Chapter 2History and current regulatory framework
2.1This chapter will provide a general background on e-conveyancing processes and concepts, as well as the historical development of these processes. It will also outline the regulatory framework that governs e-conveyancing and the structure of the e-conveyancing market.
E-conveyancing
2.2Electronic conveyancing (e-conveyancing) describes the electronic systems and processes used to perform the property conveyancing process (the transferring of title of real estate from one party to another) for real property. This includes:
Lodgement of registry instruments – electronic lodgement of registry instruments and other documents with a land registry, in order to change interests in land (registering a mortgage or transferring property ownership). This is sometimes known as the Registration Process.
Settlement of financial transactions – electronic processes to initiate and complete payment of funds which are part of a conveyancing transaction, such as payment that discharges a mortgage or payment of the purchase price under a contract. This is sometimes known as the Payments Process.
2.3Electronic Lodgement Networks (ELNs) are the digital platforms where e-conveyancing transactions take place. Electronic Lodgement Network Operators (ELNOs) manage ELNs. Relevant parties to a property transaction (conveyancers, lawyers, banks) are subscribers to an ELNO and information regarding the transaction is passed onto other relevant authorities and parties through the ELNO.
2.4E-conveyancing is operational in all states and territories, though the level of service provided and the types of property transactions that can be accomplished through e-conveyancing varies between jurisdictions. E-conveyancing regarding certain property transactions is mandatory in Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland.
2.5E-conveyancing is a significant national reform having delivered substantial benefits to industry and users, particularly with respect to time and cost savings, as well as transaction accuracy. This is partly because previous conveyancing processes involved paper-based processes which often required travel to exchange documents in person. E-conveyancing allows this process to be performed remotely and at different times by the relevant parties.
2.6The Australian Banking Association (ABA) have their support for e-conveyancing in the public hearing of 9 September 2025:
Digital settlements have been a major innovation, reducing delays and delivering real benefits across the properties ecosystem. At its simplest, econveyancing replaces paper files and couriers with secure digital processes that bring together the two major steps in a property transaction—the transfer of funds between a buyer and a seller, and the updating of property ownership and mortgages on state title land registers. What used to take days can now be completed in minutes. This innovation reduces fraud, improves compliance and increases the chances that Australians settle on time and move into their homes when expected. The move from paper to digital delivers hundreds of millions in productivity benefits to the economy each year.
History of e-conveyancing
2.7E-conveyancing in Australia began because of government initiatives. In 2005, the National Electronic Conveyancing Office (NECO), composed of state and territory government representatives, was established to support the development and implementation of national e-conveyancing. Coming out of NECO’s work, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed in 2008 that the purpose of national e-conveyancing was to develop a national platform that could settle real property transactions electronically, prepare and lodge registry instruments electronically with state and territory Land Registries, and meet associated duty and tax obligations electronically.E-conveyancing was then pursued through a formal COAG agreement, the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy.
2.8As PEXA explained in its submission, previous state-based attempts to establish e-conveyancing had failed, largely because multi-jurisdictional users of e-conveyancing services were unwilling to shift towards digital processes unless there was a consistent national platform.
2.9Emerging from the COAG agreement, National E-Conveyancing Development Limited (NECDL) was formed with several states as the initial shareholders. NECDL was tasked with designing and implementing a national e-conveyancing platform. NECDL became a company limited by shares in 2011, with the four major banks also becoming shareholders, though the state and territory governments retained their majority shareholding. It was also renamed Property Exchange Australia Limited (PEXA).
2.10Also in 2011, a formal intergovernmental agreement was developed (Intergovernmental Agreement for an Electronic Conveyancing National Law) which established the Australian Registrars’ National Electronic Conveyancing Council (ARNECC), a body formally tasked with developing the national regulatory framework for e-conveyancing.
2.11From 2013, e-conveyancing transactions, conducted through the PEXA platform, were rolled out across New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and were later followed by transactions in Western Australia and South Australia in 2015 and 2016 respectively. In 2016, Victoria and Western Australia began mandating the use of e-conveyancing when conducting certain property transactions, beginning the process of some jurisdictions phasing out the use of paper conveyancing.
