WHEN interest rates were low, the Howard Government claimed the credit, and was given it by grateful voters. Now that rates have risen, and are set to rise still higher, should it take the blame?
In part, no. In part, yes. Interest rates in Australia were bound to rise. Some of the factors that have pushed them up were desirable, others unforeseeable. And in two crucial areas, it has taken pressure off interest rates.
But interest rates have risen more than they would have had the Government treated "keeping interest rates low" as a policy priority, and not just a slogan. It has neglected key jobs, thrown money where it buys votes rather than where the economy needs it, and turned off the "automatic stabilisers" by which budget policy usually takes pressure off interest rates.
As Access Economics director Chris Richardson put it recently: "The Government is throwing money into the economy and the Reserve Bank is taking it out again. We have one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. No wonder we're blowing smoke."
There are more important issues for the economy, but certainly there is no economic issue more important for voters. The average new home loan in Melbourne is now approaching $250,000. Add the five interest rate rises since the 2004 election, the sixth likely next month, the seventh expected early next year, and the banks' plans to raise margins, and the monthly payments on that loan would be up almost $400 a month since John Howard pledged to keep interest rates low.
Howard keeps pointing out that they were higher in the past, and so they were. But the people who remember the 17 per cent rates are not the ones paying big mortgages now. They remember when mortgage rates were 6 per cent. Now they are looking at paying 9 per cent. Talking about what went wrong in the 1980s won't solve that.
Nor can the Government credibly use its old line that interest rates are higher here because we are growing and the rest of the world isn't. The International Monetary Fund has just updated its database, and it shows that between 1996 and 2006, of 30 advanced economies, Australia ranked exactly 15th in economic growth per head. The economy overall grew 14th fastest out of the 30 over that decade. Our unemployment rate is now the equal 14th lowest of the 30. A standout? Not us: we are the average Western country.
The Government can defend its record on three grounds. First, as Peter Costello keeps telling us, growth is the goal of economic policy — and one of the things growth does is that it raises interest rates. As the economy grows, fewer resources are left unused, competition for them increases, and their price rises. We could let prices rise to create an inflationary spiral — or try to ration resources by raising interest rates. That's the low-cost option.
Second, Australia's economy has been hit by an X-factor that no one saw coming: the mining boom. Last year half of all the growth in construction across the country was in Western Australia. Mining investment has more than doubled in two years, and is still surging. In mining and construction in the west, everything is in short supply, prices are rising rapidly, and the ripples are reaching the east too.
Third, as Costello and Howard now concede, WorkChoices was designed to slow the pace of wage growth. Tilt the bargaining rules in favour of the employer, as they have done, and you get smaller wage rises and hence less inflationary pressure. Whether it is fair or unfair is another matter, but as Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens says, anything that frees up the labour market helps to hold down inflation.
The same is true of the controversial section 457 visas used to bring in contract workers from overseas wherever employers identify shortages. While it would be better to retrain some of the million or more Australians who are unemployed, underemployed or prematurely retired, it is a low-cost way to cut through inflationary bottlenecks.
But in other ways, the Howard Government has made inflation worse, and helped push interest rates up. On skills training, it dropped the ball in its first budget. Many of its cost savings came from scrapping Working Nation, set up by the Keating government to retrain the unemployed so that, as recovery came, Australia would have the skilled workers to meet its needs. That ball remained dropped until recently.
In 2005-06, the OECD Employment Outlook records, Australia invested just 0.04 per cent of its GDP in training the unemployed, the third lowest among the OECD's 25 rich members. By then, skills shortages were already acute. Skills shortages cause wage rises which cause inflation which causes higher interest rates. On this one, Howard's Government has no excuse.
Second, instead of using budget policy to ease pressure on interest rates, as in the past, Howard has increased the pressure by shovelling money into voters' pockets while the Reserve tries to slow their spending. On Treasury projections, personal income tax will shrink from 12.1 per cent of GDP in 2004-05 to just 10.3 per cent in 2008-09 — adding $20 billion a year to consumers' spending power.
In past booms, monetary and fiscal policy have worked together. More jobs and higher wages increased tax revenues, reducing the need for rate rises to slow the economy. Now the Government has dropped its end so it can deliver big tax cuts.
That means interest rates have to do all the work. So as taxes go lower, rates go higher.
Tim Colebatch is The Age economics editor.
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/29/1193618793576.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Web 2.0? Don't bank on it just yet
AUSTRALIAN bank infrastructure is "not robust enough" to deliver secure web 2.0 banking and financial services.
That's the warning last week's Future of Banking and Financial Services event in Sydney heard but demand and overseas influence will change how banking is done, delegates were told.
Bank of Queensland chief information officer Iain Blacklaw said such plans captured the imagination but for his bank web 2.0 is "at the furthest edges of the radar screen".
Compared to call centres, ATMs or eftpos "internet banking is the most pervasive but with the least stability. I wonder if the next generation has exponentially more risks?"
He said "Australian banks are not robust enough at the infrastructure level" for the financial services explored overseas where they use wikis - collaborative websites - that invite customers to participate in financial product design.
Wells Fargo built a bank in the virtual world of Second Life and, closer to home, AMP is testing an online environment where customers use avatars - virtual representations of themselves - to try products.
Some commentators believe new classes of financial services will emerge, such as the peer-to-peer lending pioneered by zopa.com.
Executive general manager of IT and management services at Challenger Derek Goh and Goldman Sachs JB Were CIO Richard Tait said that web 2.0 services for Australians were far off.
But Mr Tait said some collaborative tools were good for the bank's use.
"(We are) trying to get people to collaborate and come up with things that will make a lot of money," he said. But legal obligations could stymie some information-sharing tools.
Geoff Wenborn, general manager of technology and innovation at NAB, said banks could not afford to ignore customer expectations of interactive banking tools.
"We have to be able to invest in and provide a robust and secure back end while meeting our regulatory obligations (and) making it open and easy to use.
"It is an enormous challenge," he said.
It is a challenge that Michael Neary, Telstra's enterprise and government industry director, said the finance sector must tackle because there was a sea change in consumer expectations.
"Banking was once a place you go, now it's far more a thing that you do," Dr Neary said.
Telstra research found 4.95 million Australians wanted access to mobile banking services and the mobile phone may replace card payment systems, he said.
Next year's Telstra pilot with Visa and NAB demonstrated at the conference will have about 250 Melburnians use their mobile phones to pay for items less than $35. This sort of payments system was also in demand overseas: Japan has 43,000 terminals that takepayments from mobile phones, Dr Neary said.
But the shift to new technology will be hampered by the skills drought.
Many financial institutions at the conference said it was difficult to find and keep IT staff but they were divided as to whether offshoring was the best solution.
