 I have a number of questions, but before I go, are there any questions in the audience? We have Mike? OK, go ahead. Yeah, fair phrase. OK, my question is specifically on Terranet. And I was wondering if you have looked at or even considered whether this PPP model would be applicable in developing countries, and why or why not? I would say it's got some applicability. And I think about it in two ways. There's the PPP model, as Terranet was originally established, which puts the government and the private consortium together, and you share the risk. Whereas the model as it has evolved today into a consortium, the risk transferred to the private sector. So in both cases, in our world, it comes down to the risk and the assessment of risk, which goes to technology risk, political risk, economic risk. And while I think you could set it up, if you had the confidence that the commitment was there, the economy will sustain the business model within the PPP. Then those are the mechanics that drive the change and advance it. And you'd be able to bring the capabilities to bear through that private sector component. David, and you? Hi. My question is to both Canada and Australia. My understanding is that in both those countries, you have First Nations groupings who live on land which is separate. And I understand that that's communal land. And I was just wondering how that puts into the land registry system, if at all. Yeah, we do. We're actually quite an interesting land rights issue in Australia, which I'm sure you probably know more in detail information on it than I do. But we have a lot of Aboriginal communities on Crownland that have rights over the land. And we have some of the issues that I see in the South African examples where how do you improve your rights when it's communal rights? So it's quite a complicated structure. And while they have rights to live on the land, and government provides a lot of services. So at the moment government provides schooling, housing, health. But it's an issue that I don't think we've got nailed yet. We have multiple service providers that go out to some of those very, very remote areas. And some of them are just, if you went there, you wouldn't see anything there. But the very strong connection to land for the people is important. So we do recognize all of that land through Crownland in the title register. And how it's managed is communally by individuals with services provided by government at moment. In Canada, Aboriginal lands are generally managed federally. So this would be the reserves. And they are communal or leased. So there would be a leasing infrastructure within that. So they're not managed within the provincial context or by the provincial registry. And the registry services or the registry integrity, I would say, is light. But there's lots of conversations about introducing a titling system into Aboriginal lands. I think the other area that comes into play are lands that are in dispute. So Aboriginal claims, which would be on titled land. And the registry does come into play there as you're trying to define the scope of land, the extent of land, and those rights. Front row, Peter and Yulia. Hi, thank you for really interesting presentations. My question is to Jodi and to Elizabeth. You both touched on the challenge of convincing different government agencies or government departments to share data with each other. And there's a clear case, of course, to be made for the sharing of data and for the kind of sum is greater than, or whole is greater than the sum of its parts of combining different data sets, making it interoperable. But we also know the challenges around getting different actors to share data with each other. I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of the backstory of how you succeeded in convincing these parties to play in the same sandbox. For us, before the agency started, it was very difficult for everybody to share data. Everybody held on to their data. Once the agency started, however, we were all in one place, so they had to share the data. But the problem still occurs because there is actually work going on now to provide a government data sharing policy so that the other departments will also share with us to help improve that database. It's still difficult because you have to also remember that some people earn from their data. And so when they put it into this big pool, they haven't quite figured out yet how to give everybody a little bit of the share of that pay. So it's still an ongoing problem that we are working through. I guess in another few years we'll sort that out. What has been worked on? So we started, we have a thing in Western Australia called Wallace, which stands for the West Australian Land Information System. And we run another thing, we love acronyms, doesn't this industry just love acronyms? We also run a thing called the Shared Location Information Platform. So we've been in those two spaces for Wallace for over 25 years and slip 13 or 14 years. And what we did was build the infrastructure and then start the conversations, we'll start the conversations and then try and convince people to make their data available. So through slip, I think we've got almost 3,000 government data sets. And we're able to, because of how we've developed the platform, you can have open and free data. You can have open data that the agencies charge back. And you can also have data that's not available, that's, I guess, locked down data, which agencies can look at but the public can't look at. And we've been able to accommodate all of those things. But have we got all of the data? So no, we haven't. Our government has an open data policy and we have a location information strategy signed off by Cabinet, but there's no mandate. So every data set that we get available through slip is much relationship building, conversation, giving confidence that the data's going to be safe. One of the things we found with our agencies is when you ask them why they won't share their data, they say because our data set's not good enough. And then you say to them, are you making decisions based on your data? And they say, oh, yes, we're doing that. And you go, OK. So that's interesting. I guess the other thing that I see in WA, we're coming off the back of a large mining boom. There's been a lot of money in the economy. We don't have that. Our property market is the lowest it's been since the 80s. We would be in serious trouble if we had not disrupted