2.12Later, in 2019, state and territory governments sold off their interests in PEXA, effectively fully privatising the company. Shares were acquired by Link Group, Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Inc and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which is now the majority shareholder in PEXA. The company was publicly listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) in 2021 and, at 17 September 2025, has a market capitalisation of approximately $2.93 billion.
Interoperability
2.13Interoperability describes the process whereby relevant transaction data can be exchanged between ELNOs. This enables different participants in the e-conveyancing process to use different ELNOs, rather than all parties being required to use the same ELNO to complete a transaction, as is currently required. Interoperability would allow different ELNs to exchange information and ‘talk’ to each other.
2.14According to the Australian Banking Association (ABA), interoperability was initially championed by the NSW government in 2018. At the request of the NSW Premier, the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal conducted a review into e-conveyancing pricing in NSW in 2019. The review found that the e-conveyancing market is highly concentrated, but that pricing at the time was ‘reasonable’. However, the review recommended that interoperability be implemented as soon as possible, identifying it as key piece of technology that has significant potential to improve competition in Australia’s e-conveyancing market.
2.15Other reviews supportive of adopting interoperability within e-conveyancing followed, including an ACCC report on e-conveyancing market reform and a review of the Intergovernmental Agreement for an Electronic Conveyancing National Law commissioned by ARNECC. The ACCC’s report on e-conveyancing market reform concluded that interoperability appeared to be a ‘practicable means to realising competition in the market’ and emphasised that delays to an interoperability program would likely ‘prevent the development of competition in e-conveyancing’.
2.16While not as focussed on the role of interoperability in the e-conveyancing market, the Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement for an Electronic National Conveyancing Law, conduced by Dench McClean Carlson Corporate Advisory, still found that interoperability is ‘promoted because it reduces the impost on subscribers to learn more than one system’. However, this report did note that interoperability ‘must be designed to ensure no increased risk to citizens’.
2.17Following several ministerial roundtables in 2020, ARNECC was tasked with developing a proposal to implement a national interoperability regime. In March 2021, the Australian Government, state and territory ministers, ELNOs and stakeholder peak bodies published a joint statement that was supportive of an interoperability reform process and implementing interoperability legislative changes by mid-2021.
2.18Changes to the Electronic Conveyancing National Law requiring interoperability were not passed until June 2022. The first interoperable transaction took place in September 2023 in what is known as a ‘Day 1 Transaction’, involving PEXA, Sympli, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the National Australia Bank.
2.19In early 2024, ARNECC developed an updated set of Model Operating Requirements outlining that interoperability was expected to be mostly functional by the end of 2025. However, after concerns were raised with the scoping of ARNECC’s interoperability program by state and territory ministers and the banking industry, ARNECC effectively paused the interoperability program and stood down the responsible team in September 2024.
2.20Currently, ARNECC is undertaking three reviews to inform the future of the interoperability program. The Functional Requirements Review began in May 2025, with consultants appointed and stakeholder workshops having been conducted. The Cost Benefit Analysis into interoperability commenced in July 2025, and an expert consultant has been appointed to conduct the analysis. ARNECC expects these two reviews to conclude in October 2025. ARNECC has also announced that it is undertaking a review of the e-conveyancing regulatory framework, which is expected to be completed in late 2026.
2.21More information about the process of interoperability is contained in chapter three of this report.
Current regulatory framework
2.22The chief body responsible for implementing and managing the regulatory environment for e-conveyancing is ARNECC, a national representative body composed of the Land Titles Registrars from every state and territory.
2.23According to its submission, ARNECC acts as a steward to the Electronic National Conveyancing Law (ECNL); develops Model Operating Requirements (MOR) and Model Participation Rules for ELNOs and subscribers; provides advice to state and territory governments regarding e-conveyancing; and attempts to ensure that e-conveyancing practices are consistent across jurisdictions when implemented by Registrars.
2.24The ECNL is the primary legislative mechanism that governs the provisioning and operation of e-conveyancing in Australia. As ARNECC’s submission explains, the ECNL is implemented through separate legislation in each state and territory, as there is no unifying federal law governing e-conveyancing, but rather eight state and territory laws that are ‘substantially identical’.