Suncorp CIO Jeff Smith - overseeing the $355 million two to three year program to integrate Suncorp and Promina's information systems - was a DIY proponent. "We aim to have as much in-house as possible," he said, adding that intellectual property was among a bank's greatest assets.
He said offshoring did not lend itself to supporting more agile organisations where there were six-month projects and smaller teams, which was increasingly the case in the financial sector.
Like Suncorp the Bank of Queensland keeps as much IT work as possible in Australia.
And although his was part of a global organisation, Mr Tait claimed that "offshoring is not part of our agenda".
"If we are not sitting on the same floor as the business guys as they are thinking things through then it's a problem," he said. Being even a floor above or below the business team could lead to a mismatch between IT strategy and business plans, he said.
And he questioned the wisdom of more offshoring.
"The real issue with offshoring is are we cutting off our feeder stock for IT management?
"It could be a significant issue for us."
Beverley Head
October 30, 2007
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/29/1193618795944.html
That's the warning last week's Future of Banking and Financial Services event in Sydney heard but demand and overseas influence will change how banking is done, delegates were told.
Bank of Queensland chief information officer Iain Blacklaw said such plans captured the imagination but for his bank web 2.0 is "at the furthest edges of the radar screen".
Compared to call centres, ATMs or eftpos "internet banking is the most pervasive but with the least stability. I wonder if the next generation has exponentially more risks?"
He said "Australian banks are not robust enough at the infrastructure level" for the financial services explored overseas where they use wikis - collaborative websites - that invite customers to participate in financial product design.
Wells Fargo built a bank in the virtual world of Second Life and, closer to home, AMP is testing an online environment where customers use avatars - virtual representations of themselves - to try products.
Some commentators believe new classes of financial services will emerge, such as the peer-to-peer lending pioneered by zopa.com.
Executive general manager of IT and management services at Challenger Derek Goh and Goldman Sachs JB Were CIO Richard Tait said that web 2.0 services for Australians were far off.
But Mr Tait said some collaborative tools were good for the bank's use.
"(We are) trying to get people to collaborate and come up with things that will make a lot of money," he said. But legal obligations could stymie some information-sharing tools.
Geoff Wenborn, general manager of technology and innovation at NAB, said banks could not afford to ignore customer expectations of interactive banking tools.
"We have to be able to invest in and provide a robust and secure back end while meeting our regulatory obligations (and) making it open and easy to use.
"It is an enormous challenge," he said.
It is a challenge that Michael Neary, Telstra's enterprise and government industry director, said the finance sector must tackle because there was a sea change in consumer expectations.
"Banking was once a place you go, now it's far more a thing that you do," Dr Neary said.
Telstra research found 4.95 million Australians wanted access to mobile banking services and the mobile phone may replace card payment systems, he said.
Next year's Telstra pilot with Visa and NAB demonstrated at the conference will have about 250 Melburnians use their mobile phones to pay for items less than $35. This sort of payments system was also in demand overseas: Japan has 43,000 terminals that takepayments from mobile phones, Dr Neary said.
But the shift to new technology will be hampered by the skills drought.
Many financial institutions at the conference said it was difficult to find and keep IT staff but they were divided as to whether offshoring was the best solution.
Suncorp CIO Jeff Smith - overseeing the $355 million two to three year program to integrate Suncorp and Promina's information systems - was a DIY proponent. "We aim to have as much in-house as possible," he said, adding that intellectual property was among a bank's greatest assets.
He said offshoring did not lend itself to supporting more agile organisations where there were six-month projects and smaller teams, which was increasingly the case in the financial sector.
Like Suncorp the Bank of Queensland keeps as much IT work as possible in Australia.
And although his was part of a global organisation, Mr Tait claimed that "offshoring is not part of our agenda".
"If we are not sitting on the same floor as the business guys as they are thinking things through then it's a problem," he said. Being even a floor above or below the business team could lead to a mismatch between IT strategy and business plans, he said.
And he questioned the wisdom of more offshoring.
"The real issue with offshoring is are we cutting off our feeder stock for IT management?
"It could be a significant issue for us."
Beverley Head
October 30, 2007
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/29/1193618795944.html
Rebellion frustrates e-conveyance
VICTORIA and Queensland have threatened to go it alone on their land title and property transfer systems, but banks and the industry say they're not interested in dealing with players outside the agreed National Electronic Conveyancing System.
Australian Bankers Association director Ian Gilbert said the banks were "dismayed" there had been "alternative discussions" between the states outside the joint initiative to form a central communications exchange.
Victoria, which is to launch its own e-conveyancing system on November 16, has refused to share its software with other states unless they agree to certain conditions.
Mr Gilbert said the banks had invested with the Victorian Government in developing the software, "with the expectation that it would find its way into the national process and, eventually, into a national system. At this juncture, that hasn't happened."
The fate of the $44 million e-conveyancing project is uncertain since the major banks pulled out in September, citing frustration over Victoria's flagging commitment to NECS.
A co-operative venture between state government agencies and industry, NECS aims to establish a nationwide exchange and settlement platform for real estate transactions by 2010.
Simon Libbis, executive director of the National Electronic Conveyancing Office, said all parties had agreed to develop common data standards, and in May engaged the Lending Industry XML Initiative (LIXI) to assist with its mortgage and bank processing expertise.
"With eight land registries and the banks, lawyers and conveyancing firms, it's fairly clear we couldn't get everyone to change their systems to meet the requirements of a central system," he said.
"The whole idea of NECS was to have a system that allows all those systems to talk to each other."
Mr Libbis said five jurisdictions and NECO had signed the agreement with LIXI, and it was understood the ACT was in the process of signing.
"Victoria and Queensland have given us no indication of their plans, so we're working on the basis they don't intend to sign," he said.
"Every other state is strongly supportive as well as the industry, particularly the lending institutions, so we are just getting on with it," he said. "The announcement of our death was a bit exaggerated".
A NECO steering committee meeting will be held in Brisbane on November 23, and the rebel states' alternative position would be discussed then.
The ABA's Mr Gilbert said a national e-conveyancing system required more than just a piece of software: there had to be a governance structure, rules for participation and common data standards to support the process.
"It's recognised the system will need flexibility to accommodate the different state requirements, but there's a core piece that could operate in a fairly standardised way," he said.
"For users, it's important that there should be seamless interoperability across the jurisdictions, with a single point of entry."
Victoria and Queensland were essentially suggesting a return to a state-centric approach, with each jurisdiction using similar software but without the nationwide interoperability.
Mr Gilbert said bankers wanted the NECS steering committee to "bring everybody back to the original focus", and "work collaboratively towards delivering" an e-conveyancing system.
