Record of Meeting

National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS)

WA Advisory Group Meeting (Meeting No: 6)

Date:18 July 2006

Venue:1st Floor Meeting Room,

VGOBuilding

18 Mount Street

PerthWA 6000

Attendees:Geoff Couper, David Elson, Steve Fathers, Andrew Hamilton, Valerie Haskins, Craig James,Stephen Johnson, Gavan Kelly, Peter Lakos, Craig Mariano, Judith Pinczuk, Bruce Roberts (Chair),Sue Taylorand Jane Toomer.

Apologies:David Clark, Gary Gregory, Chris Martin, Mark McLinden, David Parry, Amy Sullivan, John Syminton and Peter Weymouth.

Withdrawn:Troy Dennis.

  1. Housekeeping Matters

1.1JP requested that a correction be made to the source of the extract that was handed out at last week’s meeting (ie. from the Financial Review newspaper not the Australian).

1.2Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted without change as being an accurate record.

1.3A copy of the issues log was handed out at the meeting and comments requested from the attendees. Any comments or changes to the issues log should be directed to the project team ().

2.Review of NOD Document

2.1General Comments.

  • The review re-commenced on page 29 of the NOD document at section 8.2.6.8, referring to the settlement process.

2.2Settlement Timing and Process.

  • A number of sections were considered simultaneously that referred to the settlement process. Concern was raised in regard to having two subscribers involved in a transaction for one party.

Issue:The NECS application needs to cater for having two subscribers involved to represent one entity in a transaction. This generally occurs on the ‘seller’ side of the transaction and relates to divorcing parties each having a representative.

  • There was a review of sections that referred to the establishment and usage of workspaces within NECS.

Issue:Is there a charge associated with subscribers requesting a validation / update of data within the workspace? NECS National Office to provide more information on NECS charges.

2.3Certificates of Title.

  • There was substantial discussion on duplicate titles at the meeting.
  • The meeting discussed that it was easier to have an electronic duplicate title and that different States have adopted different approaches to this issue. In QLD, there have been a low percentage of requests for paper duplicate certificates however a record of ownership is produced at the end of the process and distributed electronically. This model would be suitable for WA and the record of ownership could be a standard report from NECS.
  • The meeting agreed that the Industry needs to start educating its Clients in regards to there being no need for paper duplicate certificates.

Issue:There appears to be a possible issue with the ‘right to deal’ if there is no paper title. This matter has been previously raised by David Clark. An email needs to be issued to David asking that he expand upon the issue associated with this matter.

  • The meeting noted that at an earlier conference NAB, CBA and WBC have indicated that they still wanted to retain paper duplicate titles. It was also noted that the banks were not represented at today’s meeting.

Issue:In the absence of a paper duplicate title, how does the first mortgagee protect its rights against secondary mortgagees?

  • The meeting discussed the uniformity note concerning the issue about paper duplicate titles around Australia. It was noted that it would be far easier to facilitate electronic settlements if no paper duplicate certificates of title existed.

2.3Stamping Issue.

  • The preferred option is that the workspace has a unique duty assessment number entered in as proof of payment of duty or alternatively the duty is included as a disbursement from the workspace.The time period for payment of duty is currently based on the date of the contract. It was noted that the stamp duty payment process is under review at SRO.
  • EAS2 gives a unique number and this number is trapped by SRO’s on-line system and used as a cross reference point. This could be extended to the NECS.
  • The meeting noted that SRO insists that the calculation of stamp duty owing is done within the SRO system and not externally (ie. NECS).

Issue:An appropriate interface is required between NECS and the different SRO systems that operate around Australia to include a stamp duty calculation facility.

  • There was discussion on the subject of compliance to stamp duty payment process and the possible resultant penalties that can be issued by SRO. It was noted that the timing of payments and penalty/compliance regulations are currently under review within SRO.

Issue:Do we need to show a Trust Ownership Structure on the title or within the NECS workspace? It was noted that there are significant legal issues associated with the inclusion of this information.

2.4Session Wind-up.

  • The next NOD review session will commence at section 8.2.6.19 of the document.

These minutes have been reviewed by the committee and it has been agreed that they reflect a true record of the meeting of the NECS Steering Committee.

______

Bruce Roberts

Chair – NECS Steering Committee

___ / ___ / ___