2.25Accompanying the ECNL, ARNECC produces Model MORs governing the behaviour and practices of ELNOs. ARNECC’s MOR do not have any formal legal effect—as each state has control over ELNO regulation in its jurisdiction—but they are used to inform the operating requirements developed in each jurisdiction, making each state’s operating requirements ‘substantially the same as the MOR’.
2.26ARNECC does not have formal legal, regulatory, compliance or enforcement powers regarding e-conveyancing, and instead acts as an intergovernmental forum that promotes certain courses of action and behaviours regarding e-conveyancing. In its submission, ARNECC states it ‘is not a regulator’.
2.27The NSW Productivity and Equality Commission has observed, however, that ARNECC has taken on a ‘de facto regulatory status’ and considers regulatory and compliance matters to promote consistency. It accepts though, that decisions and actions regarding e-conveyancing must be implemented by individual registrars.
2.28It is also worth noting that ARNECC, while taking on regulatory-like responsibilities related to e-conveyancing, does not have regulatory responsibility for various elements of an e-conveyancing transaction. This has led to confusion over which organisation is best placed to regulate and effectively manage the e-conveyancing market. As a paper produced for ARNECC in 2019 states:
Our understanding is that the RBA is the relevant regulator for the financial settlement process, ASIC for payment systems and consumer protection in the payment systems environment, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for market regulation. It remains unclear which regulator, if any, is responsible for oversight of Delivery versus Payment in the property settlement process.
Current e-conveyancing industry / market
2.29Currently, the e-conveyancing market is dominated by PEXA. PEXA is an ELNO, facilitating electronic lodgement and settlement of property transactions by connecting groups such as financial institutions, legal and conveyancing firms, land titles offices and state revenue offices. According to its most recent annual report, PEXA’s platform supports over 90 per cent of Australian property settlements. Rival e-conveyancing firm, Sympli, claims in its submission to the committee that PEXA ‘has captured and maintained approximately 99 per cent of the Australian e-conveyancing market’.
2.30Many submissions received by the committee indicate that PEXA is the dominant market player in the industry, with several arguing it has a monopoly or near-monopoly in the market. However, other companies are seeking to enter the market as competitors to PEXA and provide ELNO services. Sympli is an ELNO that launched in 2018 and currently has approval to operate in five jurisdictions, though its market share relative to PEXA is low. It is 50 per cent owned by the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and 50 per cent owned by legal technology firm Infotrack. Another operator, Lextech, had been assessed as meeting some of ARNECC’s operating requirements and was seemingly looking to enter the market; however, the committee received evidence at a public hearing that Lextech withdrew from the market in 2025.
2.31The committee received several submissions suggesting that the existence of challengers to PEXA indicates that the e-conveyancing market can be enlivened by competition. For example, an e-conveyancing market study completed by the NSW Productivity and Equality Commission concluded that the e-conveyancing market is not a natural monopoly, but that it is not currently effectively competitive. The study found that the e-conveyancing market is highly concentrated and that PEXA is earning very high profits, with revenues that exceed the economic cost of production. Other evidence heard by the committee suggested that this could be considered an instance of ‘market failure’.
2.32The committee also heard evidence, most notably from Sympli, PEXA’s chief competitor, that the current market structure generates several issues. Firstly, it argued that PEXA’s market dominance represents a ‘massive single point of failure risk in property settlements’, noting that there are approximately four million transactions each year representing $1 trillion in settlements. Secondly, Sympli argued that the lack of competition in the market denies ‘genuine choice to small businesses and blocks millions of dollars of benefit to consumers every year’. At the public hearing, Sympli’s CEO, Mr Philip Joyce, indicated that if Sympli’s prices were applied to every transaction across the market, ‘the market would save approximately $23 million’. Finally, Sympli argued that the current market settings are a consequence of ‘regulatory and policy failures which have allowed PEXA… to block much-needed competition’.
2.33In evidence provided to the committee at a public hearing, PEXA implicitly challenged such claims by arguing that the regulatory environment governing e-conveyancing is sufficiently robust to mitigate issues that could be associated with a near monopoly, particularly concerning consumers. Regarding the potential abuse of monopoly power to set unreasonable prices, PEXA explained:
PEXA is price regulated. Our fees, which are determined and approved by ARNECC as our regulator, are only permitted to rise by CPI each year, which means that, in real terms, PEXA’s fees have not increased more than inflation in over 10 years.
