NPT Meetings
Greater detail on the NPT’s progress is reported at its meetings.
• NPT Meeting 13: Sydney – 8 December 2009
• NPT Meeting 12: Melbourne – 12 November 2009
• NPT Meeting 11- Sydney -20 October 2009
• NPT Meeting 10 – Melbourne – 25 August 2009
• NPT Meeting 9 – Sydney – 21 July 2009
• NPT Meeting 8 – Melbourne – 23 June 2009
• NPT Meeting 7: Sydney – 12 May 2009
• NPT Meeting 6: Melbourne – 24 March 2009
• NPT Meeting 5: Sydney – 10 February 2009
• NPT Meeting 4: Sydney – 2 December 2008
• NPT Meeting 3: Sydney – 7 October 2008
• NPT Meeting 2: Melbourne – 29 July 2008
• NPT Meeting 1: Sydney – 20 May 2008
• NPT Meeting : Melbourne – 27 March 2008
• Stakeholder Working Group Meeting: Canberra – 15
NPT Meeting 13: Sydney – 8 December 2009
Issues Papers – The following issues were resolved by the NPT
o Operational Roles and Document Signing Clarified – most aspects for operational roles had been satisfactorily resolved and this paper resolved and clarified some outstanding issues.
The meeting resolved that:
1. All subscribers are to be required to hold PI insurance and FF cover with the exception of ADIs regulated by APRA and government agencies (departments, statutory authorities and business enterprises only)
2. Certifiers who are contractors to self-representing Subscribers are to be required to be industry practitioners
3. Signing in NECS is always to mean the application of a digital signature
4. Certifications as to correctness and compliance given in commitment to the Participation Rules and applying to all signed documents and data sets are to be sufficient for Information Reports and Settlement Certifications
5. Whether Information Reports need to be signed and whether they need to be signed by an industry practitioner is to be configurable when the document template for the Report is set up
6. Settlement Certifications are to be signed in all instances but can be signed by a non-practitioner.
o Mortgage Processors – this paper discussed the issue of certification and signing for self-representing Subscribers under a Power of Attorney. The meeting resolved that self-representing Subscribers are able to use contractors who are not industry practitioners as Certifiers appointed by a Power of Attorney.
o Practice Constraints – this paper discussed the possibility of using NECS to prevent or deter the same Subscriber from representing both the relinquishing party and the receiving party in a transaction. The meeting resolved that the same-Subscriber representations for transfers are to require two different Certifiers for the instrument counterparts.
o Document Repository – the meeting resolved to endorse the inclusion of document repository functionality in the NRD but that its use for any particular document should be at the Subscriber’s discretion.
o Data Supply – the meeting resolved that each workspace data item have one assigned Authoritative Supplier. The Authoritative Supplier of each data item contained in a document template should be assigned by NECS in consultation with key stakeholders especially the stakeholders relying on the integrity of specific data items.
Other – The meeting discussed the issue of Revenue Office integration and updates on gathering industry requirements.
NPT Meeting 12: Melbourne – 12 November 2009
NECS Legal Framework Development: The principle purpose of the meeting was to receive a presentation on and to discuss issues arising from the Legal Framework Development being undertaken for the National Office by Clayton Utz.
Clayton Utz presented an overview of the first three Consultation Packages and presented the fourth Consultation Package in detail which specifically addresses the liability framework and outlined the allocation of risk considerations for each role in the National Business Model.
Issues Paper– The following issues were discussed by the NPT:
Revenue Office Integration – The meeting discussed a paper presented by the RO representatives endorsed by all Revenue Commissioners, which outlined their high level requirements.
Click here to view the final minutes.
NPT Meeting 11: Sydney – 20 October 2009
National Consultation – The meeting was advised that the National Office was holding a forum for insurers and regulators in Adelaide on Managing Risk and Liability in NECS.
The meeting agreed to hold an extra meeting on 12 November 2009 to receive a presentation from Clayton Utz on the Legal Framework Development.
