Tasmania: Vendor Disclosure still not enacted

Cassy O'Connor MP

Thursday, 30th October 2008

For Comment: State Parliamentary Offices of the Tasmanian Greens, (03) 6233 8300

Link

The Tasmanian Greens today condemned the Bartlett Government’s disregard for the right of home buyers to know whether properties they intend to purchase are harbouring asbestos in places like ceilings, flooring, wall sheeting, window frames, gutters, pipes, water tanks and insulation.

In Question Time today Greens Shadow Health spokesperson Cassy O’Connor MP asked Consumer Affairs Minister, David Llewellyn, what possible justification the Bartlett Government had for not enacting Part 10 of the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005 which provides for vendor disclosure to provide protection for home buyers, ensuring they are not exposed to deadly asbestos in the process of renovating and removing the material from properties they purchase.

“In the end, the Minister’s convoluted answer came down to the government placing a higher level of importance on cost considerations than it does for public health,” Ms O’Connor said.

“Vendor disclosure – where the seller of a property is required to disclose information about the property to the purchaser or potential purchaser - was a key recommendation of the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute report to the Tasmania Government in September 2004.” [1] 

“The Law Reform Institute recommended a model that was designed to strike a fair balance between the rights and interests of vendors and purchasers by providing the purchaser with sufficient information to make a fully informed decision, while requiring vendors to provide only information that they know, ought to know, or could reasonably obtain.”

“This provision was included in the legislation which passed in 2005, yet the vendor disclosure provision was never enacted after the real estate industry lobbied the government, claiming it would negatively affect the industry.”

“What price peace of mind, of being sure they are not exposed to asbestos fibres and potentially a terminal lung disease, for Tasmanian home buyers?”

“All Tasmanians who purchase properties should be entitled to know whether they are buying a huge potential problem, and more importantly, whether they will be exposing themselves or other family members to asbestos fibres that can cause terminal mesothelioma decades later.”

“Because the State Government has refused to enact Part 10 of the Act, that protection under the law does not exist. The Tasmanian Greens believe this is immoral.”

“Tasmania already lags far behind other Australian jurisdictions in terms of asbestos law. We are the only state, for example, where asbestos disease sufferers can only file one compensation claim and where payments to victims are about half what they are interstate.”

“As it stands under the current legal regime, a mesothelioma sufferer is likely to die before their claims for compensation are resolved.”

“Sadly, I believe, it comes down to a warped set of priorities on the Tasmanian Labor Government’s part, leaving victims and potential victims with inadequate protections under the law,” Ms O’Connor said.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] ‘Vendor Disclosure’, Law Reform Institute Final Report No. 5, September 2004 

Which way is property heading?

north, south or sideways?

Well we all know the share market has tanked and the property market is probably off at least 10% and turnover even more. But what is it with the property market? There is and has always been so much disinformation about the real state of the real estate market. We hear a lot about auction clearance rates. What are you meant to read into a clearance rate of 82% now down to 57%. Where's the real barometer of property prices like the ASX and share price futures index which gives live data feeds minute my minute, second by second on prices and volume. The public is out of luck when it comes to property. The property buying public is craving for smart up to date property information such as property price indexes, suburb by suburb, sector by sector, property by property. The conspiracy theory is agents like it this way and dont want such market information in the hands of the public. There wouldn't be much reason to have agents otherwise. Excellent property data valuation is available, and its available instantly. Valuation data by suburb, by street, even individual property is available and tracked but its not freely available. Such valuable data is available to subscribers only. No prize for guessing who pays.

The traditional government reported data is just way out of date. Reliable and accurate data from the Land Registry is several months old by the time it is published. Hardly relevant except from a historical rear view perspective. But again the government data is not readily published. No, its packaged onto a CD and sold. You can generally pick up the quarterly CD for around $50+.

When the property markets are going up, everyone is talking the market up. But when markets are pointing south, the talk is a lot less subdued, and always a number of commentators are still talking the market up. My argument is I just dont know what's happening. I can look at the ANZ Bank share price or BHP or any stock and I can see todays price, yesterdays price, look at New York overnight and have a pretty good idea which way ANZ or BHP will be heading for the day. We all know its not quite the same with property, but there is a world of difference between the market reporting of shares vs property.

Does it matter? It seems to matter to the governing regulators of the ASX that companies have to comply with their obligations of continual disclosure of market sensitive information. But that hasn't stopped the equity markets crashing!

