Remote VOI vs Australia Post VOI: What Actually Meets the ARNECC Standard in 2026

Admin September 15, 2026Compliance

Every property settlement in Australia depends on one step: proving that the people signing are who they say they are. Verification of Identity, or VOI, is the name given to that step. It’s a standing requirement under the ARNECC Model Participation Rules for electronic conveyancing, and it existed long before the AML/CTF Tranche 2 reforms that arrived on 1 July 2026.

For years, the quickest and easiest way to go about it was a trip to the post office. Like many older processes, though, this is changing and with that change there’s real confusion. Perhaps the most common area of doubt is summed up in the question: ‘Does a remote, video-based VOI actually satisfy the rules, or is in-person still the only ‘safe’ option?’ The honest answer lies in the difference between two phrases that ARNECC uses very deliberately: the VOI Standard and reasonable steps. This guide explains both, and details exactly where each option fits.

Key takeaways

There are two ways to meet the VOI requirement. You can follow ARNECC’s in-person Standard in Schedule 8, which automatically satisfies the requirement. Or you can verify someone’s identity another way by taking “reasonable steps”. This is where remote VOI comes in.
The in-person route is a face-to-face check of the person and their original documents. The usual way to do this is through the over-the-counter service offered by Australia Post.
Remote VOI is a legal option, too, but the burden flips. It’s for when meeting in person is simply not practical. You have to be able to demonstrate this and show that the steps you took were reasonable.
A remote check is only as strong as the evidence trail: the document was authenticated, the person was verified live, and every step is saved in a tamper-proof record you can produce years later.
VOI is only one part of your AML responsibilities. From 1 July 2026, it is one input into the bigger Customer Due Diligence process. Pick a VOI tool that feeds that wider workflow, and you avoid doing the work twice.

What the ARNECC VOI Standard actually is

ARNECC (the Australian Registrars’ National Electronic Conveyancing Council) sets the Model Participation Rules that govern electronic conveyancing through platforms such as PEXA. Verification of identity, or VOI, is one of those rules.

The Rules contain a VOI Standard in Schedule 8. If you carry out verification in line with that Standard, Rule 6.5.6 treats you as having taken ‘reasonable steps’ to verify your client’s identity.

The Standard is built around three areas of verification, as per ARNECC’s MPR Guidance Note #2 on Verification of Identity:

The three areas of verification:

A face-to-face, in-person interview with the person being identified
The verifier being satisfied that the person is a reasonable likeness to the photographs in their identity documents
Identity documents that meet one of the prescribed categories (the familiar Category 1 to Category 5 hierarchy, including documents such as passport, licence, or birth certificate)

The Standard assumes an in-person meeting. You sit across from the client, look at them, and check their identity documents. That is exactly the kind of process Australia Post’s VOI service is designed for.

The ‘reasonable steps’ pathway, where remote VOI becomes a viable option

Here is the part that often gets missed. The VOI Standard is not mandatory. It is one way to satisfy the rule, not the only way.

ARNECC’s own position is that the Standard ‘is one set of reasonable steps, but there are other reasonable steps that can be taken to verify identity.’ Where a face-to-face interview cannot take place because the client is interstate, overseas, unwell, or simply unable to attend in person, the Rules expressly allow for verifying identity by other reasonable steps. This may include electronic means with further steps to satisfy yourself of the person’s identity.

This is the legal basis behind legitimate remote VOI and it shouldn’t be thought of as a loophole or a workaround. It’s a recognised pathway under the same rules.

The catch is that the two approaches leave you with different things to prove. With in-person VOI, you can point to the Standard and show that you followed it. With remote VOI, you need to show that the steps you took were reasonable.

For this reason, choosing a remote VOI provider is not simply about convenience. It is about choosing a process that gives you the evidence you need if the verification is ever challenged.

Australia Post VOI: what it does and does not cover

Australia Post’s in-person VOI service is a genuine, valid option. A client attends a participating post office, an employee inspects their original documents and confirms the likeness. Finally, your firm receives a verification result. Because it is face-to-face and follows the prescribed categories, it maps directly onto the VOI Standard.

Its trade-offs, however, are practical rather than legal:

The client has to travel to a post office during opening hours, with their original documents.
They also, very often, must book ahead.
It carries a per-check fee (in the order of $49 per check), paid per person, so a two-party purchase is two trips and two fees.
It is identity only. It confirms who the person is at that moment. It does nothing for beneficial ownership, PEP and sanctions screening, risk rating, or the record-keeping obligations that arrive with Tranche 2.
The turnaround depends on the client’s diary, not yours, which is the single most common cause of delays when it comes to settlement week.

None of that makes it wrong. For a firm with mostly local, in-person clients and no appetite for new software, it remains a reasonable choice. The friction simply becomes harder to justify as client bases spread out and AML obligations add another layer of complexity.