ourselves. And what I'm seeing in government agencies, there's been massive cuts across the board to funding. And all of a sudden, people who didn't want to share data or wanted to have duplicate services are now coming and saying, you know how five years ago you said, I could have, you know, I didn't need my 50 staff, you could provide the service. Do you want to have that conversation? So for us, as things get tighter, the opportunity actually increases. So, you know, I'm hoping that some of the people who've had this bastion of staff that they've kept hold of are now going, we actually can't afford to duplicate services. So I think out of adversity comes opportunity if you're ready to take it. But it's a lot of relationship building and it's very, very time consuming. And you just got to keep at it because it's, you know, for the benefit of our citizens and our shareholder, it's the right thing to do. Hi, Peter Rabli again from a media network. Thank you all for your presentation. It's a question for all three of you and perhaps Elizabeth, if you would start. As you went through the conversion process, how big a problem was fraud both in the records and with staff and how did you deal with it? And is it an ongoing problem or have you largely seen that dissipate? Thank you. Okay, for us, fraud was a problem in the registry. Missing documents, documents torn out of the big books. Any of you know what that registry looks like? And I think one of the reasons with fraud is because things took so long to be done that people paid people to get to out there matters quickly. We, because of the conversion we have done and we know have all the documents scanned and we have more security of data and we put in more secure systems and because we're still on a paper-based system, we put in watermarks and the documents, et cetera. It is made a little bit more difficult for people to make their own titles because people did that. Doesn't make sense tearing it out of the book anymore because you don't see the book when you come into our offices. You know, look at it on a computer screen. So that has improved quite a bit. There's no need to pay anybody to get out your documents because you can pay us and get it in one day or you can wait two days and get it or you can wait a normal time, which is five days. So there's a big improvement in turnaround time, has assisted the whole matter for the reduced drastically. In Ontario before the conversion process, the public would come to registry offices and could easily access a title book so they could take it out. So they wanted to rule out the mortgage or that was a potential. I don't think it was viewed as prevalent when a fraud affected an older homeowner that got a lot of attention, but it wasn't prevalent. What was unknown was mortgage fraud because banks don't readily tell the world that there's been fraud on their properties. But as the records became automated, they became secure and the government saw an opportunity to enhance that through the supporting processes. And in the mid-2000s enacted legislation that required lawyers to register transfers of property. They had to verify identity so that was part of their function under their practice procedures. Lawyers were not allowed to act on both sides of a transaction unless they're in Northern Ontario where the nearest lawyer was 1,000 miles away. So there were a number of things that could be actually put in place and enabled by the electronification of the processes and systems. So it still happens, you still hear about it, but I would say it's a more secure system and process today. But occasionally people, they want to set out to do it, they may find a way. Yeah, I think similar for us, it certainly wasn't prevalent, but the work through e-convancing and now automated land registry, the e-convancing work has been done with all the registrars, the title registrars actually agreeing that e-convancing is the way forward and one of the reasons for that is the security that it gives. And so our new land registry that we've developed to fit with that, it's certainly our belief and our registrars believe that the more you automate and go to an electronic model, the more secure it is. But I agree with Elgin in as much as when people want to fraud, they'll try and find a way, but we're very aware. We had a fraud a few years ago with some people copying documents and going through Africa where then someone was away on holidays and that got a lot of media attention and certainly things like verification of identity and other things have been tightened since then. So it's not something that happens a lot, but we are, once is too often. So we're acutely aware, but really the move to electronic convancing and electronic register actually decreases the ability for fraud. Two more questions. Hands up. Actually three, we'll go one here and then the lady and then the gentleman in the back. Greenville Bonds University of Florida. I'd like to come back to the idea of disruption which you raised. It seems like most of you experienced not only disruptive technology, but disruptive economies, disruptive institutional factors and it seems like that's not gonna go away, particularly the technology side. And so I'd like to ask each of you to perhaps identify your top three factors that you think provide resilience to land registration systems. Resilience to the system or resilience? Do you mean the whole, the, right, okay. In the face of disruptive change, I guess. So when I think about something like blockchain, I go back to the Torrin system where what's really important is the underpinning of that government guarantee of title and the integrity of it. And so that, as a disruptor, it's gotta still support that, that somebody can't just start a land registry in our context anyways and say this is where you're gonna come now because it lacks that government underpinning and integrity of that guaranteed title, which is why people are prepared to secure money against property. Yeah, look, I think one of the things that's really important to the resilience, the whole system and the organizations is I've come back to the people, but it's really important that you spend, that we spend the time changing our culture and getting our culture ready for that because I agree disruption is everywhere and it's not going away. So a few years ago when I spoke to our staff and someone put their hand up and said, but we're change fatigue, we've had all this change and there's