HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (REAL PROPERTY) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have a few questions of a general nature in the context of another display of government arrogance in the way it approached consultation in respect of this bill. Members would recall from the second reading discussion that the government claimed that the industry had been consulted on this bill, yet when opposition members undertook their duty to consult with the industry we found that it was extremely concerned about a new provision that had been sprung on it and it sought time to consult within its respective organisations, but in spite of that the government proceeded to introduce the legislation in the House of Assembly. In that context I refer to comments by both the Attorney-General in another place and by the Leader of the Government in this place and ask questions of the minister in relation to the scheme. One of the main reasons for the government inserting the multiple certification provisions was to facilitate the national electronic conveyancing system. Who is developing the national electronic conveyancing system?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: All states and territories together have combined through the state governments to develop a national electronic conveyancing system, which should be ready by 2010 and which is supported by both industry and governments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In minister Holloway's concluding remarks at the second reading stage he said:

It is recognised and accepted by industry that these amendments will be required when a national electronic conveyancing system is introduced.

Is the government informing members that the Australian Institute of Conveyancers and the Law Society have both indicated that, whilst they oppose these amendments vigorously, they accept that they will be required when the national electronic conveyancing system is introduced?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, both organisations have indicated that they accept this.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The committee may forgive the opposition if we take the opportunity to consult the industry, as the government has given us assurances in the past about an industry's view that has turned ought to be incorrect. Also, the Attorney-General in another place made comments which I regard—and the Hon. Rob Lawson agreed—as derogatory remarks to the shadow attorney-general, suggesting that the proposal would increase the risk of fraud and could lead to a significant strain on the Land Titles Assurance Fund. Given that the government is now not proceeding with clause 68, or amendments to section 275, is it anticipating a rush of fraudulent claims?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer to the honourable member's question is: no, because we have never had this type of provision before, and South Australia has the lowest percentage of claims against the Land Titles Assurance Fund.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I take it, then, that the committee should note not only that the government has falsely asserted that consultation occurred but also that the Attorney-General took the opportunity to falsely assert an increased risk in fraud.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This clause would have further decreased the possibility of successful action against the fund. Its absence will, in fact, not result in an increase, I have been advised. Both organisations have accepted (there is no dispute about this at all) that this clause will have to come in when national electronic conveyancing is introduced across Australia in 2010.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the organisations are going to accept multiple certification, as it currently appears, what was minister Holloway referring to in his concluding remarks during the second reading stage when he said:

At this stage the government is prepared to remove clause 68 from the bill to allow the issues raised by the industry to be worked through before the introduction of the amendments to allow for the introduction of electronic conveyancing in South Australia which is expected to be introduced in 2010?

What is the point of the government's so-called working through the amendments if they are not negotiable, as the minister just said?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer to the honourable member's question is: because there will be many other changes to the way in which we do conveyancing, and this will give the Law Society and conveyancers time to get used to doing things quite differently, which of course will result in improved efficiencies.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 67 passed.

Clause 68.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 22, lines 6 to 27—Delete clause 68

This amendment deletes clause 68 of the bill which amends section 273 of the Real Property Act to require certification of an instrument of a prescribed class by each party to the instrument, or by a solicitor or registered conveyancer acting on behalf of each party. Although the government believes that the proposed amendment to section 273 will help eliminate the risk of fraud, the conveyancing industry has expressed concerns regarding the amendment.

It is recognised and accepted by industry that these amendments will be required when the national electronic conveyancing system is introduced. The government is prepared at this stage to remove clause 68 from the bill to allow the issues raised by the industry to be worked through before the introduction of the amendments to allow for the introduction of electronic conveyancing in South Australia, expected to be introduced in 2010.

Amendment carried.

Remaining clauses (69 to 87) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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