The question remains. What would happen if quality property valuation data was readily, instantly and freely available to everyone? What affect would it have on the real estate industry for general real estate agents and for that matter for panel valuers to the big banks? For that matter, would property start to be traded online?

That said, it is not hard to see all sectors of the property industry colliding and meshing on the internet.

• Property trading online
• Vendor Disclosure online
• Contracts digitally exchanged online
• Real time property valuations
• Mortgages digitally signed by clients
• Conveyancing online
• Property settlements online
• National property registration online

The selling models and technical tools to trade property online have been around for years whether by auction or bid / offer. For any online selling model to succeed the vendor and buyer still require

1. Access to quality up-to-date valuation property data;
2. Instant access to all valid legal information, title search, plans, covenants, planning, outgoings, building reports etc;
3. Ability to enter into a legally binding contract and security of payment of deposit; and
4. the option for vendors and buyers to engage professional advisors to represent them in the negotiation phase

The missing ingredient is undoubtedly the public does not have ready access to quality valuation data. The problem is the organisations that own and collect this data and provide the key reports are not charities. That said, in the US companies such as zillow.com are providing free real estate information including homes for sale, comparable homes, historical sales and home valuation tools. Have a look at this spacial view of price changes in the US over the last 12 months. It clearly shows how California and Florida have tanked 20% over the last 12 months. Link to zillow market report

In respect to the legal information being conveyed electronically, well that is exactly what 247legal does. 247legal carries on the business of digital conveyancing services to the Australian legal and conveyancing industry - online vendor disclosure, digital contracts and electronic settlement services to the legal and finance industry.

Its a lots closer than we think or in other words it is simply just a matter of time.

Accusations rock moves for hi-tech conveyancing

Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor | October 24, 2008 : australian

MOVES to establish a national electronic conveyancing system have been rocked by accusations that the project may have been corrupted by a conflict of interest within the Victorian public service.

The accusations, made in the Senate estimates committee this week, triggered moves by the federal Government to shore up the integrity of the e-conveyancing project.

The secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Roger Wilkins, told the committee that government agencies would ensure the process of developing the national e-conveyancing system had integrity.

The Attorney-General's Department and Department of Finance would need to assure themselves that they were not "falling into any traps" and that "things were above board", Mr Wilkins said.

He was responding to Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis, who said there were serious and credible allegations that the process of selecting the national e-conveyancing system had been "corrupted by a conflict of interest within the state of Victoria".

Senator Brandis's allegations are based on reports in The Australian about the links between computer company Ajilon and the Victorian Government.

Ajilon, which built the state Government's $40 million e-conveyancing system, is a possible tenderer to build the national system. Senator Brandis told the committee that a meeting had taken place last month between Ajilon consultant Rick Dixon and federal government officials who are developing a plan for the national e-conveyancing system.

Mr Dixon is also electronic conveyancing manager within the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.

On September 23, he provided a briefing to officials from federal Treasury and the federal Government's business regulation and competition working group.

The Council of Australian Governments has given the BRCWG responsibility for developing the plan for the national e-conveyancing system. Mr Dixon's meeting with this group took place at least three months before the establishment of a new "entity" that will be responsible for calling tenders to build the national system and deciding whether part of ECV's software can be used for the national system.

Documents obtained by The Australian show that Mr Dixon's talk concerned ECV and raised the question of how this system could best be "leveraged". The Victorian Government issued a statement yesterday that played down Ajilon's role in ECV.

Climate change minister Gavin Jennings, who is responsible for ECV, said the state Government believed the system "provides the basis for a national approach to electronic conveyancing". 

Body: "Ajilon won a public tender to provide services and specialists to deliver an e-convey-ancing system for Victoria. 

"The Ajilon company is engaged for consulting services and are not the developers of the system. 

"They have no commercial or other intellectual property interests in the EC system," the statement said. 

In parliament, Senator Brandis had asked whether the federal Government was concerned about what he described as "the obvious conflict of interest" in Victoria. 

People with a commercial interest in ECV were also employees of the state government "which is seeking to implement and recommend to COAG the same system", he told the estimates committee. 

He asked Mr Wilkins if the Government would investigate the affair but Mr Wilkins said "investigate might be too strong a word". 

"We will have a good look at it," Mr Wilkins said. 

The fate of the Victorian system has been in doubt since July when COAG took control of moves to build a national system and decided it would operate in all states, including Victoria. 

COAG decided that ECV's software would be assessed by a new national entity that would be jointly owned by state and territory governments. 

But instead of being dominated by government officials, this organisation will be run by a board that will be chosen for its technical skills. 

Under the COAG plan, it is this group that will assess ECV and "to the extent that it is suitable" use it as the basis for the underlying software of the national system. 

In parliament, Senator Brandis asked if the Attorney-General's Department would be concerned if the implementation of the plan for a national e-conveyancing system favoured the Victorian system when there were credible allegations of "a plain conflict of interest". 

That conflict was between "the promoters of the system in their capacity as entrepreneurs and the responsible state government department which employs some of those self-same entrepreneurs". 

Victorian Opposition frontbencher David Davis, who is responsible for the scrutiny of government, called for state Environment minister Gavin Jennings to dismiss Ajilon employees from his department. 

"There is an inherent conflict of interest in being a paid-up consultant in the department of Sustainability and Environment and also a manager," Mr Davis said. 

"Gavin Jennings should sack these consultants to clear up any doubts or confusion, or the perception of a conflict of interest." 

Solicitors have boycotted ECV since it was launched late last year because the state Government has been unable to address their concerns that the system exposes them to extra potential liability. 

Those concerns are based on advice from Victoria's Legal Practitioner's Liability Committee -- a statutory organisation that provides the first compulsory layer of professional indemnity insurance for the state's solicitors. 

The major banks, which strongly oppose separate state-based e-conveyancing systems, have also refused to use ECV. 

Senate questions ECV and Ajilon role

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Proof Committee Hansard

SENATE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS

ESTIMATES

(Supplementary Budget Estimates)

MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2008

CANBERRA

Page 134

 

 

Senator BRANDIS-Mr Wilkins, I want to ask you about electronic conveyancing. In particular, I want to ask you about the announcement following the July COAG meeting that-I am paraphrasing here-the Commonwealth would move to superintend and implement a national electronic conveyancing system in relation to all property transactions across the nation by 2010. You are familiar with this issue?

Mr Wilkins-I am familiar with it, but you are probably better to get an answer from one of my officials, who understand it much better than I do.

Senator BRANDIS- Certainly, Mr Wilkins. All I want is the answer. I do not mind who answers the questions as long as they are the best witness.

Senator Chris Evans-I think we might have strayed back. 

Mr Wilkins- We are now on 1.8, I think.

Senator BRANDIS-No. Whatever. Mr Popple, you, of course, I assume, since you have come to the table, are familiar with the announcement that was made by the Prime Minister and Mr Tanner following COAG. You would, I dare say, be aware of the controversy concerning the suitability of the Victorian based electronic conveyancing system as the basis for the proposed national system? You are aware of that controversy?

Dr Popple-Yes. I am aware of that.

Senator BRANDIS-I daresay that you have followed the articles written by the journalist Chris Merritt in the Australian in recent months to expose the difficulties and conflicts involving ECV, the Victorian government's electronic conveyancing system. Are you familiar with Mr Merritt's articles?

Dr Popple-Yes, I am.

Senator BRANDIS-What is the attitude of the Australian government towards the adoption of ECV system as the template for a national system?

Dr Popple-I do not believe the Australian government has an opinion about the appropriate template for a national system. The Australian government, through the COAG process-particularly at the July meeting, which I believe is the meeting you were referring to­

Senator BRANDIS-The 2 July meeting, yes.

Dr Popple-The 2 July meeting was part of the COAG process encouraging the states and territories to agree to an appropriate model for the implementation of a national electronic conveyancing system. Out of that meeting a timeline for implementation was agreed­

Senator BRANDIS-Culminating in 2010.

Dr Popple-That is right-a new system in March 2010. The Commonwealth's involvement is to encourage that process, because it is primarily a matter for the states and territories, given their responsibilities for land registration.

Senator BRANDIS-Is the Commonwealth not aware that, for example, the New South Wales government has expressed considerable misgivings about whether the ECV system is an appropriate national template or an appropriate basis for a national system?

Dr Popple-We are aware of many of the criticisms because we have been involved, particularly on one steering committee, for some while now, but the point I am making is that the route that COAG has chosen to take involves setting up a new entity to consider these issues and others, to make a decision about how best to proceed and then to implement a system along those lines.

Senator BRANDIS-Are you aware that a man called Rick Dixon provided briefings to the federal Treasury and the federal business, regulation and competition working group? On 23 September, in circumstances in which they had been authorised by COAG to oversee the introduction of the national e­conveyancing system, Mr Dixon made a presentation in relation to ECV

Dr Popple-I am not aware of that.

Senator BRANDIS-Well, that happened. Are you aware that Mr Dixon is a principal of a computer consultancy called Ajilon which built the ECV system?

Dr Popple-I think I recall reading something like that in one of those articles in the Australian that you referred to, but I am not otherwise aware of that.

Senator BRANDIS-Are you aware that employees of Ajilon hold a number of senior management positions in the Victorian state government, in particular in the Department of Sustainability and Environment, which is the Victorian department responsible for the development of the electronic conveyancing system in that state?

Dr Popple-Again, I am aware only from what I have read in that newspaper.

Senator BRANDIS-Since Ajilon is a contractor to the Victorian government for the development and implementation of the ECV system, and as Mr Dixon and other people interested in the company Ajilon are also on the payroll of the relevant department of the Victorian state government, and as the COAG process has endorsed ECV as a potential template-I am not saying it has a concluded view-for a national electronic conveyancing system, is the Commonwealth not concerned about the obvious conflict of interest involved in those with a commercial interest in the ECV system being employees of the state government which is seeking to implement and recommend to COAG the same system?

Dr Popple-I could not possibly comment on the Commonwealth's view on that. The Attorney-General's Department was not involved in arranging the presentations you talked about. It relates to a state government operation and, as I said before, the only knowledge I have of this, sadly, is what I have read in that newspaper.

Senator BRANDIS-On the basis that the allegations made by the journalist appear on their face to be specific and credible, would the Attorney-General's Department not be concerned if the implementation under its auspices, and under the auspices of SCAG, of a national electronic conveyancing system, favoured a system developed in a particular state-that is, Victoria-in circumstances in which there are credible allegations of a plain conflict of interest between the promoters of the system in their capacity as entrepreneurs and the responsible state government department which employs some of those self-same entrepreneurs?

Dr Popple-The proposal is that the system will be built not under the auspices of SCAG, or under any of the attorneys-general departments, but under the COAG process. I can only suggest that the appropriate organ of the Commonwealth government to ask those questions of would be those that were responsible for the COAG working group-and I think that is the Department of Finance and Deregulation.

Senator BRANDIS-You came to the table, Dr Popple, because you were the officer present who knew about this matter. It had its genesis in the SCAG agenda, did it not?

Dr Popple-It did, but it has taken on a life beyond that since then.

Senator BRANDIS-I understand that, but SCAG continues to have a close interest in the development and implementation of a national electronic conveyancing system, albeit through the COAG process, does it not?

Dr Popple-I am sure that is correct, but it is the COAG process that is being adopted at the moment.

Senator BRANDIS-Indeed, and it is not unknown for a policy proposal germinated within one department, or within one federal and state group of like departments, to find its way onto the COAG agenda. Since this germinated through the SCAG process, and there are now serious and credible allegations that the development and selection of a particular system is not only unsuitable in the eyes of at least one state government but also corrupted by a conflict of interest within the state of Victoria between the entrepreneurs and the Victorian state government department, what steps will the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department take, as the auspicing authority through the SCAG process, to ensure that these issues of conflict of interest and potential corruption are addressed? What due diligence will you undertake?

Mr Wilkins-Can I answer that question, Senator? I am not quite sure what due diligence we would undertake, but certainly we would need to look at these newspaper articles and, in the context of deciding to go forward, clearly the agencies-which include probably the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and other state agencies-would need to assure themselves that they were not falling into any traps of the sort you are talking about in terms of conflict of interest and that things were above board. So that would clearly need to be part of the process. Precisely what steps are involved in that I do not know, but you can be assured that the agencies would make sure that there was integrity around the process and that there were no concerns of this sort before they proceeded with anything along those lines. As I say, I have not had a chance to look at it, but we will certainly be bringing it to attention in the process.

Senator BRANDIS-Thank you, Mr Wilkins; that is really the assurance I was seeking. May I take it that it is implicit in that assurance that the Attorney-General's Department will take the trouble to investigate these allegations so as to reassure itself as to these matters?

Mr Wilkins-'Investigate' might be too strong a word. Senator BRANDIS-Well, have a good look at it.

Mr Wilkins-Yes, indeed-we will have a good look at it.

Better Regulation: an interactive discussion forum with The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP

Following Minister Lindsay Tanner’s announcement at the GAP Congress on Regulatory Affairs on September 26 2008, Open Forum is proud to host “Talk Openly: Better Regulation Forum with The Hon. Lindsay Tanner MP”.

 The forum opens on Thursday October 9, 2008. Minister Tanner will be personally responding to submissions from Monday 13 to Friday, 17 October 2008.

 We invite you to visit www.openforum.com.au now and submit your questions, comments or suggestions.

Question

Wed, 15/10/2008 - 08:54 — Victor Perton

National Electronic Conveyancing System

One policy area crying out for regulatory reform is conveyancing.

The current paper based process seems remarkably inefficient in this technological age.

The four major banks made it quite clear back in 2004 that they would only participate in a national system. In response to this the states and territories embarked on the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) initiative.

The National Electronic Conveyancing Office was established in 2005 and has been doing some excellent work in determining the requirements for the national system. At the COAG meeting on 3 July 2008 all jurisdictions agreed to develop a national e-conveyancing system. This should have been the circuit breaker necessary for NECS to progress.

However electronic conveyancing was not discussed at the COAG meeting on 2 October.

When can we expect to see the national initiative operating?

Response

Thu, 16/10/2008 - 09:19 — Lindsay Tanner

Harnessing technology

I have had a longstanding personal interest in the role collaborative technologies can play in democratic renewal.

Brendan, I think one of the benefits of open source software and Web 2.0 tools is that the government does not need to be the gate-keeper of what can or cannot be discussed. Russell's idea of a small business wiki could be developed just as well, if not better, by a small business group than the government. What I would like to investigate is the terms on which government officials might participate in such forums. For example, if the wiki had incorrect information about eligibility for a government program, government officials could participate in the wiki to provide the correct information.

Matthew, thanks for the link to FERC's website. I would be interested in any feedback you or others may have about how active such interactive discussion forums are in practice. I am aware that some similar feedback or suggestion mechanisms on other overseas regulator's websites are not heavily utilised.

I have mixed views on the Lange Government. Some of their deregulatory initiatives were necessary, but the overall impact was rather brutal. Some argue they were unavoidable, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand exactly how dire their economic circumstances were.

There is also a question about where and when interaction between the bureaucracy and external stakeholders will be most productive. While I agree David about the need for stakeholder views to be considered in the COAG regulatory reform process, it could quickly become unwieldy for COAG Working Group meetings to also include a large number of non-government representatives. Use on online consultation tools may be part of the solution here as well as targeted consultation on specific issues.

On e-conveyancing, we formed a sub-group of the BRCWG that, in the course of developing recommendations for COAG, consulted directly with stakeholders. Along with Victor, I am also keen to see a national electronic conveyancing scheme developed. The current paper-based system is inefficient and unnecessarily adds several hundred dollars to the cost of buying a house. COAG agreed in July 2008 to create a new national e-conveyancing entity. Work is now underway with the states to finalise how this new entity will be set up. Once up and running, it's first task will be to investigate whether the existing Victorian software is a suitable basis for a national system. The results of this analysis will dictate how quickly a national system can be rolled out.

Regards

Lindsay Tanner

Victoria secretly develops third ECV system

Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor | October 03, 2008 | The Australian

THE Victorian Government has secretly spent tens of thousands of dollars developing a third version of its electronic conveyancing system despite Kevin Rudd's promise to roll out a national system.

The new version of the state-based system is due to be unveiled on October 20, less than four months after the Prime Minister said all states would be using a national electronic conveyancing system by March 2010.

The Government refused to say how much it had spent developing the latest version, known as ECV 3.0.

It has already spent at least $40million developing previous versions of ECV.

The development of a new version of the system is outlined in documents obtained by The Australian, which were presented to federal officials last week.

They have reignited concerns about whether Victoria is seeking to persuade the federal Government to abandon its promised national system and support state systems based on ECV.

Victorian Innovation Minister Gavin Jennings confirmed this week that ECV was still being developed.

"The Victorian Government is continuing to work with state and federal governments and believes Victoria's ECV system provides the basis for a national approach to electronic conveyancing," Mr Jennings said.

"Improvements to the system continue to be put in place to ensure it is as user-friendly as possible. These improvements will also enhance the usefulness of ECV as the basis of a national system."

The new version of ECV has been developed without involvement from the major banks, which are central players in most conveyancing transactions.

The big banks strongly oppose separate state-based systems and have refused to use ECV. They have long argued that the cost savings from electronic conveyancing would be dissipated if they had to deal with eight separate systems instead of a single national system.

The Victorian Government has made no progress in easing solicitors' concerns about ECV. Potential liability problems associated with the system identified last year have prevented the Law Institute from recommending that solicitors use the system.

The fate of ECV has been in doubt since July, when the Council of Australian Governments took control of moves to build a national e-conveyancing system.

Mr Rudd and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner said on July 2 that ECV's software would be assessed by a new national entity that would build the national system. That entity would be jointly owned by state and territory governments but would be run by a "skills-based board" instead of being dominated by government officials.

They said the new entity would be established by December and would then assess ECV and "to the extent that it is suitable", use it as the basis of the underlying software for the new national system.

Even if some ECV software is used in the national system, the plan outlined by Mr Rudd and Mr Tanner made it clear the national system would operate in all states, including Victoria.

"A national electronic conveyancing system will mean consumers across the country will use the same electronic system to settle all property transactions," they said on July 2.

"This national system will mean consumers will use the same online system and exchange all the documents, certificates and contracts needed to buy their new house," whether they buy a house in Darwin or Dubbo, Bundaberg or Ballarat, they added.

Victoria's continued expenditure on its state system came to light soon after the state auditor-general's office said it was considering a performance audit on the system.

Mr Jennings said ECV had been used for 600 transactions, but just one of those transactions is understood to involve the settlement of a property sale.

State Opposition frontbencher David Davis said the continued expenditure on ECV would be wasted.

"It does not matter what colour you paint a white elephant, it is still a white elephant and it's time the Government realised that and put it out of its misery," Mr Davis said.

"The Government has already spent tens of millions of dollars on ECV and this version will suffer from the same flaws -- lack of support from key groups, including the banks."

Mr Davis said the Government should provide a system that met the basic requirements of industry groups involved in conveyancing.

Over the life of the six-year project the state Government has established an extensive relationship with computer consultancy Ajilon, which built ECV. 

Ajilon employees hold senior management positions in the Department of Sustainability and Environment, responsible for managing electronic conveyancing for the Government. 

Ajilon employee Rick Dixon briefed officials from federal Treasury and federal Business Regulation and Competition Working Group about ECV on September 23. 

The working group has been authorised by the Council of Australian Governments to oversee the introduction of the national e-conveyancing system. 

As well as being an Ajilon employee, Mr Dixon is electronic conveyancing manager in the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Development. 

Mr Dixon presented a series of slides on ECV obtained by The Australian. 

The presentation, made on behalf of the state Government rather than Ajilon, also outlines the massive amount of work generated by the project. 

ECV has generated 3000 pages of detailed design, 3500 "business analyst days" and 90,000 lines of source code. 

The presentation notes that e-conveyancing is on COAG's agenda and a commitment has been made to have a national system operating by 2010. It then says: "How can ECV experience/system best be leveraged: prototyping versus greenfields?" 

Mr Dixon's presentation also refers to the fact that COAG has decided ECV should be assessed, but its view of the assessment process differs from that outlined by Mr Rudd and Mr Tanner. 

Mr Rudd and the Finance Minister said in July that ECV would be assessed and could be used as "the basis for the underlying software for the national e-conveyancing system". 

Mr Dixon's presentation last week said COAG had resolved that ECV would be assessed "for suitability as the national e-conveyancing system and, to the extent appropriate, used to implement that system". Sources close to the affair say this goes beyond COAG's July resolution. 

A spokeswoman for Mr Tanner said this week the federal Government had not committed to use or support any software. A decision on whether ECV software would be used in the national system would be made by the proposed national entity, which would not be established until December. 

Computer consultancy Unisys conducted a preliminary review of ECV this year at the request of the NSW Government and found several problems. 

NSW Lands Department director-general Warwick Watkins told the Victorian Government of the review's results on April 3. "The result of this work is a preliminary view that the system would require modification and enhancement to be suitable in NSW," he wrote.