Issues Papers – The following issues were resolved by the NPT
o Settlement Stopping: - The meeting agreed on the need for a prominent facility to stop settlements with three related functionalities – settlement stopping, settlement re-scheduling and workspace change, each with a prominent means of actioning, and provision for entering of a reason for the action, and acknowledgment of the consequences before confirmation of the action.
o Nomenclature Change – To avoid confusion the following terms would be changed in the National Business Model:
• Settlement statement to become settlement certification
• Receiver statement to become disbursement certification
• Funder statement to become funding certification
Further Issues Papers
o Operational Roles Further Refined – this paper addressed the issue of what organisations should be able to represent themselves as Subscribers and what the eligibility criteria for their Certifiers should be. The meeting requested the National Office to provide a further paper clarifying some issues for resolution at the next meeting.
o Document Signing Revisited – this paper addressed the signing of registry instruments, information reports and settlement statements in NECS and whether all three document types need to be certified and signed. The meeting raised issues regarding the need to digitally sign all document types and the content of the three types of documents. It requested the National Office to provide a further paper on the issue.
Other – The meeting discussed the issues of Revenue Office integration, Practice Constraints and Document Repository.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 10: Melbourne – 25 August 2009
National Consultation – The meeting supported initiatives of the National Office to assist stakeholders in getting information more easily and promptly including direct distribution of papers to peak industry bodies, distribution of draft meetings and publication and distribution of NPT Resolutions.
Issues Papers – The following issues were resolved by the NPT:
o Transaction Scope: - The Land Registry representative reported that purchasers’ caveats and withdrawal of caveats are to be included in the minimum transaction scope each jurisdiction is committed to implementing.
o Operational Roles: - The meeting agreed that:
• When a Subscriber is a conveyancing industry regulated legal or conveyancing practice representing
independent transacting parties, its Certifiers can be delegated employees, legal practitioners or
licensed conveyancers.
• When a Subscriber is not a conveyancing industry regulated legal or conveyancing practice and is
representing independent transacting parties, its Certifiers are to be legal practitioners or licensed
conveyancers.
• Legal practitioners and licensed conveyancers can provide Certifier services to Subscribers under
contract representing independent transacting parties.
o Transaction Assurance Further Refined: -
• there is to be no restriction on when a workspace can be created in NECS
• population of workspaces with minimum Registry information to be mandatory
• minimum Registry Information is to be the data content of the conventional title search
available in each jurisdiction
• mandatory Workspace Population is to occur when a participating Subscriber has identified the
jurisdiction and at least one valid title reference with the addition of further title references to cause
additional mandatory Workspace Populations
• provision of additional Registry Information including a conventional title search as a single data
item is to be optional
• supply of Registry information to populate workspaces is to be directly from the Land Registry in
the first instance
• supply of Registry Information is to be as XML data using National Electronic Conveyancing Data
Standard ( NECDS)
• a Title Activity Check (TAC) service is to be available following supply of Registry Information to
endure refresh of Registry Information can be requested whenever necessary
• The TAC is to be available as an alert service from the Land Registry for a finite period after last
supply of Registry Information and on request
• Refresh of Registry Information after a TAC is to be optional
• Validation of the individual data items in workspaces is to be mandatory as each item is entered or
changed and also available on request as a whole-of-workspace service
• Verification of a workspace at the Land Registry is to provide a Lodgment Acceptability Assurance
(LAA) prior to the scheduled settlement time
• any change to a workspace after a successful Workspace Verification is to negate any previous LAA
• If not requested earlier by a user, Workspace Verification is to be mandatory no later than 72 hours
prior to the scheduled settlement time
• Workspace Verification is to include a TAC
• Land Registries may still require a separate Lodgment Acceptability Check (LAC) after the scheduled
settlement time and prior to actual settlement
• Each participating Subscriber is to be able to nominate whether they want settlement to proceed
without an LAA
• each Workspace Population is to be bundled with 8 weeks of TACs,
Other – The meeting discussed the issues of settlement stopping, document signing revisited and Revenue Office integration to assist their consultation with stakeholders.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 9: Sydney – 21 July 2009
Issue Papers – The meeting resolved positions on the following issues
o Settlement Disbursements: - All payments from settlements could be readily made to pre-determined accounts with financial institutions, except the nett proceeds of settlements due to vendors and/or their nominees. These payments required a further solution to protect against incorrect entry of bank account details. The NPT resolved that for settlement disbursement payments to vendors and/or their nominees, the solution is to consist of:
optional use of Trust Accounts from which a conventional disbursement payment can be made
optional pre-establishment of payee account details (meaning BSB and Account No.) with confirmation by receiving bank of their customer’s account details prior to first use
optional one-off entry of payee account details with confirmation by receiving bank of their customer’s account details prior to settlement
payment into a default suspense account at the receiving bank when the account details have not been confirmed prior to settlement
facility for banks to set minimum limit on pre-payment account details confirmations
mandatory dual entry of account details in all instances.
o Document Unsigning Refined: The NPT resolved that signed documents are to be invalidated by a Certifier changing a workspace data item contained in the signed document and all other signed documents containing the same workspace data item are to be automatically invalidated and system messages sent to each affected Subscriber.
o Operational Roles: This issue is seen by the meeting as a critical one to be resolved as it is central to the way NECS will be accepted and used by stakeholders. The previous meeting discussed the eligibility rules for Subscribers and Certifiers in NECS with a view to providing operational flexibility for industry without increasing risk and ultimately preferred arrangements requiring conveyancing industry regulation of either Certifiers or Subscribers. The benefits and disadvantages of this position were discussed at length.
The meeting was unable to reach a definitive resolution and the matter will be discussed again.
o Other – The meeting also discussed an issues paper on transaction assurance to assist in stakeholder consultation.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 8: Melbourne – 23 June 2009
Issues Papers: The NPT focussed the meeting on in depth discussion of the following issues:
o Settlement Disbursements Refined: At the previous meeting, the National Office had offered to prepare a paper detailing the solution put forward to deal with the net proceeds of settlements due to vendors or to third parties at the vendor’s direction. Four solution components were identified:
• Optional use of Trust Accounts
• Optional pre-establishment of account details
• Confirmation by receiving bank of their customer’s account details
• Mandatory dual entry of account details
The meeting requested the National Office consider further the issues of risks and liabilities in pre-establishing account details and in receiving banks confirming their customer’s account details, including a paper investigating typical scenarios.
o Document Unsigning Refined: At the previous meeting the preferred solution required signed documents to be invalidated by any Certifier appointed by the Subscriber responsible for the document. To complement this approach the meeting further considered the way in which a signed document is to be invalidated by a Certifier.
o Operational Roles: The meeting considered four possible alternatives to the position outlined in the NBM. The issue was whether the Subscriber and Certifier roles as defined in the NBM suit all industry circumstances or pose unreasonable difficulties in some industry sectors or jurisdictions.
The industry members expressed a preference for both the NBM position and Option 1 such that either the Subscriber or the Certifier must be conveyancing industry regulated. This approach was seen as providing sufficient industry flexibility, transacting party confidence and fraud risk mitigation.
o Transaction Scope: At the last meeting, the NPT considered the transaction scope proposed by the Land Registries to be the minimum commitment of each jurisdiction participating in NECS. The meeting requested advice from the SPT regarding the operation of caveats within each jurisdiction and the inclusion of caveats in the minimum scope.
o Workspace Creation: The meeting discussed the three options presented for timing of creation of a workspace in NECS and the benefits and costs for industry practice. The meeting preference is for no restrictions on when a workspace can be created to provide maximum flexibility for users.
o Workspace Population: The meeting recognised that the key issues were how much registry information should be provided to a workspace, when and how it should be provided and if necessary refreshed, and whether it was to be supplied automatically or only on request.
o Transaction Assurance: The meeting recognised that the data validation and workspace verification functions intended for NECS constituted the principal means for all stakeholders to be assured of the compliance of transactions with Land Registry requirements and of their readiness to be settled. The meeting discussed the options for transaction assurance.
o Lodgment Acceptability: The meeting recognised that the primary function of the LAC was to provide a guarantee that a workspace’s instruments will be accepted for lodgment at the Land Registry. The preference of the meeting was for this service to be available prior to the scheduled settlement time as part of the Workspace Verification.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 7: Sydney- 12 May 2009
Key outcomes:
• Issues Papers – The following issues papers were discussed.
o Settlement Disbursements - the NPT preference is for a solution containing a co-signing arrangement with the payee’s receiving financial institution to ensure correct account details. It was agreed that the National Office would prepare a further paper describing a solution containing all discussed components for consideration at the next meeting.
o Document Signing - It was agreed that flexibility in the system, backed up with a roles and responsibilities framework, was important for industry, so that the process for un-signing and re-signing should be dependent upon the type of data to be changed and the requirements for signing that data initially. The NPT agreed that Option 2, requiring any Certifier authorised to sign documents for the Subscriber responsible for the document to unsign the documents, was the preferred solution. The National Office was requested to prepare a draft resolution to this effect for endorsement at the next meeting.
o Mortgage Counterparts Revisited – the Chair noted that there appeared to be some doubt about what the NPT had decided on this issue at the last meeting with the possibility the National Office had misinterpreted the resolution achieved. The meeting clarified the intention that mortgagees be able to sign mortgages certifying that they have conducted a CIV on the mortgagor and hold authority from the mortgagor to lodge the mortgage. It was acknowledged that to enforce a mortgage signed in this way the mortgagee would have to produce the mortgage signed by the mortgagor and containing the authority the mortgagor gave to the mortgagee to lodge the mortgage. It was also acknowledged that this approach did not involve the mortgagee obtaining a Client Authorisation from the mortgagor to use NECS on the mortgagor’s behalf.
o Transaction Scope – The NPT discussed the options presented for a minimum transaction scope for each Land Registry’s initial participation in NECS and the option preferred by the Land Registries. The land registries’ preferred option covered 71% of all transactions and had no supporting evidence requirements for instruments. The NPT preference was for the inclusion of caveats and caveat withdrawals in minimum scope.
o Operational Roles - The meeting discussed the need for either or both of the Subscriber and Certifier to be a conveyancing industry regulated practice or practitioner when representing an independent transacting party. It was recognised that financial institutions acting in their own right as mortgagees were a special case not requiring the involvement of a conveyancing industry regulated practice or practitioner.
• Issues for Introduction
Chair introduced draft papers on four aspects of NECS operations discussed briefly at the previous meeting and noted the interdependency of the issues
o Workspace Creation - The NPT recognised that three options were presented for when a workspace could be created in NECS and what best suited industry practice needed to be identified.
o Workspace Population - The NPT recognised that the key issues were how much registry information should be provided to a workspace, when and how it should be provided and if necessary refreshed, and whether it was to be supplied automatically or only on request.
o Transaction Assurance - The NPT recognised that the data validation and workspace verification functions intended for NECS constituted the principal means for all stakeholders to be assured of the compliance of transactions with Land Registry requirements and of their readiness to be settled. The National Office stressed the importance of NECS having access to the Land Registry’s Titles Register and applying business rules to workspace data items so that automated compliance reports can be prepared that give users confidence that everything is in order.
o Lodgment Acceptability - The NPT recognised that this function in NECS presented some critical timing and responsibility issues needing to be carefully considered in the interests of all stakeholders.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 6: Melbourne – 24 March 2009
Key outcomes:
• New Consultancies – The meeting was addressed by two new consultancies appointed from the
National Office’s panel of contracted service providers. They were:
o NECS Legal and Governance Framework – Clayton Utz, Mark Sneddon
o NECS Non Functional Requirements – Saratoga Professional Services, John Kelso.
o NECS Web Services Requirements – Saratoga Professional Services, John Kelso.
Mr Sneddon and Mr Kelso introduced themselves to the NPT members and outlined their intended work processes.
• Issue Papers – The remainder of the meeting involved continuing discussion of the issue papers developed by the National Office. The issue papers have been distributed to the NPT’s stakeholders and made available on the NECS website.
o Mortgage Counterparts – The NPT resolved that mortgagees be required to sign on behalf of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, after having conducted a Client Identity Verification (CIV) on the mortgagor and obtained a Client Authorisation (CA) from the mortgagor. Nevertheless, there was some residual concern about the safety and legality of this course. It was agreed that the implications of the resolution should be considered by Clayton Utz when developing the NECS legal framework.
o Chain Settlements – The NPT resolved that the Disbursement Option (Option 2) be implemented, whereby vendors would be able to commit cleared funds from a sale as a source of funds for a simultaneous purchase in another linked transaction.
o Fee Payments – There was extensive discussion of the issues affecting fee payment methods, such as settlements not always being available, information fees not always able to be paid in settlements, the legality of direct debiting from trust accounts and the suitability of direct debiting for some businesses. The NPT then resolved that Option 2 be implemented, whereby fees should be paid wherever possible in settlements and otherwise by direct debit or direct credit/B-Pay at the payee’s discretion.
