Following Minister Lindsay Tanner’s announcement at the GAP Congress on Regulatory Affairs on September 26 2008, Open Forum is proud to host “Talk Openly: Better Regulation Forum with The Hon. Lindsay Tanner MP”.
The forum opens on Thursday October 9, 2008. Minister Tanner will be personally responding to submissions from Monday 13 to Friday, 17 October 2008.
We invite you to visit www.openforum.com.au now and submit your questions, comments or suggestions.
Question
Wed, 15/10/2008 - 08:54 — Victor Perton One policy area crying out for regulatory reform is conveyancing. The current paper based process seems remarkably inefficient in this technological age. The four major banks made it quite clear back in 2004 that they would only participate in a national system. In response to this the states and territories embarked on the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) initiative. The National Electronic Conveyancing Office was established in 2005 and has been doing some excellent work in determining the requirements for the national system. At the COAG meeting on 3 July 2008 all jurisdictions agreed to develop a national e-conveyancing system. This should have been the circuit breaker necessary for NECS to progress. However electronic conveyancing was not discussed at the COAG meeting on 2 October. When can we expect to see the national initiative operating? Response Thu, 16/10/2008 - 09:19 — Lindsay Tanner I have had a longstanding personal interest in the role collaborative technologies can play in democratic renewal. Brendan, I think one of the benefits of open source software and Web 2.0 tools is that the government does not need to be the gate-keeper of what can or cannot be discussed. Russell's idea of a small business wiki could be developed just as well, if not better, by a small business group than the government. What I would like to investigate is the terms on which government officials might participate in such forums. For example, if the wiki had incorrect information about eligibility for a government program, government officials could participate in the wiki to provide the correct information. Matthew, thanks for the link to FERC's website. I would be interested in any feedback you or others may have about how active such interactive discussion forums are in practice. I am aware that some similar feedback or suggestion mechanisms on other overseas regulator's websites are not heavily utilised. I have mixed views on the Lange Government. Some of their deregulatory initiatives were necessary, but the overall impact was rather brutal. Some argue they were unavoidable, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand exactly how dire their economic circumstances were. There is also a question about where and when interaction between the bureaucracy and external stakeholders will be most productive. While I agree David about the need for stakeholder views to be considered in the COAG regulatory reform process, it could quickly become unwieldy for COAG Working Group meetings to also include a large number of non-government representatives. Use on online consultation tools may be part of the solution here as well as targeted consultation on specific issues. On e-conveyancing, we formed a sub-group of the BRCWG that, in the course of developing recommendations for COAG, consulted directly with stakeholders. Along with Victor, I am also keen to see a national electronic conveyancing scheme developed. The current paper-based system is inefficient and unnecessarily adds several hundred dollars to the cost of buying a house. COAG agreed in July 2008 to create a new national e-conveyancing entity. Work is now underway with the states to finalise how this new entity will be set up. Once up and running, it's first task will be to investigate whether the existing Victorian software is a suitable basis for a national system. The results of this analysis will dictate how quickly a national system can be rolled out. Regards Lindsay TannerNational Electronic Conveyancing System
Harnessing technology
1 comment:
E-conveyancing offers so much, it is deceptively alluring.
Politicians and others who are naive in conveyancing matters rush into to e-conveyancing as an attractive quick fix - not understanding the complexity of conveyancing and underestimating the risks involved.
If you think conveyancing is just filing out a few forms, e-conveyancing looks easy.
Conveyancing is not just filing out a few forms. Implementing e-conveyancing will not be easy.
Politicians may see a pot of money they can get between to establish a great revenue base
The Victorian experience, of $40,000,000 for so far a single transfer, proves there will no be quick fix.
The existing system also has many risk but we work around them. Any new system will still have risks .There is no silver bullet solution.
Any new system has to at least satisfy the "first do no harm" principle.
The grander the scheme, the less likely it is to be implemented and supported. While the grand scheme is being designed , there should be small incremental positive steps to better use technology to make the conveyancing process more efficient,for instance e-lodgements, better web searching, web based cooperation tools , agreed data exchange protocols and definitions, shared calendars and data base access, Priority notices,
If the conveyancing industry moves forward on matters such as these, implementation of the new grand design will be easier and more certain.
Post a Comment