Land Titles

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74827/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Sensibly, the federal government abandoned plans to privatise the database of the corporate regulator just before Christmas.
Almost inexplicably, the New South Wales government continues to pursue its plan to privatise the state’s land titles registry.
We say “almost” because this deal is explicable only in that it will raise a projected A$1 billion to A$2 billion for the state budget. It is a one-off transaction to finance the upgrade of two football stadiums.
It utterly defies logic. Privatising a government monopoly, an essential service with zero competition, defies logic full-stop. In this case, besides the loss of jobs, besides the loss of a reliable $130 million a year dropping into state coffers, besides the loss of security for critical information – perhaps to an offshore private equity group – and besides the spectre of rising litigation costs, there is the matter of tax.
It is reasonable that voters demand of their elected officials to know where their assets may end up and who might own them. Will the profits of the NSW Land and Property Information Office (LPI) end up in a tax haven in an entity controlled by a financier of weapons? The notorious Carlyle Group is one touted bidder.
So “on the nose” is the proposal to auction off the LPI via a 30-year lease that the Law Society, the Real Estate Institute and the Institute of Surveyors have come out against it, as have staff and myriad other stakeholders.
Despite trenchant opposition to the NSW sale, South Australia is also tinkering with the idea of privatising its land titles office. The other states are watching on.
The tax haven connections
When it comes to leasing things to tax havens, state governments have form. In both Victoria and South Australia, electricity networks have links to tax havens. In NSW, too, some 40 percent of the Transgrid electricity sale last year went to two entities domiciled in the Cayman Islands.
The secrecy shrouding the auction of the LPI means the actual corporate entities lurking behind each bidding syndicate remain a mystery.
The public, which owns the asset, even has to rely on newspaper leaks, likely from investment banks involved in the sale, to speculate as to the identity of the bidders. According to press reports, the bidding line-up is down to three consortia and two private equity players:
<ul>
<li>Carlyle Group</li>
<li>Affinity Equity Partners</li>
<li>Hastings Funds Management, Advara and First State Super</li>
<li>Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (MIRA) group and Link Group</li>
<li>Borealis Infrastructure’s Teranet, and Computershare.</li>
</ul>
Advised by Morgan Stanley, the Carlyle Group is more than just an artful tax structurer. As a significant investor in the arms sector, with high political connections such as former US president George Bush senior, it has a notorious track record of profiteering from wars, the Iraq War in particular. Even The Economist has written: “The secretive Carlyle Group gives capitalism a bad name.”
Stakeholders in the state of NSW concerned about sensitive details of who owns what land, and how the state is divided up, have good reason for concern.
Then there is the bidding combination of Macquarie Bank and Link Group. The former is well known for the aggressive tax structures of its infrastructure plays such as Macquarie Infrastructure Group (sold to Transurban), Thames Water in the UK and Sydney Airport.
It would be good policy, besides the basic political courtesy of a transparent auction process, that any privatised asset not end up in a stapled-security trust structure. For one, it is incumbent on the members of the trust rather than the trust itself to pay income tax, although members of these structures typically pay a tax rate of 10-15% rather than the 30 percent company rate.
Selling to a trust therefore means one-third to one-half the normal corporate-rate tax is paid. Further, private buyers are attracted to essential government services for the stability of their income; and so they can gear it up with debt to further reduce tax. It is not as if the LPI can go bust.
Link Group, part of the Macquarie consortium, is listed on the ASX. Over the past two years it has booked A$1.5 billion in cashflows and paid just A$2 million in tax.
The Hastings Funds Management, Advara and First State Super syndicate looks the cleanest in terms of tax. Though super funds pay half the corporate rate, at least tax is paid.
The fourth syndicate of Borealis Infrastructure’s Teranet and Computershare is a mixed bag on the tax front. Although Computershare pays large licks of tax in Australia, it also has a quiver of tax haven connections from Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, to the British Virgin Islands, Ireland and the Netherlands.
For its part, Borealis is a Canadian leveraged buy-out firm, which bids for public infrastructure and loads it heavily with debt, often from an associate at suspiciously high interest rates. It is noted for wiping out taxable profits in the UK thanks to big loans from its own subsidiaries.
In the broader context, there has been an insidious creep in state secrecy over privatisation and the use of taxpayer funds, as evinced by the A$1 billion of taxpayer funds being deployed to finance a rail line for Adani’s coalmine in Queensland, a mine whose corporate entities have tax haven connections.
The least politicians could do is to insist, as a prerequisite of sale, that all bidding proposals see the light of day before any deal is done, and that all bidders are required to use an Australian corporation with no tax haven parentage.
 