Karen Dearne | October 30, 2007
The Australian IT
Australian Bankers Association director Ian Gilbert said the banks were "dismayed" there had been "alternative discussions" between the states outside the joint initiative to form a central communications exchange.
Victoria, which is to launch its own e-conveyancing system on November 16, has refused to share its software with other states unless they agree to certain conditions.
Mr Gilbert said the banks had invested with the Victorian Government in developing the software, "with the expectation that it would find its way into the national process and, eventually, into a national system. At this juncture, that hasn't happened."
The fate of the $44 million e-conveyancing project is uncertain since the major banks pulled out in September, citing frustration over Victoria's flagging commitment to NECS.
A co-operative venture between state government agencies and industry, NECS aims to establish a nationwide exchange and settlement platform for real estate transactions by 2010.
Simon Libbis, executive director of the National Electronic Conveyancing Office, said all parties had agreed to develop common data standards, and in May engaged the Lending Industry XML Initiative (LIXI) to assist with its mortgage and bank processing expertise.
"With eight land registries and the banks, lawyers and conveyancing firms, it's fairly clear we couldn't get everyone to change their systems to meet the requirements of a central system," he said.
"The whole idea of NECS was to have a system that allows all those systems to talk to each other."
Mr Libbis said five jurisdictions and NECO had signed the agreement with LIXI, and it was understood the ACT was in the process of signing.
"Victoria and Queensland have given us no indication of their plans, so we're working on the basis they don't intend to sign," he said.
"Every other state is strongly supportive as well as the industry, particularly the lending institutions, so we are just getting on with it," he said. "The announcement of our death was a bit exaggerated".
A NECO steering committee meeting will be held in Brisbane on November 23, and the rebel states' alternative position would be discussed then.
The ABA's Mr Gilbert said a national e-conveyancing system required more than just a piece of software: there had to be a governance structure, rules for participation and common data standards to support the process.
"It's recognised the system will need flexibility to accommodate the different state requirements, but there's a core piece that could operate in a fairly standardised way," he said.
"For users, it's important that there should be seamless interoperability across the jurisdictions, with a single point of entry."
Victoria and Queensland were essentially suggesting a return to a state-centric approach, with each jurisdiction using similar software but without the nationwide interoperability.
Mr Gilbert said bankers wanted the NECS steering committee to "bring everybody back to the original focus", and "work collaboratively towards delivering" an e-conveyancing system.
Karen Dearne | October 30, 2007
The Australian IT
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Mr Ruddock, we need a referendum.
What if the States do not resolve their impasse over a uniform national approach to electronic conveyancing?
Will you support a referendum to bring matters of property within Federal jurisdiction, which are currently state controlled matters?
We understand you do support a national approach with quotes such as -
"The same jealousies that resulted in different rail-gauge widths in the 19th century are sabotaging a national electronic conveyancing system in the 21st century," Mr Ruddock said.
"I have been pressing for the states and territories to focus on the need for a national electronic conveyancing system for some time. A national electronic conveyancing system would remove red tape for business and lower costs for home buyers."
It is simple - Australia has eight separate land registries, eight different conveyancing and property laws, eight different scales of land transfer duties, land registry fees and land tax. There is no uniform approach to conveyancing, planning, survey, vendor disclosure and taxation
At least in the UK, England and Wales have a single land registry system, which will support the introduction of uniform single electronic conveyancing standard. This year, 2007, the UK have introduced a uniform standard to vendor disclosure which includes a energy efficiency (think of the climate change debate) and building inspection report. And they will over time roll out electronic conveyancing unimpeded by parochial state or county rules.
Australia would benefit hugely and immeasurably from property laws being centrally and Federally controlled. This country could have
* a single property register
* uniform property codes
* uniform conveyancing laws
* uniform property transfer fees - stamp duty on transfer and land registration
* uniform taxation of land - land tax, CGT, GST, income tax and negative gearing
* uniform vendor disclosure on the sale of property
* uniform laws for estate agents
* uniform survey regulations
* uniform approach to planning with local input
We already have a common unified approach to GST and CGT on property. We also have the Uniform Credit Code. This needs to be extended to all matters pertaining to property.
Only the States stand in the way of a single unified approach to property laws, management and taxation - and the States would never ever support transferring their current rights. By heck they would lose the right to tax it as they see fit.
What is the Federal government's view?
My personal view is let the people cast their vote. Just maybe the people can see the wisdom for change.
Will you support a referendum to bring matters of property within Federal jurisdiction, which are currently state controlled matters?
We understand you do support a national approach with quotes such as -
"The same jealousies that resulted in different rail-gauge widths in the 19th century are sabotaging a national electronic conveyancing system in the 21st century," Mr Ruddock said.
"I have been pressing for the states and territories to focus on the need for a national electronic conveyancing system for some time. A national electronic conveyancing system would remove red tape for business and lower costs for home buyers."
It is simple - Australia has eight separate land registries, eight different conveyancing and property laws, eight different scales of land transfer duties, land registry fees and land tax. There is no uniform approach to conveyancing, planning, survey, vendor disclosure and taxation
At least in the UK, England and Wales have a single land registry system, which will support the introduction of uniform single electronic conveyancing standard. This year, 2007, the UK have introduced a uniform standard to vendor disclosure which includes a energy efficiency (think of the climate change debate) and building inspection report. And they will over time roll out electronic conveyancing unimpeded by parochial state or county rules.
Australia would benefit hugely and immeasurably from property laws being centrally and Federally controlled. This country could have
* a single property register
* uniform property codes
* uniform conveyancing laws
* uniform property transfer fees - stamp duty on transfer and land registration
* uniform taxation of land - land tax, CGT, GST, income tax and negative gearing
* uniform vendor disclosure on the sale of property
* uniform laws for estate agents
* uniform survey regulations
* uniform approach to planning with local input
We already have a common unified approach to GST and CGT on property. We also have the Uniform Credit Code. This needs to be extended to all matters pertaining to property.
Only the States stand in the way of a single unified approach to property laws, management and taxation - and the States would never ever support transferring their current rights. By heck they would lose the right to tax it as they see fit.
What is the Federal government's view?
My personal view is let the people cast their vote. Just maybe the people can see the wisdom for change.
Friday, October 26, 2007
E-conveyancing 'shemozzle' looms
FOR a lawyer who says he is "red-hot for anything digital", Brett Hayton has a bleak prediction for next month's launch of electronic conveyancing in Victoria.
"It will be a shemozzle," he said.
Mr Hayton said there was very little chance of a flood of electronic property deals when the new pilot system went live on November 16. The reason was that the numbers were stacked against the new system.
Mr Hayton's assessment is not based on a distaste for technology. As well as running Hayton Kosky Lawyers in Bentleigh, Victoria, he has spent years developing his own web-based system for handling property transactions.