more change, what are you gonna do about it? And I said at the time, if you're change fatigue now, you probably need to get another job. And that's okay, it's actually okay for people to not be comfortable where they are, but they need to make a choice to leave them. So in my most recent rounds of staff talks where people are getting up in the morning and dragging themselves into work and saying I'm going to that place again, don't come, it really is that simple. It's a valid, it's absolutely a valid choice. Work somewhere where you can add value and that fits your values. And if that's not us, that's cool. There's plenty of other places that are. So the power of your people and what you can achieve is at the end of the day people, you can have all the technology in the world and you have governments and boards and but the people on the ground are the ones that give the customer service and make the change. So I would say don't underestimate the value of investing in your people and recognise the time that it takes to do it. But disruption is a, it's just here and there's not an industry that you can look at to go, how could this be more efficient? And as a personal plea, if anyone's got any great ideas about fixing how you get on an airplane in a quicker way, then I stand in those queues and I think, my God, where is the disruption when you need it? For Jamaica, like Canada and Western Australia, we're also on the touring system so we have that very secure base in terms of our title. I agree with Jordi that people is really the problem because you could do everything but if your persons aren't properly trained, if they don't know how to speak to the customer, if they don't know how to calm down that customer who comes in, then disruption will continue. So we regularly put our staff, especially frontline staff, back into training as to how to deal with the customers because there's always that one customer who will push the staff over the line so we try and make sure that they are prepared from a technical point or a legal point so that they can answer the questions and be calm. Hello, Pacific Forum CSIS, this is related to the question I was asked earlier about fraud. As we digitize more of the property information, it opens a new area of concern and that is cyber attack which is much beyond the fraud. So as we talk about, when we usually think about cyber attack we think of infrastructure and then we think of enormous chaos that we'll create but if property information is also the target of something like that then that would also be a huge disruption to the economy and many areas. So how much of the mindset and the process of security were involved in the creation of the digitization process as well as currently ongoing. And I just wanna throw in one example. Within the United States, the OPM Office of Personnel Management held all kinds of personnel information and they were stolen and massive, massive theft. And in general that office is not in the mindset of security wasn't present but they held the data. So I'm just wondering if you can talk about that aspect. Yeah, I can start. Certainly we are in the mindset that it's really important and it needs to be secure. So a couple of things. One is when we developed our new registry service and it was cloud-based and we had quite a lot of questions come from people about the security of the cloud and our argument would be if it's in the cloud it's actually more secure than if it's in a data center somewhere which has a single point of failure whereas with cloud we have seamless backup so if something went wrong at one area you can move over. I guess the other thing is to, you know, cyber security is an ongoing issue and the soon issue fix one whole, you know, someone clever and smarter goes through another but we've made sure we've had independent verification. We actually have one of the worlds leading cyber security areas at one of our universities so we've had independent verification as we built our system every few months, come and test. You do everything you need to do. It's absolutely front of mind. Will that mean that we're never impacted? Possibly not, but certainly we recognize what we hold and the importance of it. So I think in a modern digital mobile world you have to weigh up the pros and cons. So in our, I mentioned that we have performance standards that are around data integrity, security, availability and ultimately we lose the company. We lose the contract if that happens. So we do take it very seriously. I would say it's proportionally in terms of increases in investment over the last 10 years, security would be the highest growth in terms of the required investment just because of how technology is evolving and we do run data centers but they run hot hot, they're dual, you've got backups. We can duplicate if everything was wiped out, we could still bring it back within a day's worth of the records and do that within 24 hours. We run ethical hacking so we hire somebody to try to hack our systems and we're audited by government regularly and thoroughly. So it is a very, very high priority. It's also a high priority for us. We actually back up outside of Jamaica. So if anything goes wrong we can pull back down our data and interestingly about two weeks ago we were advised that there were threats on our system so we actually locked down everything for about two or three days until it could sort out what was the problem. This is a concern for us because we realize the value of the data that we have and we also realize that going electronic titling is going to put us on the more pressure to ensure that whatever systems we put in place it can stand the scrutiny because I think people don't want to know that their data is out there. They want to be sure that it is in a secure location so it's something that we take very seriously. Moving forward it will increase in terms of our activities in that area. And then there's a question in the back. I'm Michael Brown with the Chemonics International. My question was just asked and it was responded to but one follow-on to piggyback on that is stakeholder perceptions about cyber security. Is this very much a concern in your three countries and thinking of the developing world? Would you imagine that cyber security would be a bigger issue in say African countries or Asian countries than it is in Northern countries and maybe Jamaica might be a good place to start with that. But just how big an issue is cyber security