Conveyancers (Registration) Amendment Bill

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 12 October 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I indicate that the Democrats will seek an amendment to the bill as well as further clarification from the minister on a particular issue. To begin with, we do not have any objection to the first four clauses: that is, we accept the arguments for amending the definition of `legal practitioner', as I indicated earlier in respect of the land agents bill, and distinguishing between those convicted of summary offences and indictable offences of dishonesty.

We also accept the principle that the restrictions on competition contained in sections 7(3), 10, 11 and 12 of the existing act need to be removed in the interests of consumers. As I understand the current situation, only registered conveyancers are able to own conveyance firms. We accept the arguments put forward by the Minister for Consumer Affairs that those sections `serve to inhibit the development of multi-disciplinary partnerships in this industry, which may offer economies of scale and flexibility of service provision for South Australian consumers.' The Attorney knows exactly whom I am quoting.

Under the proposed amendments, anyone would be able to own a conveyancing company provided that the firm is managed by a registered conveyancer. We find this proposition acceptable. However, in so doing we note the objection that has been raised by the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. In a letter dated 14 September, the institute's Mr Robert Sidford raised the suggestion that these changes may lead to conflicts of interest which occurred (as he says) when land agents were previously allowed to employ conveyancers.

Mr Sidford believes that if lawyers form conveyancing companies, as they will be entitled to do under this bill, and the conveyancing companies act for both parties to a transaction, a conflict of interest would arise. The same argument applies to financial institutions owning conveyancing companies. He attaches to his correspondence a copy of the judgment in Sharkey v. Combined Property Settlement Agency Pty Ltd, which is a case about the type of conflict of interest just mentioned.

It is possible at present, as I understand it, for a conveyancer to act for both parties to a transaction. Therefore, it seems to me that a conflict of interest could potentially be an issue for a conveyancer or a conveyancing company, regardless of who owns the company. I invite the minister in his reply to outline what consumer protections exist in respect of a conflict of interest for conveyancers acting for both parties. Is it the Attorney's understanding that they can act for both parties?

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Attorney is reflecting that this may not be the case. If that is so, his reply will be informative on this matter. I also ask the minister whether he shares the concerns of the Institute of Conveyancers about whether this problem will be exacerbated by having conveyancing firms owned by the likes of lawyers or financial institutions.

It remains for me to outline the amendment which I propose to move to this bill and its companion bill, the Land Agents Registration (Amendment) Bill. With these two bills as well as the Hairdressers Bill, recent regulations under the Plumbers and Gasfitters Act, and possibly other acts as well, a consistent approach has been adopted by the government towards accredited qualifications.

There is a formula in each bill or act which states that qualifications for the respective trade must be those specified in the regulations. However, subject to the regulations, the commissioner may recognise someone as qualified even though that person does not have the qualifications specified in the regulations.

I signal that the Democrats will be moving in relation to each of the acts and bills I have mentioned (and whatever others are relevant) to remove this discretionary power of the commissioner. It is not that we do not trust the commissioner: we merely believe that it is preferable that there be objective standards for qualifications placed in regulations so that everyone can be aware of the qualifications which are necessary and which can be subject to disallowance by the parliament itself, if necessary. We do not believe that the important issue of qualifications for each and every trade should be a topic for which there is no opportunity for the parliament to express an opinion. I support the second reading of the bill.