SURVEY ACT REGULATIONS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:06): I move:

That the general regulations under the Survey Act 1992, made on 30 August 2007 and laid on the table of this council on 11 September 2007, be disallowed.

Surveying is a term used to describe a number of activities related to measuring and positioning features on, under or above the surface of the earth. There are many different types of surveyors. Some are used in mining, engineering, construction and perhaps the better known profession of cadastral surveying. The primary role of the cadastral surveyor is to determine the size, location and boundaries of property parcels. Many South Australian statutes and regulations, including the Real Property Act, Community Titles, Strata Titles and the Highways Act, require a licensed surveyor to determine or re-establish land boundaries as part of the process to subdivide or otherwise develop land.

According to Planning SA, approximately 95 per cent of all land division applications are lodged by agents such as surveyors acting on behalf of a land division applicant. This issue is therefore central to the question of land release and housing affordability. With land costs assuming up to three quarters of the cost of a house and land package, and the land supply diminishing, the link between the cost of subdivision and supply and subsequent affordability is pretty clear.

What do these survey regulations do and why is it that I have moved to disallow them? These regulations, the survey regulations 2007, sit under the Survey Act 1992 and aim to do two things: first, they set out the qualifications, rules and requirements for the training and licensing of surveyors in South Australia; and, secondly, they set out ground rules for good surveying practice. However, it is the issue of training and accreditation that causes me some concern.

There is a shortage of skilled and accredited surveyors in South Australia. South Australia has a lower number of accredited cadastral surveyors than has any other Australian state on a per population basis, and it is significantly lower. There are only 8.6 surveyors per 100,000 population, compared with the national average of 13.7. So, we are in fact 37 per cent below the national average in relation to the number of surveyors.

Reviewing the Government Gazette, in the past 15 years the number of licensed surveyors has declined from 202 in 1990 down to 129 in 2007. This decline is set to continue, with an average of just three surveyors per year becoming registered in the past 15 years (or effectively since the Survey Act 1992 was put in place) compared with an average of 12 per year in the years before that. This decline comes despite considerable growth in the industry. The demographic is also ageing at a rapid rate—in other words, the average age of surveyors is increasing.

A large part of the reason for the ageing of the surveying workforce and the decline in numbers is that in South Australia the training regime for surveyors is completely inadequate. The responsibility for training lies with the Institution of Surveyors, an incorporated professional body made up of land surveyors. It is a bit like the College of Surgeons that is responsible for training our surgeons; whilst this has merit in terms of ensuring the competency of their peers, there is also the temptation to restrict the number of new competitors. To gain accreditation as a licensed surveyor one needs to complete a four-year university degree, complete a professional training agreement as an employee of a surveying firm, and then complete a professional assessment project. I was amazed to hear that in South Australia this process can often take up to 10 years to complete.

A large part of the reason for this (so I have been told) is that the competencies for the job are not defined, and it is therefore up to a person's employer to decide when they think their employee is competent. I find that almost feudal and Dickensian, and the potential for abuse of the system is clearly present. These new regulations will make it worse by stipulating, for instance, that training on certain discrete parts or skills required to fulfil their job has to be conducted in continuous four-week blocks. An analogy would be to require a plumber to obtain four weeks' continuous experience in the fitting of gas hot water systems. The reality is that a plumber would go from job to job—one day gas, the next day toilets, the next day something else. They would not obtain a continuous four-week block of work in a discrete area.

I believe that South Australia should move instead towards a competency-based training and assessment approach for surveyors. Rather than accreditation at the whim of their employer, most (if not all) other areas of professional training have moved away from subjective assessment towards this more objective approach. Competency standards set out what employees need to do to be effective in the workplace, how well they need to do it, and the underpinning skill and knowledge they need. The focus is where it should be—on the ability of the individual to carry out his or her job—rather than on how they get there or on how many hours they spend with their employer. It does not matter whether a person takes two years or six years to gain skills, as long as they gain the necessary competency to do their job.

