industry users, transaction volumes and service delivery costs.

I am interested to see if there is any clarification from the minister's point of view about what level of contribution is required. I can confirm that Mr Greg Troughton from the Real Estate Institute of South Australia has conveyed to me that he and his associates are in full agreement with the bill. Interestingly, I had emailed the Australian Institute of Conveyancers (South Australian Division) looking for a comment from them, and they have not replied, which I am rather intrigued by.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, the minister notes that they must be happy with it, so I can also get on that. One group I do know that has some concerns, though, is the Law Society.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. They did forward through a submission which was received by members of 30 August. I have emailed Mr John White, President, just to see clarification on whether there are any areas they wish to be pursued, but there was a letter received, dated 20 August, addressed to the Hon. John Rau and received by members on 30 August which had some 14 points in which it really did express some concerns about this.

I had given consideration to reading into the Hansard, but the minister seems to acknowledge that he has received the letter and has been dealing with trying to resolve this. I will be interested to see from Mr White if there are any particular issues that they consider require some amendments. It has not been posed to me, but there may be a possibility in the time between the chambers before it is discussed in the Legislative Council that some proposals are put to us. If they come to me, I will contact the minister and his staff immediately to allow them to understand what is proposed on that.

I just wish to confirm that the opposition does not oppose the bill. From everything that I have read about it, I believe that it is actually a forward step. I know that the Law Society, for example, would like some qualification on how the $250 million might have been calculated and if an actuarial report actually exists on that, but it seems to me that the technology exists and we have to move with the times; this is an example of it, and I look forward to the swift passage of the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:08): I would like to thank the honourable member for his contribution. First of all, on the question of costs, I will seek to obtain an answer to that question and get it to the honourable member between this place and the other place. I say on the record that it has always been easy to provide information to the honourable member and to brief him on matters. For my part, my staff and the departmental officers will extend their full cooperation on any question that the honourable member may have.

As to the Law Society, it has gone through a phase recently where they like to be a little bit like a theatre critic or somebody who reviews movies for a living, and they find little peccadilloes here and there. They are entitled to do that. Sometimes what they bring up is really very significant and sometimes it is a matter of policy, and that is not necessarily their exclusive province, and sometimes it is a very fine point of drafting which may or may not have any substance.

I do not believe there is anything in the Law Society's letter that we found compelling, but I make the point that between the houses if the honourable member wishes to discuss any particular aspect raised by the Law Society or indeed anybody else, my staff and I—to the extent that I can be of help—will be of help.

I do make a couple of quick points though. First of all, I believe Mr White either has retired or is about to retire, so you will be dealing with Mr Bailes. Mr Bailes may or may not have exactly the same view as Mr White, but that is a matter that can be taken up with the Law Society. I make the point that this is a national scheme and, whilst I have never stood in this place and said, 'Hip, hip, hooray; it's a national scheme and therefore we must do it—'

Ms Chapman: You signed up for plenty.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sometimes when people higher up the pyramid at some point in time have made a commitment, one has to honour it. Anyway, that is another matter. The only point I make—I have not been signing up to a lot, I hope you noticed.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In fact, on that particular point I can say that to the extent that it has been of any significance I have made it clear that we do not want to be signing up for a whole bunch of things and we are happy to have cooperative arrangements with other states of the commonwealth but we are not interested particularly in being subsumed by commonwealth—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; I am not picking on him either. He was in the situation where he, like me, was working in a particular environment where he had to do what he had to do. I just want to say that because it is a national scheme it may be that the critique that is being offered by the Law Society is offered in ignorance of the fact that this scheme is a national scheme, and for us to tinker with our bit may render it relatively useless, depending on what tinkering occurs. That is a consideration.

I do think it is significant that the REI and in particular Mr Trout have expressed support for this because, let's face it, they are working with it all the time. It is also significant I think that the conveyancers were so underwhelmed by the threat of this thing that they did not even have to respond to the honourable member's request for comment. I think that should give the honourable member the capacity to sleep comfortably at night, not worrying about this particular matter. I thank him for his remarks, and I gather the bill will now move speedily through.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is apparently very good. I am reliably informed that this is excellent stuff. I move:

Amendment No 1 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 7, after line 10—Insert:

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may make provision in relation to the operating requirements and the participation rules, including—

(a) provisions of a savings or transitional nature; and

(b) definitions, interpretive and other provisions to apply in South Australia.

It provides that without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may make provision in relation to the operating requirements and participation rules under the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (South Australia) including provisions such as a savings or transitional nature consequent on the registrar determining any such requirements and rules and definitions interpretive and other provisions to so apply in South Australia in relation to such requirements and rules. I understand that to mean we get regulations to deal with transitional bumps.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just confirm then, without the benefit of detailed review, that the minister's explanation sounds quite reasonable at this stage, and we will accept it, subject to consideration between the chambers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am entirely happy with that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT