Thanks Mike sorry I got things the wrong way round I thought all local sightings are now considered to be fusiformis when it was the other way round. Thanks for teh correction
Comments on an earlier sighting indicate botanical confusion caused by horticultural misapplication of the name. Betty Wood said "The Weeds of Australia fact sheet gives good diagnostics." so I have looked at the distinction : "Billardiera fusiformis can be distinguished from Billardiera heterophylla by the following differences: Billardiera fusiformis generally has a climbing or twining habit (rarely shrubby) and its relatively narrow (i.e. linear to narrowly elliptic) adult leaves are entire and almost stalkless. Its flower sepals are all about the same size and its anthers are noticeably longer than their filaments. Its fruit are somewhat spindle-shaped (i.e. fusiform). Billardiera heterophylla generally has a shrubby habit with some climbing stems and its relatively broad (i.e. elliptic to ovate) adult leaves are finely toothed and borne on short stalks (2-3 mm long). Its flower sepals are of different sizes and its anthers are about the same length as their filaments. Its fruit are cylindrical in shape.
I think the leaves meet the description of B. filiformis. Sepals appear about the same size. I will have to go back and see if there are unpollinated flowers to check anthers and filaments. Maybe I should just cut it out to remove any argument :-)