Vivendi Consulting was engaged by the Office of the Registrar General (ORG) to undertake an independent review of the NSW Land Registry Services (LRS) Plan Examination and Registration (PE&R) function. The review examined whether LRS is delivering its obligations under the Concession Deed with consistency, quality, and adequate governance. It assessed workforce capability, training and succession planning, quality assurance and error management, digital transformation readiness, and the interface between LRS and ORG.
Overall Findings
The Plan Examination function is professionally managed, technically skilled, and supported by a team with a sense of public responsibility. Since the 2017 Concession, LRS has delivered significant technological and procedural change, notably through the introduction of key systems including the ConneXus workflow platform and LandXML processing, with further innovations to follow. These systems are delivering efficiency improvements and provide a foundation for the important digital survey plans mandates in 2026-2027.
However, the review identified several constraints that collectively affect consistency and quality of the plan examination function:
- Workload per examiner: The current workforce is around half the size it was at the start of the Concession yet plan complexity has increased. Plan Examiners have productivity targets for examining plans, managing requisitions and other examination-related activities. Given that a large proportion of plans require requisitions and may undergo multiple review cycles, the time available for detailed examination of each plan is necessarily limited.
- Limited formal quality assurance: There is no comprehensive, risk-based QA framework. A partial QA process exists, with some targeted checks (e.g. on easements) undertaken by the Folio Creation team. However, QA is largely informal and not based on the likely risk of errors by plan.
- Manual processes: Plan Examination remains largely manual, with examiners required to review approximately 200 items per plan. Planned enhancements to automate aspects of this process through digital XML files are expected within 1–2 years. Until then, reducing errors in manual checking should remain a priority.
- Relationship strain: While collaboration between LRS and ORG remains functional, there are signs that the relationship could benefit from improved transparency and collaboration. Improved transparency around digital initiatives, system performance, and QA outcomes would support stronger alignment.
The review concludes that LRS has the structures in place to improve the quality of plan examinations, but will need to strengthen workforce capacity, adopt formal quality assurance, use appropriate error measurements, and improve the relationship with ORG.