His experience with that system, known as 247legal.com.au, has informed his assessment of the Victorian Government's plans.
"There are problems with the government system," he said.
"They must be looking at things over generations.
"It's like they have adopted the view 'build it and they will come'."
In order to make electronic conveyancing a reality, he said, each transaction required four key players - two banks and two lawyers.
Non-lawyer conveyancers might take the place of solicitors in some transactions, but that does not affect his argument.
The problem in Victoria, as he sees it, is that the big banks have withdrawn from the system and there is no obligation on solicitors to switch to the electronic system.
"So let's assume that 50 per cent of lawyers sign up for it. That means a maximum of only one in four transactions is going to be electronic.
"Three-quarters of them will still be on paper - and that's the biggest drawback to the system."
Mr Hayton might even have overestimated the take-up rate among solicitors. Two weeks ago, Law Institute of Victoria chief executive Michael Brett Young warned the state's solicitors that the institute "cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme".
He issued that warning after the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee raised concerns about the possible risks to lawyers who took part.
Talks aimed at resolving the committee's concerns are continuing. But a spokeswoman for the institute said yesterday that nothing had changed.
Mr Hayton, however, said safety was not the main issue with the new system. He was more concerned about the possibility that Victoria's switch to electronic conveyancing might be about to result in two separate systems - paper and electronic.
He is also concerned that other states might adopt this part of the Victoria model - complicating conveyancing by allowing two separate systems to operate side by side in every state. "I once raised this issue at a meeting and asked how I was to know whether a particular transaction was going to be electronic or paper. Do I ring around?
"There was no answer.
"I don't want to see a 50-50 system. It needs to be made compulsory to use the new system and that needs to happen sooner rather than later to avoid mucking around with dual systems.
"The banks have a cogent view. They deal nationally. They don't care where a transaction is settled, but they deal with seven systems now and they don't want to deal with 14."
If these concerns are resolved, he believes firms that embrace electronic conveyancing will eventually have a significant cost advantage over their paper-based competitors.
Eventually, that will place them on the winning side of the rationalisation that he believes will flow through the industry.
Chris Merritt | October 26, 2007
The Australian
"It will be a shemozzle," he said.
Mr Hayton said there was very little chance of a flood of electronic property deals when the new pilot system went live on November 16. The reason was that the numbers were stacked against the new system.
Mr Hayton's assessment is not based on a distaste for technology. As well as running Hayton Kosky Lawyers in Bentleigh, Victoria, he has spent years developing his own web-based system for handling property transactions.
His experience with that system, known as 247legal.com.au, has informed his assessment of the Victorian Government's plans.
"There are problems with the government system," he said.
"They must be looking at things over generations.
"It's like they have adopted the view 'build it and they will come'."
In order to make electronic conveyancing a reality, he said, each transaction required four key players - two banks and two lawyers.
Non-lawyer conveyancers might take the place of solicitors in some transactions, but that does not affect his argument.
The problem in Victoria, as he sees it, is that the big banks have withdrawn from the system and there is no obligation on solicitors to switch to the electronic system.
"So let's assume that 50 per cent of lawyers sign up for it. That means a maximum of only one in four transactions is going to be electronic.
"Three-quarters of them will still be on paper - and that's the biggest drawback to the system."
Mr Hayton might even have overestimated the take-up rate among solicitors. Two weeks ago, Law Institute of Victoria chief executive Michael Brett Young warned the state's solicitors that the institute "cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme".
He issued that warning after the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee raised concerns about the possible risks to lawyers who took part.
Talks aimed at resolving the committee's concerns are continuing. But a spokeswoman for the institute said yesterday that nothing had changed.
Mr Hayton, however, said safety was not the main issue with the new system. He was more concerned about the possibility that Victoria's switch to electronic conveyancing might be about to result in two separate systems - paper and electronic.
He is also concerned that other states might adopt this part of the Victoria model - complicating conveyancing by allowing two separate systems to operate side by side in every state. "I once raised this issue at a meeting and asked how I was to know whether a particular transaction was going to be electronic or paper. Do I ring around?
"There was no answer.
"I don't want to see a 50-50 system. It needs to be made compulsory to use the new system and that needs to happen sooner rather than later to avoid mucking around with dual systems.
"The banks have a cogent view. They deal nationally. They don't care where a transaction is settled, but they deal with seven systems now and they don't want to deal with 14."
If these concerns are resolved, he believes firms that embrace electronic conveyancing will eventually have a significant cost advantage over their paper-based competitors.
Eventually, that will place them on the winning side of the rationalisation that he believes will flow through the industry.
Chris Merritt | October 26, 2007
The Australian
Monday, October 22, 2007
What a waste of paper
What is the largest vendors statement that you might have prepared? We have recently completed a job at a suburb called Waterways and the vendors statement was 430 pages.
This is probably not a record, but when the agent wants 6 copies, no-one wants the responsibility to print the document. Lets see now, 6 copies time 430 pages equals 2580.
As an industry is there support for a standard to create and distribute the section 32 electronically (and still satisfy the legal requirementsof the vendor signing / purchaser acknowledging receipt)?
Is anyone prepared to comment?
This is probably not a record, but when the agent wants 6 copies, no-one wants the responsibility to print the document. Lets see now, 6 copies time 430 pages equals 2580.
As an industry is there support for a standard to create and distribute the section 32 electronically (and still satisfy the legal requirementsof the vendor signing / purchaser acknowledging receipt)?
Is anyone prepared to comment?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Not related to conveyancing as such
Alex Roy's Cannonball dreams started with a movie, but it didn't star Burt Reynolds. The film was C'était un Rendez-vous. Made in 1976, it's a dashing precursor to every Jackass-inspired digicam stunt ever posted on YouTube — nine heart-pounding minutes choreographed to a screaming drivetrain. Through a bumper-mounted camera, the viewer becomes the car — traveling more than 80 mph as the anonymous driver revs into the enormous traffic circle around Paris' Arc de Triomphe, steers hammer-down from the Champs Élysées to Sacré-Coeur in Montmartre (through 16 red lights, wrong-way one-ways, stunned pedestrians, garbage trucks, and median strips) to meet up with a beautiful blonde waiting patiently in the park at the Montmartre church.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
EC Heavy weight title fight
There has been plenty of action before the main fight scheduled for November 16.
Victoria, the heavy weight promoter of the electronic conveyancing crown, is in trouble as the competition between the contenders is hotting up and not a punch has been thrown.
The big banks have hung up their gloves and reckon the Victorian competition is for pussies and has joined ranks calling for a national competition.
The lawyers have cried foul and dont want to punch on with the conveyancers in the opposing corner.
Even the master builders have chipped in and I didn't even know they were a contestant.
The punters thinking that the price of admission would be cut found that even though hardly a front row ticket has been sold has just been told the ticket prices have been upped by 30%.
At the moment this all looks to be shaping up to be an all in brawl.
If you missed the October Newsletter here's the proverbial link
Victoria, the heavy weight promoter of the electronic conveyancing crown, is in trouble as the competition between the contenders is hotting up and not a punch has been thrown.
The big banks have hung up their gloves and reckon the Victorian competition is for pussies and has joined ranks calling for a national competition.
The lawyers have cried foul and dont want to punch on with the conveyancers in the opposing corner.
Even the master builders have chipped in and I didn't even know they were a contestant.
The punters thinking that the price of admission would be cut found that even though hardly a front row ticket has been sold has just been told the ticket prices have been upped by 30%.
At the moment this all looks to be shaping up to be an all in brawl.
If you missed the October Newsletter here's the proverbial link
Saturday, October 13, 2007
LTO Fees - paper vs electronic
Is our government ripping off the public? The new frontier of electronic conveyancing is beckoning and we are getting a sneak preview of the proposed fees under the new electronic regime. The government spins the spin that electronic conveyancing will lower the costs of conveyancing. But the facts are now on the table.
The fees on the left are for paper lodgement.
The fees on the right are for electronic lodgement.
There are no monetary savings using electronic, just a financial penalty for the consumer if they continue with paper lodgement. Electonic lodgement fees are the old paper lodgement fees and over the counter charges are 20 to 30% increases which the consumer has to pay. Go figure? It smacks of monopolistic behaviour. Are government dealings regulated by ACCC?
Refer Google Spreadsheet for the fees
Friday, October 12, 2007
E-conveyancing system in trouble
A feud between Victoria's solicitors and non-lawyer conveyancers threatens to undermine the launch of an electronic conveyancing system that could cut $70 million from the cost of home ownership.
Electronic Conveyancing Victoria is due to begin full operations on November 16 but there is a risk that solicitors may boycott the scheme.
Law Institute of Victoria chief executive Michael Brett Young has warned the state's solicitors that without changes the institute "cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme".
Unless the stand-off is resolved, it threatens to undermine the viability of the e-conveyancing system, which could cut the cost of conveyancing transactions by between $235 and $395, the state Government says.
The scheme had already been rocked when major banks withdrew from it last month because of frustration with a lack of co-operation between Victoria and authorities working on a national e-conveyancing project.
If solicitors join the major banks on the sidelines, the Victorian system would be deprived of the two main industry groups that are central players in most conveyancing transactions.
The institute's concerns were triggered by an adverse assessment of the system by the organisation that provides professional indemnity insurance for the state's solicitors.
The institute is also concerned that non-lawyer conveyancers will be using the new system before their new regulatory regime comes into force next year.
The institute says current legislation governing conveyancers does not provide enough insurance cover.
Mr Brett Young says this means solicitors "do not feel confident" about entering into electronic conveyancing transactions with unregulated conveyancers. However, non-lawyer conveyancers say their insurance cover has satisfied the state Government and solicitors are simply trying to dominate the new system.
Although the major banks have withdrawn from the e-conveyancing system, the Government says talks are continuing. Other financial institutions are still involved, including the Australian Securities Exchange, Bendigo Bank and the credit unions.
To justify the investment made by its members in the Victorian project, a national system needs to emerge, the Australian Bankers Association says.
After the big banks withdrew, the Victorian Government made the software underpinning the system available to all other states for assessment.
Queensland's Department of Natural Resources and Water had earlier conducted tests on the Victorian system and, according to Victoria, found that it could be adapted cost-effectively to meet Queensland's needs.
In Victoria, however, the system's launch may be marred if the state's solicitors heed the institute's warning about potential risks in using the new system.
The institute's concerns originated with the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee, a statutory authority that provides professional indemnity insurance for Victoria's solicitors and most national law firms, but they are also linked to the long-standing antipathy between solicitors and non-lawyer conveyancers, who have won government approval to compete for legal work in conveyancing transactions.
In the current issue of the Law Institute Journal, Mr Brett Young writes that the committee "believes there are greater risks for practitioners operating in this system than under the current system".
"Without the committee's endorsement, the institute cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme."
Talks aimed at resolving the committee's concerns are under way, but that organisation's assessment of the new system appears to be at odds with one commissioned by the Victorian Government.
A spokeswoman for Environment Minister Gavin Jennings, whose department is responsible for the system, said there was a low level of risk associated with the new system.
"A risk assessment by a major accounting and consulting firm has been undertaken to determine the level of cover required by participants. This identified that the level of risk was very low," the spokeswoman said.
Mr Brett Young writes in the Law Institute Journal that the 2008 start date for the conveyancers' regulatory system "raises questions about the ability of conveyancers to be involved in the process, particularly in relation to their ongoing insurance requirements".
"The institute believes the current conveyancing legislation does not provide sufficient insurance coverage for solicitors to feel confident entering into e-conveyancing transactions with unregulated conveyancers," he writes.
However, the rules governing the system require all users of the new system to have a set level of insurance cover. A Mallesons Stephen Jaques overview states that the system's users will be required to sign contracts agreeing to comply with the rules.
The Australian Institute of Conveyancers, which represents non-lawyer conveyancers, says the institute's concerns appear to be based on a misapprehension.
Conveyancers institute Victorian chief executive Jill Ludwell says a government working group responsible for e-conveyancing had talked to the group's insurance broker and was satisfied with the insurance cover in policies for its members.
"We showed them our policy, they had a look and said they were satisfied with $1 million in professional indemnity cover and fidelity cover of $50,000," she says. "Electronic Conveyancing Victoria laid down guidelines for indemnity insurance and that is well and truly covered by members of the conveyancers institute. We get on very well with ECV. We have members helping them get the whole thing up and running. We have no problems with ECV and they seem to have no problems with us," she says.
Ms Ludwell says the law institute's warning to solicitors about participating in the system amounts to a threat to conveyancers. "They have it in their minds that electronic conveyancing is going to be legal work."
She rejects Mr Brett Young's assertions that conveyancers have not participated in consultations over the insurance requirement for e-conveyancing. "We have been consulted, and just not in their hearing," Ms Ludwell says.
Mr Brett Young writes in the Law Institute Journal that the law institute supports the system but unless its concerns are addressed, the launch date will be meaningless. He says he would not characterise the committee's view of the new system as an adverse risk assessment.
"They have some concerns over insurance and they want those concerns dealt with," he said. "They are looking to be included in the ongoing review of the system to make sure their concerns are addressed."
One of the committee's main concerns was the possibility that solicitors might be liable under the new system to compensate victims of fraudulent transactions if the fraud had been caused by others, such as conveyancers.