to the various stakeholders that have to buy into electronic registries? Cyber security is a big issue for us. Lawyers are especially very, very concerned that the whole aspect of the whole protection of the data is the forefront of all minds. But as I said previously, it is something that is fairly new for us. We have always stored all data outside of Jamaica because we are subject to natural disasters. And cyber threats are, they occur. So we just need to be aware of what it is we're looking for and to ensure that our staff is also aware that certain things they can do can bring the threats into our agency. So we're working on it. I think it's changed over time. The perception certainly in the early days when computers were relatively new and lawyers didn't think you could hack into a typewriter. So it's evolved though. And I think today it's kind of a table stakes. They expect that security people will get a health card online. They'll get driver's licenses online. So there's an expectation around the privacy aspect of the data. But I think there's a general concern around the ability to hack and hold data hostage or corrupt data. But that would be no different in this environment for other government databases as well in my view. And so that's why you do take it seriously. My only point would be that I actually think there's an opportunity for developing companies to learn from the mistakes we've made and to leapfrog a whole lot of the processes and systems and things that we've been through. So I think security is probably one of those. But while people expect their data to be secure, they also expect to get the service and to get their driver's license online and to do everything online. So it's a balance. It is absolutely forefront. I mean, you know, on the number one thing on what we've ever, our registry is backed by the state. So if things get, if fraud happens, the state pays. So I can assure you my shareholder, they don't actually care what all the other statistics are. If I've got, if my fraud got fraud numbers go up, I can have the best set of figures on everything else and why making a difference. I want to, a lot of my questions have been asked. They just want to put a question to Elderman and Jody. As your, we've talked a lot about people and culture. And we've also talked about technology. Technology is not a panacea, but it's, as we're seeing in this conversation, you can't get away from it. And you're both heading into new geographies, Manitoba, New South Wales, to take your solution and wrap it up. And I'm just curious how you're thinking about that. You know, what technologies you might be deploying of your own or others and just sort of getting, you know, reading these cases, one struck by the amount of time and effort it takes. And now, when we assume you have a mandate to move quickly, so how are you thinking about that and what the policies are going to be a part of it? Certainly, I think the world's changed from what we'll call the pioneer days of electronic plan registry. In Manitoba, I mean, we assumed operations two years ago. They were partially down the continuum on electronification, but within two years, we're delivering electronic conveyancing. And actually, the system looks different than it does in Ontario. And that's because the process and the way records are managed is different. So it's got to be able to accommodate that. So there are elements underpinning that are just common to every registry system that we can use from Ontario when we are. But when it comes to the, I'll call it the operational layer, the processing layer, and the document construct for lawyers, that looks different and that has to be customized. But the technology lends itself to be able to do that much more quickly and be much more versatile today. Well, look, and from our perspective, I guess, Advara is the tech partner of the New South Wales Consortium. So it's very early days and I can't actually tell you what will be expected, but I can make some observations, I guess. Our new land registry system, which Advara has a license to, we know is what adds value to Advara and why we were included in the consortium. So it's not a great leap to go, well, they'll look to implement that system. For us, we think that will be, you know, both an interesting journey. We've got a bit of a benefit from the rest of the world because we have a national electronic conveyancing system. It means that a whole lot of the lining up, lining the ducts up at the front end has already happened. So we've developed our system. We've tried to, even when talking to our own people and what they wanted to create it as vanilla as we could, so that we didn't need to do a lot of modification and customization. So we're very confident that we're a very good fit for New South Wales and how that project goes will be a real, I guess, testament of how we can roll out to other jurisdictions. But just as a bit of a historical fact, our own old system, the Western Australian system that we've just transitioned off, was actually the New South Wales system. So we know that underpinning particularly in New South Wales, we have a lot of common elements. So, but it's still gonna be an interesting challenge, but that's what the system was developed for. It was multi-tenanted for a reason and that meant that we had to change our own thinking and our own business processes. So we didn't just turn into a system, things that we were doing that actually weren't best practice, so we were very challenging right from the beginning on our own assumptions. I think the other thing to keep in mind is that land registry is part, it might be the beginning and the end of a real estate transaction, but there are a lot of different inputs and there's a lot of different stakeholders. There's a lot of different systems that I think the opportunity to connect better and more efficiently with other parts of the real estate chain, the realtors, the banks, the lawyers themselves in terms of the other functions they have to do to conduct a land registration transaction. So that's the next evolution that we're seeing is where you're actually interfacing multiple levels and it's part of a hub of coming in and being able to do a real estate transaction between a realtor and a lawyer and a bank all in one place. That unfortunately, I think we are out of time. So lunch is outside, thank you all for your attention and join me in giving a round of applause to the panel. Thank you.