Michael West is the Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Social and Political Sciences and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-west-339731" target="_blank">here</a>.
His website can be viewed <a href="https://www.michaelwest.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Will the profits of the Land and Property Information Office end up in a tax haven?: Michael West

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
What is LPI and what is being privatised?
A1 Prior to 1st July 2016, LPI, which stands for Land and Property Information, was made up of the former Land Titles Office and a number of non-profitable government agencies including the Valuer General’s and the Land Information Centre. The Baird Government is only privatising the unit formerly the Land Titles Office, the creator of the “Torrens Title” because this is the only part of LPI which is profitable. The other agencies have gone back to being supported by the public purse which makes no sense at all!
Q2 What sort of a profit are we talking about?
A2 Last financial year, (2014-15) the titling and associated services produced a $47 million profit sufficient to fund 400 teachers or nurses in the State’s schools or hospitals so by selling the title service, the Government is after a one off sugar hit with consequent loss of long-term revenue.
Q3 Why should the ownership of the Torrens title system remain in government hands?
A3 What is at risk here is the simple Torrens title Government Guarantee of ownership provided by an independent government agency which is at the heart of sound economic development in New South Wales
It is every home owner’s dream to hold the Torrens Certificate of Title issued by the Titles Office to prove ownership of their own property.  
This single document shows what land is owned by reference to a survey plan, who owns the land and what affects it and provides the security required by purchasers, lessors and lending authorities for the purchase or lease of land, homes and businesses.
There is a very real potential for conflict of interest if a commercial organisation such as a major bank, insurance company or land title data provider, owns the title.  The privatised model would eliminate independent Government operation of the title system, reduce community trust and open up opportunity for corruption in land transactions.
Q4 Surely a privately run title system would provide cheaper conveyancing for the average citizen, wouldn’t it?
A4 Certainly not! If the system is privatised, the Government Guarantee currently protecting ownership will slowly disappear.  There is no doubt the public and banks will lose confidence in the Guarantee once the current checks and balances are reduced and there will be an inevitable shift to private insurance.
The impact on costs of conveyancing cannot be overstated.
Quotations have been obtained from 1st Title, a subsidiary of First American Financial Corporation. 1st Title calls this their “Property Risk” or “Title Insurance” which, according to their web site, “protects you against legal risks that can threaten the ownership of your property, or affect your right to occupy and use your land”.  They say:
“These risks include:
<ul>
<li>boundary issues</li>
<li>fraud and forgery against your certificate of title</li>
<li>unregistered rights of way and easements</li>
<li>“adverse possession of another person against your property.”</li>
</ul>
These “risks” are already bundled in the existing State guarantee of title!
For a property valued at $1.4 mil, the premium is $989.18.  On lodgement figures for last year, if we look at transfers alone, 212,982 this would place an additional impost on home buyers in excess of $210 million annually.  If we add mortgages into the mix - 281,056 - $278mil, this figure rises to a staggering $488.6million.  Add to the mix, leases and mortgages of leases and other transactions which will attract insurance and the sky is the limit for the profits to be made by potential overseas investors.
Q5 The Treasurer has promised a more efficient title system under private ownership.  Surely a private owner would be more efficiency oriented wouldn’t it?
A5 Where does this evidence come from?  The New South Wales land title system is the envy of the world and has been adopted by many other countries 
The agency is recognised for its leading role in the provision of cheap efficient land registration services and has proudly developed:
<ul>
<li>The first ever automated title and land dealing registration system;</li>
<li>Electronic access to plans of land subdivision and dealings such as transfers and mortgages of land;</li>
<li>An electronic plan lodgement service; and</li>
<li>The Registrar General’s Directions for Plans, a bible for land developers and surveyors.</li>
</ul>
Over many years, the staffing structure of the Office has been streamlined and numbers reduced to the bare minimum required to deliver an excellent level of service.
The Government’s plan to privatise the Titles Office of the LPI will yield a short term monetary “fix” and no long term benefit to the public.  It makes no sense at all when you consider that the service is self-financing, with an excellent record of reducing costs and keeping fees to a minimum.
Q6 Surely privatisation of title agencies has been successful elsewhere around the globe?
A6 No!  This is the point.  The Government must be unaware of how truly revolutionary their proposal is because despite protestations to the contrary, we can find no evidence of successful privatisation/concession of this type anywhere in the world.
The Government quotes the Canadian experience as a successful example however, research discloses that in Ontario, Teranet (the concession holder) has a concession to manage the electronic lodgement system and sale of title searches, but the government still maintains registry offices with public servants checking dealings that don’t go through to registration automatically. The only other place it has happened so far is in Manitoba, another Canadian province that seems to have done it because it was in dire financial straits. Since that happened in 2013, a couple of other Canadian provinces, Alberta and Nova Scotia have decided NOT to privatise land titles as has the UK where there was a huge public backlash against the proposal.
Q7 Why are you opposed to the privatisation of the Torrens Land title system?
A7 Buying a home, whether it be a single dwelling, duplex or unit, is the single biggest purchase anyone is likely to make in their lifetime! Under our world class “Torrens” title system the land title is guaranteed by the independent scrutiny of the State Government. However once this system is privatised – sold to a bank or an insurance company for example – the government guarantee will be degraded - slowly replaced by title insurance – which will cost home owners many thousands of dollars extra for a less reliable service.
Q8 What will be affected in the privatised model?
A8 The trained personnel in LPI. It is this expertise that is being sold that will eventually be lost as the New Model doesn't allow for their continuation under Privatisation!
In preparing titles the LPI Plan Examiner is a skilled analyst who has the final say on whether the plan is in order for registration and title creation looking at the history involved before asking particularly, “What is the effect of the definition on adjoining properties?”  Titles created are for a “lot in a plan” and they form the base segment of the State’s legal cadastre.
This Plan Examiner and LPI Titles Officers requires sound knowledge of the survey process, legal matters related to plan and title examination, Survey Practice Regulations, road redefinition, Council requirements, Strata title legislation, Community title legislation, Railways Act on boundary determination, Pipelines Act and many other Acts &amp; Regulations.
Q9 The Government says the government guarantee of title will continue?
A9 This is difficult to understand as they will have limited or no control over the quality or accuracy of the documents and plans being registered. Legislation doesn’t ensure control, it only assists in prosecution. If the checks and balances are reduced or removed, slowly errors and inaccuracies will invade and corrupt the title database.
We have a world class Torrens Land Title system already – the best in the world – which makes a profit for the NSW taxpayer - in 2014/2015 the title system made a profit of $47m – enough for hundreds of nurses, teachers or police -  why would you put that at risk?
Q10 The Government says the State Guarantee is secure, what do you say to that?
A10 Tell that to the lady in Canberra who was recently de-frauded - her land title was stolen – and she lost her home. She had to sue the ACT government to get compensation. While this is very rare it happened. If this fraud can happen under a government owned monopoly – similar to that existing in NSW – how much more likely is it once the land title system is privatised? 
Q11 What should people do if they are concerned?
A11 Tell the government through your local member –enough is enough! Stop this crazy sell-off, protect the family home and don’t sell off the land title system.  Other countries have avoided this for good reason. Why would NSW want to be the first in Australia to introduce a lesser system?
Q12 What would you like to see happen now?
A12 We ask all our politicians in both the Upper &amp; Lower Houses to vote against the privatisation Bill - which will shortly be debated in the Lower House.  The Bill is the “Land and Property Information NSW (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2016” which in its title contains not a hint of its true intention to privatise the NSW Torrens Land Title System.
Further, the power to be vested in the Treasurer under the Bill is truly astounding: “The authorised transaction is to be effected as directed by the Treasurer and can be effected in any manner considered appropriate by the Treasurer”. 
Should the Bill make it to the Upper House we trust our representatives will kick it out taking into account:
<ul>
<li>The impact of the proposal on the integrity of the current Torrens Land Title System; </li>
<li>The loss of a guaranteed revenue source for future government; and </li>
<li>The impact on the cost conveyancing for our children and grandchildren resulting from the insurance which will inevitably replace the current State Government Guarantee of title</li>
</ul>
For and on behalf of the Concerned Titles Group.
Members of the Concerned Titles Group are:
Margaret Hole AM Solicitor, previously Examiner of Title at LPI Previously Judicial Officer of ADT Past President of the Law Society of NSW
Ian McCormack Former Senior Conversion Officer Old System Projects; Training Officer &amp; Plan &amp; Title Advisor NSW Land Titles Office
Noel Benham Former Manager Title Creation &amp; Assistant Director Title Creation Division NSW Land Titles Office
Tony Proust Fellow ISNSW Bachelor Applied Science (Surv) WAIT, Registered Surveyor &amp; Certified Practicing Planner
Barry O’Malley Fellow ISNSW Former Principal Surveyor of NSW NSW Land Titles Office
Bruce Langley Former Senior Conversion Officer &amp; Advisor Old System &amp; Crown Land; Project Liaison Officer to Gov Agencies NSW Land Titles Office
The group can be emailed for further information at: concerned.titlesgroup@gmail.com 
 
</body></html>

Property 101: Concerns about the privatisation of the NSW LPI

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/60099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The New South Wales government is set to privatise its land-titling services. This decision may provide the impetus for other states and territories in Australia to go down the same path.
But what are the implications of privatising the operation of title offices for the Australian public?
<h2>What are title offices and why do they matter?</h2>
Title offices maintain a registry that defines the ownership and boundaries of private and public properties and keeps records of changes to the properties as they happen.
Details of various changes affecting the land – such as mortgages, restrictions, leases and rights of way – are also recorded in the registry.
So, if you are about to commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a property, you or your solicitor need to search the registry and make sure the seller is not a pretend owner, and the dimensions of the property are the same as what the registry says.
Similarly, if you want to subdivide your backyard to sell or build a new dwelling, it is necessary to look into the registry about what you can and can’t do in your backyard.
Australians may do business with a title office only a couple of times in their lives, but they do provide services to many people every day. For example, in NSW, about 900,000 land dealings (like transfers of title or mortgage discharges) were lodged and almost 53,000 new titles registered in the 2014-15 financial year.
Australia’s stable and reliable property market is a key contributor to the country’s economy. From buying and selling to financing property, title offices underpin billions of dollars of economic activity every year. The robust titling systems in Australia’s states and territories are one of the reasons the country was among the least affected by the global financial crisis.
Australia’s system is a simplified land registration method that guarantees the ownership of a property if it is recorded in the title office. Although there is always room for improvement, this system of registration is one of the best and most efficient in the world.
In Victoria, if you have all the necessary documentation you could transfer the ownership of property in 24 hours. Many countries around the world – including the US – cannot even dream of such efficiency.
<h2>But what might privatisation lead to?</h2>
Uncharted territory
Title offices usually do not cost the government; they generate revenue through the provision of land-related services and selling land and property information.
But, if privatising title offices is being done with the aim of improving its performance, does any provider in Australia already have a better service in place to do the job more efficiently than it is being done now?
Impact on individuals
Apart from the economic significance of land and property, arguably a property could be the most valuable asset an average person could own in their life.
Although the announcement emphasises that the government will continue guaranteeing titles, the for-profit philosophy of privatisation can lay the groundwork for the private sector to negotiate more profitable alternatives such as the insurance-based titling system that operates in the US. So this may well be the starting point of moving away from guaranteeing Australian land titles.
Impact on the public
Land information that is created in the process of titling is accurate, assured and authoritative.
When you subdivide the backyard of your million-dollar property, a new title is to be created. In this process, a licensed surveyor prepares a plan, which is lodged and registered with the title office. Before being registered, the title office staff examine the plan to ensure the ownership boundaries on the plan correspond with the boundaries as marked on the ground.
Land information generated and maintained in title offices has a documented and legally valid audit trail. This is not only key to the property market and land development, but is critical to many public services such as infrastructure engineering, emergency management, or disaster responses. Any compromise on the private sector’s part will have significant consequences, which could go beyond the properties we own.
Privatisation has its advantages. But Australia’s title offices may not necessarily be the right government businesses to be privatised.
Mohsen Kalantari is senior lecturer in Geomatics, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mohsen-kalantari-173337" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What are the implications of privatising land title offices?

<html><body>
Minister for Finance, Services and Property Dominic Perrottet announced yesterday a simpler, more equitable pricing scheme for Land and Property Information’s (LPI) registration and titling services, delivering on the NSW Government’s commitment in 2015 to review LPI’s pricing framework to improve transparency.
Mr Perrottet said the old framework was outdated and overly complex, while the new framework removes pricing inconsistencies that had built up over time.
“This reform delivers a more transparent framework that will make dealing with LPI simpler for everyone, from new home buyers to the legal and property professionals who deal with the LPI every day,” Mr Perrottet said.
“It’s a reform that makes sense, adjusting the current framework to make it more user friendly and easier to regulate, while also making sure LPI’s product pricing is more equitable for customers,” he said.
Changes introduced under the new framework include:
<ul>
<li> Consistent pricing for core document lodgments, more than halving the number of different price points for LPI services (from 44 to 20).</li>
<li> A much simpler fee for plan lodgments, to be priced on a flat per-lot basis.</li>
<li>The introduction of requisition fees to ensure practitioners lodge quality-assured documents, reducing the need for costly resubmission of amended lodgments.</li>
<li>LPI ceasing to operate as an online retailer of title search products, with existing private-sector information brokers already servicing 91% of the market.</li>
</ul>
The impact of the reforms on existing product prices will vary, however the new framework is designed to remain revenue-neutral to Government overall, with NSW to remain one of the cheapest jurisdictions in Australia for core land titling transactions.
Among the price changes, titling charges on new home purchases will decrease by up to $61, while mortgage refinance charges will increase by up to $53.  Plan lodgment charges for subdivisions of 9 lots or more will increase, but will be lower for subdivisions of 8 lots or less (which make up more than 90% of subdivisions).
The new pricing framework takes effect from 1 July 2016, with LPI to delay applying the new requisition fee until 1 January 2017 to allow practitioners sufficient time to adjust.
Further information on LPI’s new pricing framework is available at <a href="https://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/" target="_blank">www.lpi.nsw.gov.au</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Property 101: NSW LPI new registration and titling pricing

<html><body><div class="entry">
Surveyors are calling on the Baird Government to reverse its decision to sell-off the New South Wales land title service.
The privatisation of Land and Property Information is expected to raise a billion dollars for the state’s coffers, but it’s claimed the biggest price may be paid by homeowners.
NBN's Georgina Smyth reports <a href="https://www.nbnnews.com.au/2016/09/26/state-sell-off-to-raise-a-billion-but-will-property-buyers-pay-too/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div></body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Property 101: The NSW LPI selloff concerns get an airing 

