Go Phil, It may just be your last hoorah

IT is too early to know for sure, but it is beginning to look as if Philip Ruddock might have done it again.

If the states have finally decided to take a statesmanlike approach to electronic conveyancing, it might well be due to the veiled threat of some bullying from the commonwealth.

Ruddock never threatened to take over e-conveyancing if the states were unable to agree on a real national system. He didn't have to.

Merely mentioning e-conveyancing in the same breath as defamation reform - implemented under threat of a commonwealth takeover - was enough to get his message across.

The states, particularly NSW and Victoria, have been working hard to reach agreement. So it might be selling them short to give Ruddock all the credit.

But on their performance to date, the states need to be judged by their actions on e-conveyancing - not their words.

Before Ruddock entered this debate it had been characterised by parochialism and a refusal to give the private-sector users of conveyancing what they wanted.

State ministers and their top bureaucrats now appear to be focused on a national approach.

The apparent change is reflected in a draft statement that has been endorsed by Victoria, NSW and South Australia. The key change is that heads of government departments - the most senior state bureaucrats - will now be taking a direct interest in e-conveyancing and will be regularly talking to each other.

But there is a big unknown. Lawyers, conveyancers and bankers are not part of this high-powered group. Their involvement is through the organisation known as National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS), which also has representatives of the state governments.

NECS is the organisation that is responsible for building the national e-conveyancing system. If the new committee of department heads works with NECS, the initiative might ensure that petty squabbles by junior bureaucrats - or even outside contractors - are stamped on before they cause problems.

But if the new committee attempts to sideline NECS it will mean that the state governments are, in reality, sidelining business. At the first sign of such a course, solicitors and non-lawyer conveyancers - as well as the banks - would be justified in making a fuss.

The only direct private-sector involvement in the establishment of a national e-conveyancing system is through NECS. Without the NECS process, there is a risk that e-conveyancing could become the plaything of public servants, who, with the greatest respect, have no idea about what business wants or needs.

The private sector, and not state governments, is the main player in e-conveyancing, and the draft statement from the states shows positive signs of recognising that fact.

The most positive aspect of that draft statement is that it uses the word "seamless" twice to describe the nature of the national e-conveyancing system that should be built.

The most negative aspect of the statement is the single use of the phrase "nationally consistent" to describe the same system.

"Consistent" is another way of describing a federation of state-based systems - not a single, seamless system.

It could be a mere glitch, but it means the private users of conveyancing still need to keep a very close eye on the states.

The next step is real action by the states towards developing a true, seamless system - as demanded by all of the private users of conveyancing.

PREJUDICE: Chris Merritt | November 16, 2007
The Australian