Ms Ludwell says this concern seems baseless because solicitors and conveyancers already work on opposite sides of paper-based conveyancing transactions. "What's the difference?"
Mr Brett Young says the new system posed risks for solicitors that were not present in traditional paper-based conveyancing.
Parties to the new system need to warrant that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the information provided by another party, such as a conveyancer, is correct, Mr Brett Young says. If the information proves false and the conveyancer has inadequate insurance, there is a risk of liability falling to the solicitor, he says.
Mr Brett Young says he would like to see Victoria's system running as soon as possible. "But it will only work if you get all of the stakeholders on board. These issues can be addressed very quickly and we could then move forward," he says.
Mr Jennings' spokeswoman says the new system will not alter the substance of conveyancing transactions.
The Government has been working with the law institute for more than two and a half years on the e-conveyancing project. Within two weeks, the law institute is due to report on its assessment of the legal framework for the system. The Government will then hold discussions with law institute representatives.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Business Australian
Electronic Conveyancing Victoria is due to begin full operations on November 16 but there is a risk that solicitors may boycott the scheme.
Law Institute of Victoria chief executive Michael Brett Young has warned the state's solicitors that without changes the institute "cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme".
Unless the stand-off is resolved, it threatens to undermine the viability of the e-conveyancing system, which could cut the cost of conveyancing transactions by between $235 and $395, the state Government says.
The scheme had already been rocked when major banks withdrew from it last month because of frustration with a lack of co-operation between Victoria and authorities working on a national e-conveyancing project.
If solicitors join the major banks on the sidelines, the Victorian system would be deprived of the two main industry groups that are central players in most conveyancing transactions.
The institute's concerns were triggered by an adverse assessment of the system by the organisation that provides professional indemnity insurance for the state's solicitors.
The institute is also concerned that non-lawyer conveyancers will be using the new system before their new regulatory regime comes into force next year.
The institute says current legislation governing conveyancers does not provide enough insurance cover.
Mr Brett Young says this means solicitors "do not feel confident" about entering into electronic conveyancing transactions with unregulated conveyancers. However, non-lawyer conveyancers say their insurance cover has satisfied the state Government and solicitors are simply trying to dominate the new system.
Although the major banks have withdrawn from the e-conveyancing system, the Government says talks are continuing. Other financial institutions are still involved, including the Australian Securities Exchange, Bendigo Bank and the credit unions.
To justify the investment made by its members in the Victorian project, a national system needs to emerge, the Australian Bankers Association says.
After the big banks withdrew, the Victorian Government made the software underpinning the system available to all other states for assessment.
Queensland's Department of Natural Resources and Water had earlier conducted tests on the Victorian system and, according to Victoria, found that it could be adapted cost-effectively to meet Queensland's needs.
In Victoria, however, the system's launch may be marred if the state's solicitors heed the institute's warning about potential risks in using the new system.
The institute's concerns originated with the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee, a statutory authority that provides professional indemnity insurance for Victoria's solicitors and most national law firms, but they are also linked to the long-standing antipathy between solicitors and non-lawyer conveyancers, who have won government approval to compete for legal work in conveyancing transactions.
In the current issue of the Law Institute Journal, Mr Brett Young writes that the committee "believes there are greater risks for practitioners operating in this system than under the current system".
"Without the committee's endorsement, the institute cannot recommend that its members enter the scheme."
Talks aimed at resolving the committee's concerns are under way, but that organisation's assessment of the new system appears to be at odds with one commissioned by the Victorian Government.
A spokeswoman for Environment Minister Gavin Jennings, whose department is responsible for the system, said there was a low level of risk associated with the new system.
"A risk assessment by a major accounting and consulting firm has been undertaken to determine the level of cover required by participants. This identified that the level of risk was very low," the spokeswoman said.
Mr Brett Young writes in the Law Institute Journal that the 2008 start date for the conveyancers' regulatory system "raises questions about the ability of conveyancers to be involved in the process, particularly in relation to their ongoing insurance requirements".
"The institute believes the current conveyancing legislation does not provide sufficient insurance coverage for solicitors to feel confident entering into e-conveyancing transactions with unregulated conveyancers," he writes.
However, the rules governing the system require all users of the new system to have a set level of insurance cover. A Mallesons Stephen Jaques overview states that the system's users will be required to sign contracts agreeing to comply with the rules.
The Australian Institute of Conveyancers, which represents non-lawyer conveyancers, says the institute's concerns appear to be based on a misapprehension.
Conveyancers institute Victorian chief executive Jill Ludwell says a government working group responsible for e-conveyancing had talked to the group's insurance broker and was satisfied with the insurance cover in policies for its members.
"We showed them our policy, they had a look and said they were satisfied with $1 million in professional indemnity cover and fidelity cover of $50,000," she says. "Electronic Conveyancing Victoria laid down guidelines for indemnity insurance and that is well and truly covered by members of the conveyancers institute. We get on very well with ECV. We have members helping them get the whole thing up and running. We have no problems with ECV and they seem to have no problems with us," she says.
Ms Ludwell says the law institute's warning to solicitors about participating in the system amounts to a threat to conveyancers. "They have it in their minds that electronic conveyancing is going to be legal work."
She rejects Mr Brett Young's assertions that conveyancers have not participated in consultations over the insurance requirement for e-conveyancing. "We have been consulted, and just not in their hearing," Ms Ludwell says.
Mr Brett Young writes in the Law Institute Journal that the law institute supports the system but unless its concerns are addressed, the launch date will be meaningless. He says he would not characterise the committee's view of the new system as an adverse risk assessment.
"They have some concerns over insurance and they want those concerns dealt with," he said. "They are looking to be included in the ongoing review of the system to make sure their concerns are addressed."
One of the committee's main concerns was the possibility that solicitors might be liable under the new system to compensate victims of fraudulent transactions if the fraud had been caused by others, such as conveyancers.
Ms Ludwell says this concern seems baseless because solicitors and conveyancers already work on opposite sides of paper-based conveyancing transactions. "What's the difference?"
Mr Brett Young says the new system posed risks for solicitors that were not present in traditional paper-based conveyancing.
Parties to the new system need to warrant that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the information provided by another party, such as a conveyancer, is correct, Mr Brett Young says. If the information proves false and the conveyancer has inadequate insurance, there is a risk of liability falling to the solicitor, he says.
Mr Brett Young says he would like to see Victoria's system running as soon as possible. "But it will only work if you get all of the stakeholders on board. These issues can be addressed very quickly and we could then move forward," he says.
Mr Jennings' spokeswoman says the new system will not alter the substance of conveyancing transactions.