<html><body>
QSuper, Queensland's largest super fund, is teaming up with Macquarie Group's asset management arm to bid for New South Wales' land titles registry. The super fund, which manages more than $65 billion, is preparing to write a cheque to support the bid headed by Macquarie Group's asset management arm, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (MIRA), according to the Australian Financial Review’s column Street Talk.
The consortium also includes ASX-listed Link Group, which has plenty of experience designing and implementing technology-based process upgrades, Street Talk said.
The Land and Property Information (LPI) unit provides all mapping, titles and other related land information services for NSW.
The sale of the state's LPI would be the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/building/48846-ytc-dec-1-nsw-lpi-to-be-sold-with-500-million-hopes" target="_blank">first sale of its kind in Australia</a>, Property Observer had reported in a previous article.
Ever since the news of the privatisation of the LPI came out, there has been much debate about its impact. 
Experts have said there is a “very real <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/58418-property-101-concerns-about-the-privatisation-of-the-nsw-lpi" target="_blank">potential for conflict of interest</a> if a commercial organisation such as a major bank, insurance company or land title data provider, owns the title”, as previously reported by Property Observer. 
The privatised model would eliminate independent government operation of the title system, reduce community trust and open up opportunity for corruption in land transactions, the article had said. 
There was also concern about job losses, with Fairfax Media citing leaked documents saying hundreds of employees at NSW's land titles registry are now uncertain about their future with the future private operator possibly sending their jobs out of the state.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian whether these jobs would stay in NSW for at least another four years. 
MIRA's consortium is said to be on track to have a binding bid ready in time for the March 30 deadline. 
The winning bidder will have the right to run NSW's land titles registry for the next 35 years, forecast to be worth more than $2 billion. Fairfax Media said LPI generates $130 million in profit each year.
QSuper is no stranger to Australian infrastructure auctions. It has invested about $5 billion in the asset class, including stakes in the Port of Brisbane, NSW Ports (Port Botany and Port Kembla), Brisbane Airport and the QIC/AMP Capital-owned utility Powerco.
QSuper has traditionally participated in such auctions via fellow Queensland firm QIC or under the guidance of the US-based but increasingly Australian-focused Global Infrastructure Partners.
MIRA's group is expected to come up against three other bids at the auction; Hastings Funds Management and its partners including First State Super; Canada's Teranet with parent Borealis Infrastructure and Computershare; and private equity giant The Carlyle Group.
Should QSuper write a cheque as expected, it would be a significant financial boost for MIRA and Link. While there is no doubting in the pair's expertise in such technology upgrade and registry-type projects, there were some doubts about funding and whether they could compete with the deeper pockets of rival consortiums. 
JPMorgan is running the auction on behalf of the NSW government after undertaking a scoping study on the sale.
 
 
 
 
</body></html>

QSuper to back Macquarie arm's bid for New South Wales' land titles registry

<html><body>
Infrastructure fund manager Hastings Funds Management and pension fund First State Super have signed a $2.6 billion deal to operate NSW's land titles and registry business.
For some reason the initial forecast had been around $1 billion when a 10-year lease-sale agreement was proposed to help generate the $1bn needed to upgrade Sydney’s sport stadiums..
It comes after then NSW Government then asked private operators to bid for a 35-year contract to run the state's Land and Property Information unit, and its titling and registry business. 
The government announced it will lease the state's 150-year-old land titles registry to Hastings Funds Management and First State Super, after accepting a bid from the consortium.
It's understood Hastings and First State Super saw off three rival bids to sign the deal overnight. The consortium is 80 per cent Australian owned, with the remaining 20 per cent held by RBS Pension Trustee in London.
NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian and treasurer Dominic Perrottet scheduled an announcement for 12.30pm today. Treasurer Perrottet said "$2.6 billion is a phenomenal result for this state".
NSW's LPI is the largest land title registry in the country with 885 employees at the end of the 2016 financial year.
It registered 935,000 documents in the 12-month period. 
The asset manager, which is backed by Westpac Banking Corp, has more than $10 billion in assets under management and owns stakes in the like of NSW electricity transmission company TransGrid, Perth Airport, the Port of Newcastle and Sydney Desalination Plant. 
The Hastings group was advised by RBC Capital Markets and law firm Allens. 
JPMorgan ran the auction for NSW. 
Macquarie's MIRA, which has teamed up with ASX-listed Link and Canada's PSP Investments, was ranked the favourite by The Australian Financial Review.
Surveyors have been calling on the Baird Government to reverse its decision to sell-off the New South Wales land title service.
The privatisation of Land and Property Information is expected to raise a billion dollars for the state’s coffers, but it’s claimed the biggest price may be paid by homeowners.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Hastings Fund Management win NSW LPI tender