o Other – The meeting also discussed issue papers on settlement disbursements, document signing and transaction compliance assurance.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 5: Sydney – 10 February 2009
Key outcomes:
• Issue Papers – The NPT continued its discussion of several consistent business practice issues outlined in issue papers developed by the National Office. The issue papers have been distributed to the NPT’s stakeholders and made available on the NECS website.
o Consistent Business Practices – The meeting considered the level and means of prescription required of consistent business practices and expressed a preference for more, rather than less, prescription in order to maximise industry certainty. The NPT endorsed the papers subject to review of detailed implementation arrangements for each business practice.
o Licensed Service Provider (LSP) Requirements – The NPT resolved to support the following amendments subject to agreement on the final wording of the National Business Model amendments.
NECS is not to be given exclusive access to land registries for lodgment of electronic instruments
NECS is not to receive title and other registry information from any land registry on more
favourable terms than Licensed Information Brokers (LIB) in the jurisdiction
NECS subscribers are to be able to appoint an LSP as their Payment Agent to receive fee
invoices from NECS and to make payments to NECS on behalf of subscribers.
o Client Identity Verification (CIV) Standard – The meeting considered four options:
purpose-built standard suited to property conveyancing
FTRA 100-point standard widely used in financial transactions
Commonwealth’s Gold standard developed for primary identity document issue
Commonwealth’s Gatekeeper standard for online identity issue.
The meeting expressed a preference for a purpose-built CIV standard that does not involve seeing the client face-to-face, has regard for differing client identification scenarios and potentially applies a different standard for relinquishing and receiving parties. The NPT resolved that the standard should be based on current Anti-Money Laundering practices used by Australian financial institutions.
o Client Authorisation (CA) Agreement – The NPT resolved to accept the content of the draft CA Agreement, subject to:
review of the final wording
consistency with the finally agreed CIV arrangements
the ability to complete the CA Agreement without seeing the client face-to-face
implementation with statutory backing.
o Instrument Certification (IC) Wording – The meeting considered the wording of the five proposed certifications developed by the State Project Team (SPT):
two general certifications, implemented in the participation rules, as to correctness of
information and compliance with legal requirements
three specific certifications, implemented where necessary in instrument formats, as to CIV, CA
and Supporting Evidence (SE).
After discussion of possible implementation arrangements, the NPT resolved to accept the proposed instrument certifications, subject to review of the final wording of each certification statement.
o Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs) – The meeting discussed the DSC options considered in the comparative DSC risk analysis by Clayton Utz. The meeting preferred the use of organisation DSCs with NECS subscribers required to conduct CIV checks on child certificate holders. The NPT resolved that this option should be mandated for NECS.
o Other –The meeting also discussed issues papers on mortgage counterparts and chain settlements to assist NPT members in their consultations with stakeholders.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 4: Sydney – 2 December 2008
Key outcomes:
• New member – With the imprimatur of the National Steering Committee, the NPT welcomed a new member, Professional Indemnity and Fidelity Fund Insurers’ representative, Justin Toohey. Mr Toohey outlined the key issues for insurers in relation to NECS, particularly the importance of a risk allocation regime comprehensible to insurers and the development of rules for all NECS users that are reasonable and insurable.
• Issue papers – The National Office led discussion on draft issue papers addressing Client Identity Verification (CIV) standard, Client Authorisation (CA) form and Instrument Certification (IC) wording. These papers are being considered by the State Project Teams, which have agreed that the issues would benefit from industry feedback as soon as possible.
• NECS Requirement Definition (NRD) – Members of the NPT reported the progress being made with respect to gathering industry requirements for the NRD. This work had gathered pace, with industries establishing working groups and collaborative workshops.
The meeting was advised that while some additional and varied requirements had been brought forward, the NRD remained largely reflective of stakeholders’ requirements. The National Office emphasised that each industry, when assessing the suitability of the NRD, should concentrate on the requirements most relevant to their industry, ensuring definitions are suitable, accurate and complete.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 3: Sydney – 7 October 2008
Key outcomes:
• Stakeholder Progress – Each stakeholder provided a summary of their industry’s progress in gathering requirements for NECS. For some stakeholders, initial progress had been slow, but it was noted that engagement within the stakeholder groups was gathering momentum.