2.34At the same hearing, PEXA responded to concerns about a single point of failure and whether having a competitor in the market would reduce the change of disruptions to the network:
If there were a parallel network offering full features that the customer—in this case, the lawyer, the conveyancer or the financial institution—were connected to that the transaction was running on, that could provide a different level of resiliency, but that's not how the interoperability regime was designed. Under the interoperability regime that we've been working on for five years, those incidents and those service disruptions that you ask about, would have had exactly the same customer impact, given the way that the networks were fused together.
2.35PEXA added that they are also subject to a variety of other regulatory obligations for the management of their platform. PEXA’s CEO and Group Managing Director, Mr Russell Cohen stated:
…there are service level obligations by which, when the technology needs to be available, there are reports on that availability and reports on incidents around the availability. We also have a series of customer service obligations in New South Wales in relation to answering calls, call-handling time and certain metrics like that. With respect to the settlement of funds that I spoke of earlier—because that flows through national payment rails and the Reserve Bank of Australia infrastructure, we also have certain obligations and a regulatory framework there around payments. PEXA is also classed as national critical infrastructure by the Department of Home Affairs, and we have certain obligations there around the maintenance of our system and also in relation to cyber security.
2.36Despite these lines of argument from PEXA, the committee received several submissions outlining the benefits that greater competition would likely bring to the e-conveyancing market. In its submission, ARNECC argued that benefits of competition could include:
Choice: Competition leading to a variety of offerings. Thus a subscriber can choose the best ELN for them, based on the factors that are important to that consumer.
Price competition: Competition between ELNOs may lead to lower prices.
More features and better usability: Competition is not just about price. An ELNO may have a higher price offering but with more features or superior quality. Alternatively, if pricing is similar, ELNOs may innovate to provide an ELN with better features.
Better customer service: Competition between ELNOs may lead to better customer service.
Resilience: A sole ELNO market creates a single point of failure. A multiplicity of ELNOs creates redundancy issues because if one ELNO goes down, subscribers can switch. In addition, competitive pressure would be more likely to result in a more secure and resilient offering as subscribers would likely select the more secure and resilient system.
2.37In contrast, PEXA’s submission to the inquiry indicated greater competition between ELNOs:
is unlikely to reduce prices significantly;
is likely to stifle innovation because participants highly value standardisation;
risks undermining network effects;
risks increasing the fixed costs in the market as there are costs associated with increasing the functionality of systems and there may be increased costs to regulators;
is likely to undermine uniform pricing across jurisdictions; and
risks undermining universal service provision as it becomes unviable for ELNOs to service certain sections of the community.
2.38The committee also heard evidence that the lack of competition in the e-conveyancing market could be considered a consequence of the way in which PEXA was privatised. When asked about methods to increase competition in the e-conveyancing market, the ACCC offered the observation that ‘the ideal would have been to create a competitive structure—before you privatised PEXA into that structure—that would have had competition, safeguards and interoperability’. Mr Matthew Schroder of the ACCC added, that ‘if you privatise a monopoly—or a near monopoly—without the regulation, it becomes very difficult to unscramble the egg afterwards’.
2.39Mrs Angie Nguyen, representing the Australian Institute of Conveyancers (National), concurred:
When electronic conveyancing first came into being, there was probably no consideration from the legislation that there would be a second ELNO to market. E-conveyancing was established initially as a government body to deliver a national settlement platform, and then it’s evolved into a private enterprise which we now know as PEXA.
2.40It is worth noting that the ACCC has previously investigated the e-conveyancing market. In an answer to a question taken on notice, the ACCC indicated they had received concerns around e-conveyancing from market participants in 2022-23. Following a ‘detailed and considered investigation’, the ACCC concluded that material referred to them ‘did not establish a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act’. Despite this 2022-23 finding, the ACCC acknowledged they are currently conducting a preliminary assessment of a recently raised concern in relation to e-conveyancing.
Next Chapter
2.41The next chapter will address evidence heard by the committee regarding competition within the e-conveyancing market, concerns related to whether the market is appropriately regulated, and commentary around vertical integration within the market.