The session, moderated by journalist and Adoni Media founder Leisa Goddard, highlighted the risks of having a monopoly in digital property settlements and the resulting risks for property buyers and sellers.

The webinar brought together over 250 legal professionals, conveyancers, and industry leaders and urged for government intervention – as over $800 billion in Australian property transactions is currently processed through a single private entity: Australia-headquartered digital property exchange platform PEXA.

InfoTrack head of property Lee Bailie warned that without industry-led reform, the market will remain dictated by a monopoly.

“If we do not shape the future of e-settlement, it will be shaped for us. The industry is crying out for choice, but regulatory inaction is allowing an unchallenged monopoly to persist,” he said.

VIEW ALL

The discussion also underscored the pressing need for competition in e-settlements, citing examples of system failures that left Australians stranded on settlement day with nowhere to go. This is something that Baker McKenzie counsel and business manager David Jones reinforced the need for.

“It has taken a while for the firm to adjust to a new [e-conveyancing] system ... and part of the issue that we’re talking about today is we’re well entrenched now in that system,” he said.

“And so, the obvious thing is competition in this space will make these sort of services better.”

Further, Dott & Crossitt Conveyancers and Solicitors founder Jared Zak said that rising costs and a lack of alternatives are harming both professionals and consumers.

“PEXA’s fees rise every year, while conveyancers face increasing downward pressure on pricing. We are forced into a race to the bottom, limiting our ability to invest in talent and innovation,” he said.

ABF Conveyancing licensed conveyancer Ann Blannin-Ferguson echoed these concerns.

“E-conveyancing was meant to streamline our work, and while it has delivered efficiencies, we are now trapped,” she said.

“We have no competition, no recourse when things go wrong, and we’re expected to bear the burden of rising costs while maintaining professional standards.”

Lawyers Weekly reached out to PEXA for commentary on this topic, and a spokesperson said the company welcomed the “Micro-competition opportunities in the Australian economy in relation to e-conveyancing” Senate inquiry into e-conveyancing regulation “as an opportunity to outline all the benefits our world-leading, price regulated, critical infrastructure platform has brought to consumers and the conveyancing sector, and why we received a customer satisfaction rating of over 90 per cent”.

“PEXA has, and continues to welcome competition from the other two electronic lodgment network operators (ELNOs) in the Australian market, and we continue to constructively engage in the ARNECC process of interoperability,” the spokesperson said.

“E-conveyancing is already one of the most regulated parts of the property sales supply chain. Unlike almost all other parts of property buying experience, e-conveyancing pricing is strictly regulated and only moves in line with CPI. PEXA’s applies a small flat uniform fee, which accounts for 0.3 per cent of the average property transaction fees nationwide, ensuring the same fee for all participants so that small operators are not disadvantaged in any way, making PEXA’s fees low, stable and predictable for all participants.”

PEXA also referenced positive submissions to the government as part of the senate inquiry, including those from Bradley & Bray Lawyers director Jacob Corbett and Queen Street Legal Group principal Michael Kenny.

According to Corbett, “competing ELNOS had exactly the same opportunities PEXA had when electronic conveyancing was first mooted all those years ago, yet they failed to take the opportunity”.

“The security of electronic conveyancing in its present well settled and understood form is too important to be exposed to the inevitable added risk of an additional layer of complexity arising from trying to make competing systems interoperable just to accommodate latecomers,” he said in his submission.

Additionally, Kenny noted that “despite being responsible for nearly all electronic settlements in Australia, PEXA has never behaved like a sole operator; it prioritises communications and support with its users, reinvests in its network and continuously rolls out new features and services”.

“While any moves to improve competition should be thoroughly explored by the committee, we would also urge caution about any changes that could ultimately undermine a reliable, well-functioning, highly efficient system that is the backbone of the Australian property sector,” Kenny said.

Following the webinar, 25 firms have signed up to an industry forum to have a voice for the future, after the discussion highlighted the need for a level playing field, ensuring that new e-settlement providers can operate and integrate seamlessly with existing processes, similar to Telstra and Optus in telecommunications.

Sympli CEO Philip Joyce stressed that monopolies in digital services are not natural.

“No economic theory supports monopolies outside of essential infrastructure like railways. A competitive e-settlement market will drive innovation, reduce costs, and create much-needed resilience,” he said.

With the Senate inquiry set to report in September, industry figures are urging legal professionals, property experts, and businesses to make submissions and advocate for reform. Concluding the webinar, LawLab director Richard Bootle urged practitioners to take a stand.

“This monopoly was created by government, and only government can fix it. We need lawyers, conveyancers, and property professionals to speak up and demand action,” he said.