In-person vs remote digital VOI, side by side

The ARNECC VOI Standard for property identity verification

Factor	Australia Post (in-person)	Remote digital VOI
ARNECC basis	Satisfies the VOI Standard (clearer pathway, compliance-wise)	Reasonable-steps pathway; must be demonstrable
Where the client is	Must attend a post office in person	Anywhere with a phone and internet
Client effort	Travel, opening hours, original documents	Secure link, ID upload, short video check
Typical timing	Depends on the client booking a visit	Depends on the client, but often quicker due to it not being location-dependent
Cost model	Per check, per person	Varies by provider (per verification or subscription)
Evidence produced	Verification result	Full audit trail: document checks, liveness, timestamps
Links to AML/CDD	No	Depends on provider; some feed CDD directly
Interstate/overseas clients	Impractical	Very practical

What makes a remote VOI ‘reasonable’

Because remote VOI stands on ‘reasonable steps’ rather than a more established route, the quality of the process is everything. A grainy video call and a blurry photo of someone’s licence won’t do.

A defensible remote VOI does three things well:

Document authentication. The identity document is checked for authenticity, not just accepted at face value. Security features, data consistency and document type all get tested rather than skimmed.
A liveness and likeness check. A short live video or biometric step confirms the person presenting the document is real, present, and a reasonable likeness to it. This is the remote equivalent of the face-to-face check, and it is the step that a photo upload alone cannot provide.
A tamper-evident record. Every step, who, when, which documents, and what result, is captured in an audit trail you can retrieve and produce later. Under Tranche 2, records generally need to survive for seven years, so a verification you cannot reproduce is a verification you cannot rely on.

If a remote VOI process delivers all three, it’s doing exactly what the reasonable-steps pathway asks. If it skips any of them, the benefit gained through convenience is quickly forfeited.

Checklist: choosing or operating a remote VOI process

Confirm the process documents all reasonable steps, with a record of why in-person was not used where relevant
Check that identity documents are authenticated, not merely uploaded
Confirm that a liveness/likeness step is part of every verification
Ensure each verification produces a tamper-evident audit trail you can export
Confirm records are retained in line with the seven-year requirement
Check whether the VOI output feeds your AML customer due diligence or sits separately
Keep your in-person/Australia Post option available for clients who prefer or need it

One thing to be clear on: VOI is not CDD

It is tempting, from 1 July 2026, to treat ‘we do VOI’ as ‘we do AML’. They are not the same thing, and conflating them is an expensive mistake a newly regulated practice can make.

VOI verifies an individual’s identity for land registry purposes. CDD (Customer Due Diligence), under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), is broader: it also requires identifying beneficial owners behind companies and trusts, screening for politically exposed persons and sanctions, understanding the nature and purpose of the matter, and rating the risk of the customer. VOI is merely a part of that, not the whole task.

When choosing a VOI process, it is worth looking at what happens beyond the identity check itself. If VOI is built into a workflow that also handles the wider CDD requirements, you can verify the client once and carry that information through the rest of the process. If it sits on its own, your team may have to enter the same details again in a separate compliance system.

Our AML/CTF guide for lawyers and conveyancers explains the wider CDD requirements in more detail.

Where VeriEzi fits

VeriEzi is an Australian remote VOI platform built for legal, property and accounting practices, with AML customer due diligence built into the workflow.

VeriEzi’s identity tool is designed with the ‘reasonable steps’ pathway in mind: the client receives a secure link, uploads their identity documents, and completes a short live video check, with no app to download. The process typically finishes in under ten minutes and works in multiple languages, which matters for interstate and overseas clients who cannot attend a post office. Every verification produces a tamper-evident audit trail aligned to the seven-year retention requirement, so the evidence exists if a matter is ever questioned.

Because VOI and AML live on one platform, the same verification can carry through into customer due diligence: beneficial owner collection for companies and trusts, screening for sanctions, politically exposed persons and adverse media, and a risk rating on the matter. Overall, it’s more efficient as you are not re-keying client details into a second system.

There is no subscription. You pay per verification, so the cost tracks the work you actually do, and you can pass it to the client or absorb it. If you want to see the remote VOI and AML workflow end-to-end, you can book your free demo today.

VeriEzi provides identity-verification software to support firms preparing for AUSTRAC Tranche 2 reporting obligations. The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. Firms remain responsible for their own AML/CTF Program and reporting-entity obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), and for meeting their verification of identity obligations under the applicable ARNECC Model Participation Rules. For advice specific to your firm’s obligations, consult AUSTRAC guidance materials, ARNECC guidance, or a qualified compliance adviser.

Remote VOI vs Australia Post VOI: What Actually Meets the ARNECC Standard in 2026

What the ARNECC VOI Standard actually is

The ‘reasonable steps’ pathway, where remote VOI becomes a viable option

Australia Post VOI: what it does and does not cover

In-person vs remote digital VOI, side by side

What makes a remote VOI ‘reasonable’

One thing to be clear on: VOI is not CDD

Where VeriEzi fits

Related Blogs

What Actually Happens When You File a Suspicious Matter Report

Enhanced Due Diligence Under Tranche 2: What Actually Triggers It, and What You Have to Do Differently

Beneficial Ownership Under Tranche 2: How to Identify (and Verify) Who Really Owns a Trust or Company