<html><body>
UBS has secured the mandate to advise the Victorian government on the sale of its land titles unit. 
The state has been seeking an adviser likely to recommend a sale in line with other states including New South Wales and South Australia. 
The unit is expected to be worth $2 billion plus.
Sources told the Australian Financial Review's Street Talk column that Victoria's Treasurer Tim Pallas wanted a sale finalised by the end of August 2018. 
Meanwhile after more than 15 years at 570 Bourke Street, Land Use Victoria is moving to 2 Lonsdale Street Melbourne.
Land Registry Services’ and Plan Acceptance’s offices at 570 Bourke Street closed to the public at noon on Friday 25 August and opened in the new location at 8.30 am on Tuesday 29 August.
</body></html>

UBS to advise Victorian Government on land title sale

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s highly likely that all Australians buying or selling property or subdividing land will soon be dealing with privately operated land title registries. Both sides of politics in Australia appear supportive of privatising these registries and it is happening fast.
The New South Wales Liberal government <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-implications-of-privatising-land-title-offices-60099" target="_blank">privatised the operation</a> of its land registry in 2016. The South Australian Labor government <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/sa-government-sells-lands-titles-office-data-for-1.6-billion/8794468" target="_blank">did so earlier this year</a>. Now, Victorians await Treasurer Tim Pallas’ <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/plans-to-sell-land-titles-registry-sparks-privacy-concerns-20170713-gxawq3" target="_blank">decision</a> on whether that state’s Labor government will follow suit.
The robust titling systems in Australia’s states and territories are key contributors to the country’s economy. Secure registries provide the foundation on which the enormous wealth in real estate rests. Mortgage lenders rely on the low risk resulting from a state guarantee of title in securing real estate loans.
Privatisation processes need to protect the integrity of Australia’s titling systems. However, with the rise of relevant technology, privatisation presents an opportunity to transform titling systems to operate even better in the public interest.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-implications-of-privatising-land-title-offices-60099" target="_blank">What are the implications of privatising land title offices?</a>
<hr>
<h2>A history of mixed success</h2>
While rare, privately operated land title offices do exist elsewhere.
A private operator, <a href="https://www.teranet.ca" target="_blank">Teranet</a>, administers the buying, selling and subdivision of properties in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.
In 1991, Teranet engaged in a public-private partnership to modernise the titling system in Ontario. In 2003, the Ontario government sold half its shares in Teranet to a private consortium.
In 2010, Ontario extended Teranet’s operating licences <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2010/11/modernizing-ontarios-electronic-land-registration-system" target="_blank">for 50 years</a>. Manitoba has licensed Teranet to run its land registry <a href="https://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/pubs/teranet.pdf" target="_blank">for 30 years</a>.
In other jurisdictions, there have been unsuccessful privatisation attempts. In 2013, the Canadian province of Alberta’s <a href="https://www.reca.ca/consumers/standards/PDF/Privatization-of-Land-Titles.pdf" target="_blank">Real Estate Council</a> concluded that a proposal to privatise the title office was not in the public interest. And last year, the province of Nova Scotia <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/registries-privatize-government-private-sector-service-nova-scotia-1.3540782" target="_blank">assessed</a> the prospect of a privatised titling office and concluded there would be no considerable gain from it.
The UK Conservative government in 2016 also examined this idea but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/sep/07/land-registery-sell-off-plan-put-on-hold" target="_blank">did not go ahead</a> with privatisation. This was primarily due to a lack of support from the property industry and a fear of public backlash.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/torrens-our-land-title-pioneer-might-have-approved-of-privatised-registries-78327" target="_blank">Torrens, our land-title pioneer, might have approved of privatised registries</a>
<hr>
<h2>What are the risks of privatisation?</h2>
There are many arguments against privatising title offices. These include:
<ul>
<li>
increased fees
</li>
<li>
a natural monopoly
</li>
<li>
banks requiring title insurance for purchasing properties
</li>
<li>
risks to the integrity of land registration processes and property information
</li>
<li>
depreciating existing skillsets in the title offices that are hard to source
</li>
<li>
the prospect of jobs moving elsewhere and even overseas.
</li>
</ul>
Fees in Ontario’s privatised title office are, on average, higher than in Alberta’s public title office. For example, a title search in <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/land-registration/2015-03-fee-harmonization" target="_blank">Ontario</a> costs three times more than in <a href="https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/ltmanual/APPENDIXI.pdf" target="_blank">Alberta</a>. To gain access to property information in Ontario, users are required to buy specific software.
The NSW government also increased fees just before engaging its private operator.
<h2>What will land titling look like in future?</h2>
The way land titles are issued, bought and sold in future will be different. Who would once have thought that we, through smartphones, could carry the map of the entire world and a positioning system in our pockets?
While current land titling systems are efficient, privatisation provides an opportunity to harness technologies that transforms these for faster and more automated processes, while removing intermediary fees and reducing red tape.
Technologies such as <a href="https://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Reference-Papers/A-Gentle-Introduction/A-Gentle-Introduction-To-Blockchain-Technology-WEB.pdf" target="_blank">blockchain</a> allow instant exchanges of assets online, including land and property, and transparent verification.
Using these techniques, titles and other documents can be encrypted and protected in digital transactions. This challenges the need for lawyers to check documents, financial institutions to prove money exchange, insurance companies to back your title, and title offices to register the transactions.
Consumer-grade technologies such as drones, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10095020.2016.1235817" target="_blank">3D scanners</a> and smartphones also make it easier for the public to <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-14280-7_13" target="_blank">collect land information</a>. This will challenge regulated professions such as <a href="https://www.surveyorsboard.vic.gov.au" target="_blank">land surveying</a>. These professions need to be rethought in a technology-driven society where land data collection becomes <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716303829" target="_blank">accessible to everyone</a>.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83352/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Advances in technology will soon be challenging several facets of land-titling systems in Australia. Privatisation can be an opportunity to reform and update these systems, so that regulatory requirements are either reduced or automated. The next generation should be able to buy a property and pay less or no bank fees, title insurance and stamp duty.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mohsen-kalantari-173337" target="_blank">Mohsen Kalantari</a>, Senior Lecturer in Geomatics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-jeffress-276988" target="_blank">Gary Jeffress</a>, Professor of Geographic Information Science and Director of the Conrad Blucher Institute for Surveying Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672" target="_blank">Texas A&amp;M University </a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/privatised-land-title-offices-can-harness-new-technologies-to-provide-a-better-service-83352" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