The Government has been working with the law institute for more than two and a half years on the e-conveyancing project. Within two weeks, the law institute is due to report on its assessment of the legal framework for the system. The Government will then hold discussions with law institute representatives.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Business Australian
Boycott by Lawyers?
THE bad blood between Victoria's lawyers and the state's conveyancers has just about gone far enough.
At the very least, this antipathy appears to be one of the factors behind the possible boycott by solicitors of Victoria's new system of electronic conveyancing.
That system, the first in the nation, is expected to lead to significant cost savings for everyone who buys and sells property. It deserves to be supported by lawyers.
If solicitors withdraw from the new system, it will have two possible consequences.
In the short term, it will hurt consumers of legal services. Those who choose to leave their conveyancing work with solicitors will be forced to use traditional paper-based conveyancing. And thanks to the Victorian Government, the cost of that traditional service is about to rise.
In the long-term, a boycott will almost certainly backfire.
When South Australia invented the system of Torrens title, that state's solicitors reacted in much the same way and boycotted the new-fangled system.
They favoured the old-system form of title that, when viewed objectively, is nothing but a make-work scheme for the legally trained.
That left a lucrative gap in the market. The result: South Australia is now one of the greatest strong-holds for non-lawyer conveyancers.
If Victoria's solicitors want to achieve the same outcome, they should go right ahead. The conveyancers will steal their lunch.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Business Australian
I agree with Chris' conclusion, and the comment about lawyers antipathy, but the quotation about a possible lawyer's boycott is not supported by any direct quotation.
At the very least, this antipathy appears to be one of the factors behind the possible boycott by solicitors of Victoria's new system of electronic conveyancing.
That system, the first in the nation, is expected to lead to significant cost savings for everyone who buys and sells property. It deserves to be supported by lawyers.
If solicitors withdraw from the new system, it will have two possible consequences.
In the short term, it will hurt consumers of legal services. Those who choose to leave their conveyancing work with solicitors will be forced to use traditional paper-based conveyancing. And thanks to the Victorian Government, the cost of that traditional service is about to rise.
In the long-term, a boycott will almost certainly backfire.
When South Australia invented the system of Torrens title, that state's solicitors reacted in much the same way and boycotted the new-fangled system.
They favoured the old-system form of title that, when viewed objectively, is nothing but a make-work scheme for the legally trained.
That left a lucrative gap in the market. The result: South Australia is now one of the greatest strong-holds for non-lawyer conveyancers.
If Victoria's solicitors want to achieve the same outcome, they should go right ahead. The conveyancers will steal their lunch.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Business Australian
I agree with Chris' conclusion, and the comment about lawyers antipathy, but the quotation about a possible lawyer's boycott is not supported by any direct quotation.
States debate the merits of new electronic conveyancing system
THE Victorian Government believes its new electronic conveyancing system could be a sound platform for the development of a national system.
Queensland's Department of Natural Resources and Water has already assessed the new system and, according to the Victorian Government, "found it could be adapted cost-effectively to meet that state's needs".
When the Victorian system goes live on November 16, it will enable electronic settlement for property sales and lodgment of land transfers as well as electronic payment of duty to the State Revenue Office.
It has been in development for five years and builds on the existing Victorian system of electronic lodgment and discharge of mortgages.
It will be the only system of its kind in Australia.
The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, which is responsible for the new system, believes it has accelerated the development of electronic conveyancing around the nation.
But Victoria has only just made the software that underpins the new system available to all other states for assessment. For much of the development period, officials in NSW say they were unable to see the substance of what the Victorians were building.
That period of interstate suspicion appears to be ending. But it did little to foster the development of a national system. Each state has different methods of transferring and registering title to land.
Sources in NSW say there is no doubt that the Victorian system does not meet the needs of its northern neighbour.
Parts of it may be capable of being adapted, but NSW officials want a system that has been designed to meet the needs of their state.
So does this mean Australia is on the verge of a bout of parochialism of the type that left the nation with inconsistent rail gauges?
Responsibility for heading off that sort of calamity rests with an organisation known as the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS).
The steering committee for that organisation is chaired by Les Taylor, former general counsel of the Commonwealth Bank and one-time corporate lawyer of the year.
NECS brings together all the states as well as those organisations whose members are involved in conveyancing - including the Law Council, the Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. Despite the different requirements of the different states, all members of NECS are committed to overcoming the differences and establishing a truly national system.
The Law Council representative on that body is John Corcoran, a former president of the Law Institute of Victoria and an executive member of the Law Council.
"We want a seamless national system," he said.
"Everyone wants that. The question is: how do you deliver that?"
When the NECS steering committee met in Perth at the end of June, it made a decision that could provide a way forward.
"We decided that to the maximum extent possible, we want to use the Victorian system that has been developed.
"We want to adapt what the Victorians have done. So whether you are conveyancing a property at Toowoomba, Perth or anywhere, you just go online and do it through the national system," he said.
"You might need to change the system rules, or the way you identify someone who uses the system, but to the largest extent possible, the investment that has been made should be utilised. In my view there is no risk of a rail-gauge type problem."
One of the main reasons for this is that the key players - lawyers, bankers and conveyancers - are not prepared to tolerate interstate inconsistency.
"The lawyers and banks are key stakeholders. The banks were involved in developing the Victorian pilot but they are now stepping back and want to see it integrated into the national scheme," Mr Corcoran said.
"Right from the beginning, the Law Council has backed a truly national system."
The Australian Bankers Association acting chief executive Ian Gilbert said the banks had tested the Victorian system and found that it worked.
"But we want it to find its way through to a national system. The states need to get together.
"For our members, if it is going to be viable - given the investment involved - then the system needs to be national," Mr Gilbert said.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Australian Business
Queensland's Department of Natural Resources and Water has already assessed the new system and, according to the Victorian Government, "found it could be adapted cost-effectively to meet that state's needs".
When the Victorian system goes live on November 16, it will enable electronic settlement for property sales and lodgment of land transfers as well as electronic payment of duty to the State Revenue Office.
It has been in development for five years and builds on the existing Victorian system of electronic lodgment and discharge of mortgages.
It will be the only system of its kind in Australia.
The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, which is responsible for the new system, believes it has accelerated the development of electronic conveyancing around the nation.
But Victoria has only just made the software that underpins the new system available to all other states for assessment. For much of the development period, officials in NSW say they were unable to see the substance of what the Victorians were building.
That period of interstate suspicion appears to be ending. But it did little to foster the development of a national system. Each state has different methods of transferring and registering title to land.
Sources in NSW say there is no doubt that the Victorian system does not meet the needs of its northern neighbour.
Parts of it may be capable of being adapted, but NSW officials want a system that has been designed to meet the needs of their state.
So does this mean Australia is on the verge of a bout of parochialism of the type that left the nation with inconsistent rail gauges?