There should be clear competency standards across the state—and, arguably, across the nation. Remarkably, South Australia is the only state that does not have competency standards as part of the licensed surveyor training process; instead, in South Australia the focus is on a person serving time with an employer. At this point I seek leave to have inserted in Hansard without my reading it a table, prepared by the Surveyor-General, that compares the training for cadastral surveying in each state.

Leave granted.

1. Although the Act does not specify a mandatory degree, it recognises qualifications as one aspect of the competency framework. The competency framework that has been designed to meet the registration process incorporates the competencies obtained through a four year degree.

2. See previous footnote.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: A comparison between the training program of someone in South Australia versus someone in Victoria is quite revealing—in fact, they are worlds apart. A typical standard training agreement program in South Australia is less than one page and contains a vague description of the activity required. By contrast, in Victoria a standard program is 16 pages long and contains detailed lists of discrete competencies that are required to be performed. Once they have been performed they can be ticked off as completed, providing surety for all regarding those competencies that have been achieved and those that remain to be completed.

It should also be noted that the university training course detailed in the new survey regulations has been discontinued from 2006. Although there are still students enrolled and completing the final years of that course who will be eligible to enter into a training program for licensed surveyors, I am surprised that there is no mention of a current course in the new regulations available for students who have enrolled this year or next year allowing eligibility to enter into a training program to become a licensed surveyor.

The impact of this inadequate training and licensing regime is considerable. It is taking much longer than it should for people in South Australia to complete their training, and this is exacerbating what is already a major skills shortage. With only 120 licensed surveyors to service the whole of the state, consumers cannot get a decent service. This is leading to a land supply bottleneck, which is driving up the cost of land subdivision. As anyone who has tried to do this would know, the cost of a subdivision is a huge part of the cost of land.

Instead, I believe that we should move towards a competency-based training approach that would reduce the amount of time it takes for people to complete their training whilst still guaranteeing that the training is adequate and appropriate. It should also be noted that the job of surveying has been dramatically impacted by the introduction of new technology—so much so that the government at the time used this as the main reason for introducing various aspects of the 1992 Survey Act—for example, doing away with large amounts of regulation and introducing the concept of Surveyor-General's Directions.

The impact of the technology—for example, GPS and digital distance and angle measurement instruments, computer-aided design, etc.—has been to make the job of a cadastral surveyor much quicker and easier. In addition, for every new boundary created in South Australia—for example, a land division under the Real Property Act—where a survey and plan is prepared by a licensed surveyor and lodged with the Lands Titles Office, the plan of survey is examined and checked by Lands Titles Office staff.

This process is called land examination, and it is completed so that the government is assured that the surveyor has done their job properly. However, the survey plans are examined by Lands Titles Office staff who are not licensed surveyors, and who are not necessarily even university qualified. With this in mind, I find it hard to understand why the training process for cadastral surveyors is any longer than with other equivalent professions.

Certainly, it should not take 10 years to obtain the necessary licence. It could be argued that the Institution of Surveyors, Australia, South Australian Division Incorporated is abusing its powers under the Survey Act 1992 to dictate the interests of business over the greater interests of the community and the economy by restricting the supply of new surveyors who will compete against them.

It does not matter which way you look at this, surveyors have played and will play an important role in the state's economic development—in the development of mines for the resources boom; in residential development, to house the growing population; and in the design and construction of new road and rail infrastructure. In my opinion, this is the reason that decent training provisions for surveying should be in the regulations, as it sends the right signals to education providers and attracts new people to the profession. It provides appropriate recognition of peoples' skills.

In the end, business will always be able to provide surveying services for the economy. However, the big question is: what will the cost be if there are not enough accredited surveyors, in which case the simple law of supply and demand will kick in and drive up the cost? The statistics clearly show that that is the direction we are heading in: higher costs for land subdivision and longer delays. There is no reason why competency-based training should not be introduced into the regulations. This would bring us into line with other states and produce more surveyors more quickly.

Finally, I understand that the relevant union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, is also broadly supportive of a change towards greater competency-based training for surveyors in this state. It has told me that it would be happy to work with the government in developing a better system of training. However, until that better system of training is introduced, I urge all honourable members to join with me and disallow these inadequate regulations.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. I.K. Hunter.