dummy-39jzRrQxJV

Privatised land title offices can harness new technologies to provide a better service

<html><body>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The Victorian state government is set to call for expressions of interest in its land titles and registry unit.
The sale process will offer a 40-year concession for a private operator to run the business. 
Australian and offshore infrastructure funds, superannuation and pension funds and registry companies are expected to line up in the land titles auction, the Australian Financial Review has advised.
It will be overseen by investment bank UBS and law firm Minter Ellison. 
It will offer the right to run the state's land titles unit for the next 40-years, to oversee all land registry functions and transactions excepting subdivisions, application and survey (which registers complex survey and plan based dealings and applications) and the official role of Registrar of Titles, which oversees the whole operation. 
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
<div id="article-inline-ad" class="adWrapper">The state is expected to retain control of pricing over statutory land registry services and monitor the pricing of other services provided under the contract. </div>
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The other exclusions from the sale include the Valuer-General Victoria, Surveyor-General Victoria, Land Information and Spatial Services, Government Land Advice and Coordination and the Victorian Government Land Monitor.
Victoria Treasurer Tim Pallas will launch the tender this week. 
The transaction comes after New South Wales and South Australia privatised their land titles office.
It comes Western Australia also considers privatising its land titles unit, Landgate.
</div>
</body></html>

Land Titles

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Land Titles

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News