• NECS Requirements Definition (NRD) – The latest draft of the NRD was presented to the meeting. Discussion focussed on the principle issues being addressed:
o Workspace Functionality (ie. creation, population, validation, verification and lodgment)
o Financial Settlement Functionality (ie. chains, schedules, statements, disbursements and funding)
o Lodgment Acceptability Check (ie. application, responses, actions and rescheduling)
o User Access and Workspace Visibility Rules
o Notifications and Messaging
o Fee Billing and Collection.
Aspects of the financial settlement functionality were discussed at length. Consensus was reached on the need for a protocol to be developed among financial institutions regarding how funds would be committed to financial settlements.
• State Project Team (SPT) – The NPT was given a preview of national documentation and practice issues currently being considered by the SPT. These included:
o Client Identity Verification (CIV)
o Client Authorisation (CA)
o Instrument Certification (IC)
o Supporting Evidence (SE)
o Control of the Right to Deal (CoRD)
o Fee Invoicing and Payment Collection (FIPC).
The meeting was also presented with other issues being considered by the SPT, which would benefit from NPT input. These issues were:
o level and means of business practice prescription
o types of Digital Signature Certificate (DSCs) to be allowed
o population of a workspace either directly or indirectly with information already obtained
o fee payment methods, including at settlement, by direct debit and internet banking
o mortgage counterparts and how they are signed
o commercial arrangements between NECS, Licensed Service Providers (LSPs) and subscribers.
• Issue Papers – The meeting agreed on a schedule for the release of issue papers prepared by the National Office on:
o Development of Business Practices
o Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs)
o Client Authorisation (CA) Agreement
o Client Identity Verification (CIV) Standard
o Instrument Certification (IC) Wordings
o Signing of Mortgages
o Chain Settlements
o Fee Payments
o Settlement Disbursements
o Document Signing and un-signing.
The meeting resolved that issue paper response templates be made available to NPT members to assist in obtaining input from their respective stakeholder groups.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 2: Melbourne – 29 July 2008
Key outcomes:
• Stakeholder expectations – Each member of the NPT presented an overview of their sector’s expectations, issues and concerns, which provided an informative basis for discussing industry issues and needs regarding electronic conveyancing.
• NECS Requirements Definition (NRD) – On the basis of stakeholder expectations, the meeting considered the most appropriate way to gather each sector’s detailed requirements for a national system, for inclusion in the NRD. Stakeholders resolved to engage their industry members in providing feedback, with the National Office undertaking to facilitate and support all meetings.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting 1: Sydney – 20 May 2008
Key outcomes:
• National Roadmap – The meeting focused on understanding NECS with discussion concentrating on the National Roadmap, the key aspects of the National Business Model and the status of current work.
• NECS functionality – The meeting canvassed ways in which various industry sectors may chose to use NECS in their existing systems for maximum benefit to their businesses and customers. Consensus was reached on the importance of first defining the required functionality of NECS, then prioritising the implementation of functionalities to maximise industry take-up, as well as user and customer benefits.
• National Electronic Conveyancing Data Standards (NECDS) – National Data Standards Working Group (NDSWG) Convenor, Barry Thomas, described the collaborative work being undertaken between the National Office, LIXI and NICTA to develop common data standards for communication between NECS and other systems. Mr Thomas emphasised the importance of the widest possible industry involvement in the Working Group and particularly of the involvement of the legal practitioner and licensed conveyancer communities that have not previously been involved with LIXI.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
NPT Meeting : Melbourne – 27 March 2008
Key outcomes:
• National Project Team Charter – The NPT endorsed the National Project Team Charter. The Charter sets out the team’s purpose, composition, procedures and commitments.
• National Project Team Work Program – The NPT endorsed the National Project Team Work Program. The Work Program sets out the team’s specific tasks, timings and outcomes.
Stakeholder Working Group Meeting: Canberra – 15 February 2008
A Stakeholder Working Group Meeting was convened by the National Office on behalf of the National Steering Committee to discuss the formation of a National Project Team.
Key outcomes:
• The meeting resolved to establish a National Project Team to make recommendations to the National Steering Committee on NECS system requirements, business practices, supporting arrangements, risk management and implementation planning.
For more information view the Meeting Agenda and Discussion Paper prepared by the National Office prior to the meeting, as well as the Record of Meeting.
Click here to view the final minutes.
Back to top
|