Responsibility for heading off that sort of calamity rests with an organisation known as the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS).
The steering committee for that organisation is chaired by Les Taylor, former general counsel of the Commonwealth Bank and one-time corporate lawyer of the year.
NECS brings together all the states as well as those organisations whose members are involved in conveyancing - including the Law Council, the Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. Despite the different requirements of the different states, all members of NECS are committed to overcoming the differences and establishing a truly national system.
The Law Council representative on that body is John Corcoran, a former president of the Law Institute of Victoria and an executive member of the Law Council.
"We want a seamless national system," he said.
"Everyone wants that. The question is: how do you deliver that?"
When the NECS steering committee met in Perth at the end of June, it made a decision that could provide a way forward.
"We decided that to the maximum extent possible, we want to use the Victorian system that has been developed.
"We want to adapt what the Victorians have done. So whether you are conveyancing a property at Toowoomba, Perth or anywhere, you just go online and do it through the national system," he said.
"You might need to change the system rules, or the way you identify someone who uses the system, but to the largest extent possible, the investment that has been made should be utilised. In my view there is no risk of a rail-gauge type problem."
One of the main reasons for this is that the key players - lawyers, bankers and conveyancers - are not prepared to tolerate interstate inconsistency.
"The lawyers and banks are key stakeholders. The banks were involved in developing the Victorian pilot but they are now stepping back and want to see it integrated into the national scheme," Mr Corcoran said.
"Right from the beginning, the Law Council has backed a truly national system."
The Australian Bankers Association acting chief executive Ian Gilbert said the banks had tested the Victorian system and found that it worked.
"But we want it to find its way through to a national system. The states need to get together.
"For our members, if it is going to be viable - given the investment involved - then the system needs to be national," Mr Gilbert said.
Chris Merritt | October 12, 2007
Australian Business
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Agents Selling Authorities
You are selling and have chosen an agent. The Agent has prepared the Agents Selling Authority, usually exclusive for 90 days. But what if you are not happy with the level of service? You are locked in. Have you read the fine print. Probably not.
A suggestion made by estate agent Terry Ryder of McGrath Partners suggests that you consider putting a termination clause in the agency agreement. "It should give you the right to sack your agent if you're not happy with their level of service. Because in standard agreements, you're kind of locked in. A prudent seller would insist on writing in a clause which gives you the right to terminate without incurring any financial penalty."
Take Action
If you aren't happy with the treatment you've received as a buyer or vendor, you can make a complaint to the Real Estate Institute in your State or Territory. You could also contact the Department of Fair Trading, or equivalent in your State.
If you've been left out of pocket, and it was the agent's fault, seek legal advice in relation to your rights.
Top 10 questions to ask agents
1.How long have you been working in this area?
2.What comparable homes have you sold in this area lately?
3.What is the state of the market?
4.How long is it taking you to sell well-priced listings at the moment?
5.How much is my home worth? How have you come up with that figure?
6.Should I sell by auction or private treaty? Why?
7.What marketing strategy do you suggest? Why?
8.What will you do to introduce buyers to my property?
9.How does my house present? What should I do to maximise the sale price?
10.Do you have a list of recent vendors I can speak to?
Source Metropole Property Newsletter
A suggestion made by estate agent Terry Ryder of McGrath Partners suggests that you consider putting a termination clause in the agency agreement. "It should give you the right to sack your agent if you're not happy with their level of service. Because in standard agreements, you're kind of locked in. A prudent seller would insist on writing in a clause which gives you the right to terminate without incurring any financial penalty."
Take Action
If you aren't happy with the treatment you've received as a buyer or vendor, you can make a complaint to the Real Estate Institute in your State or Territory. You could also contact the Department of Fair Trading, or equivalent in your State.
If you've been left out of pocket, and it was the agent's fault, seek legal advice in relation to your rights.
Top 10 questions to ask agents
1.How long have you been working in this area?
2.What comparable homes have you sold in this area lately?
3.What is the state of the market?
4.How long is it taking you to sell well-priced listings at the moment?
5.How much is my home worth? How have you come up with that figure?
6.Should I sell by auction or private treaty? Why?
7.What marketing strategy do you suggest? Why?
8.What will you do to introduce buyers to my property?
9.How does my house present? What should I do to maximise the sale price?
10.Do you have a list of recent vendors I can speak to?
Source Metropole Property Newsletter
Monday, October 01, 2007
Master Builders Association response to EC
VICTORIA will be the first Australian state to enter the brave new world of "electronic conveyancing", but not everyone is happy with the proposed online system for exchanging mortgage documents.
The Master Builders Association says the State Government is using the new system to increase conveyancing fees. This would further reduce housing affordability, as its building and construction members would pass the added costs to consumers.
According to an MBA submission, land transfer fees would remain the same for electronic conveyancing, but would rise by between 16 and 32 per cent for those who stick with paper.
MBA executive director Brian Welch said the Land Victoria increase was yet another weight on housing affordability.
"Those who stick with the paper trail system are going to be penalised," he said.
"We support the initiative … but it discriminates heavily against people who are not computer-based; who are not literate with these systems.
"The State Government finds taxation all too easy to increase and it impacts on housing once again."
Source The Age Natalie Craig 1 Oct 07
You would have thought a positive step was to reduce transfer fees on electronic conveyancing transactions. It sends a positive signal to promote uptake and second the productivity savings are built into the cost of the transaction. Anyhow transfer fees bear no relation to the cost of the transaction, as the MBA point out the transfer fee is a tax. The MBA response is also consistent with the view the government wants to see a return on their investment in EC. The government can charge whatever they like as they hold the monopoly. BH
The Master Builders Association says the State Government is using the new system to increase conveyancing fees. This would further reduce housing affordability, as its building and construction members would pass the added costs to consumers.
According to an MBA submission, land transfer fees would remain the same for electronic conveyancing, but would rise by between 16 and 32 per cent for those who stick with paper.
MBA executive director Brian Welch said the Land Victoria increase was yet another weight on housing affordability.
"Those who stick with the paper trail system are going to be penalised," he said.
"We support the initiative … but it discriminates heavily against people who are not computer-based; who are not literate with these systems.
"The State Government finds taxation all too easy to increase and it impacts on housing once again."
Source The Age Natalie Craig 1 Oct 07
You would have thought a positive step was to reduce transfer fees on electronic conveyancing transactions. It sends a positive signal to promote uptake and second the productivity savings are built into the cost of the transaction. Anyhow transfer fees bear no relation to the cost of the transaction, as the MBA point out the transfer fee is a tax. The MBA response is also consistent with the view the government wants to see a return on their investment in EC. The government can charge whatever they like as they hold the monopoly. BH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
