HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SURVEY (FUNDING AND PROMOTION OF SURVEYING QUALIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2009. Page 1924.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:28): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition on this very complicated piece of legislation. I expect that we will be here for many hours if all my colleagues want to speak on this bill.

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I jest, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope. This bill has come about because, at this time, there just is no training for surveyors in South Australia. The degree course that used to be run by the University of South Australia is no longer being run and, as a consequence, there is no course for aspiring surveyors in South Australia to receive the relevant educational qualifications to become a registered surveyor. This, of course, has the potential to have a significant impact in a number of areas. We often fail to understand the importance of skills such as surveying. They are used in a great many areas of our daily lives, but that goes unnoticed by the average man or woman in the street.

In my opinion, the reason that we no longer have a course for surveying in South Australia is that the South Australian government has ignored what has been incredibly obvious to many people—certainly the opposition—for a long time; namely, we have failed to have a decent education system in this state. We have failed to promote the study of maths and sciences in our schools.

When I was shadow minister for mineral resources, this matter was highlighted to me by the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, which had been tracking the fall-off in the study of maths and sciences in high schools in South Australia since 1992, and there had been an incredible drop-off in the number of students studying maths and science, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of studies they were undertaking in high schools. Consequently, when students got to year 12 and were about to graduate from high school and were deciding what career path to take in their future life, many options were closed off to them. That remains the case. It fascinates me that a government that purports to support something like the mining industry and believes that the economic future of this state hinges significantly on the success of the mining industry would allow this to happen.

I say this because my daughter is in the mining industry and she studied at The Levels through the University of South Australia at the Gartrell School of Mines. I was out there about 18 months ago, and that university at The Levels used to offer, among other things, courses in surveying, geology, mining engineering and metallurgy. The Gartrell School of Mines at the University of South Australia is empty. There is nobody out there, and no courses or under-graduate courses are being run in that area. Importantly, in the context of this bill, that is what has happened to the surveying courses.

Surveying is incredibly important to the mining industry. You cannot operate a mine without surveyors; particularly if you are operating an underground mine, you absolutely need very good surveyors. In any mine you need surveyors to know what is happening. The geologists who manage the grade control of the operations and must have surveyors so that the whole operation works and people know what they are digging and where they are digging it.

This government has failed the young people of South Australia and failed the economic future of South Australia by not doing something to address the drop-off in the study of maths and science in high schools. That is the problem. To come back to this bill, which is a reaction to that problem, the opposition will support the bill reluctantly, as there is a principle involved here with which we are not overly happy. Importantly, we support it reluctantly because it treats the symptoms and not the cause. I have highlighted the cause.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: That is exactly what I am saying. I have already pointed out that the Chamber of Mines and Energy has told me what is the problem, and it has been highlighting it to the minister's government for a number of years, and the government has refused to do anything about it. Today it is the surveyors; tomorrow it will be another profession. The problem is that the minister's government has dumbed down education in this state. It has this fixation that education is about getting more kids staying at school until they are 17, 18, 19 or 20—that has been the government's fixation. The government has had no input or concern about what they do whilst they are at school for 15 or 16 years or about what skill level they achieve. That is why we have this problem whereby students graduating from high school have had options closed to them.

Even those who might have considered a career in surveying all of a sudden find that they do not have the qualifications at the end of their high school education to enter a surveying degree course. As a consequence, no-one is applying to enter a surveying degree course, and the university has said, 'We have no applicants for this course. We're going to shut the course down. We are not going to continue to put resources into running a course that no-one is applying to do.'

It is pretty logical but I am sure that, as the minister is wont to do, he will take no responsibility for it and will deny that this is a consequence of his government's lack of action in education. I know that that is what his position will be. However, the reality is that, if this state is to go forward we must have a good education system and produce students who, at the end of their high school years, have a basic set of skills that will enable them to go into science and engineering type courses. Without scientists, engineers and surveyors, this state will not go ahead and meet the challenges of the years to come, and that is the fundamental problem.

However, in this case, with respect to surveyors, there is a stopgap measure. The Institution of Surveyors has suggested that we put an extra cost on the clients of surveyors and use that money to underpin another course at the University of South Australia so that at least we have a course available. We will also try to use some of that money to encourage high school graduates to apply for that course—or, indeed, in this case, we will try to encourage graduates from the GIS (geospatial information systems) courses to take an additional course to obtain the requisite qualifications to become a registered surveyor.

In my opinion, this is a stopgap measure. As I said, the opposition is reluctantly supporting it because, under this government, there appears to be no alternative. We cannot see there being a dramatic shift in what is happening in our high schools and, as a consequence, we cannot see this matter being addressed in any other way in the near future. It will take a dramatic change in policy from government to change this situation. Because it has been going on for so long, it will take something like 10 or 12 years to change the culture of our education system and, consequently, the skill level of students coming out of that system. This is a matter of grave concern. Notwithstanding that the bill before us is quite simple—it is quite a small bill—it reflects the malaise that is taking place in our education system, in my opinion.

The issue here is that the surveyors board has a role in the accreditation of surveyors. It also believes that it has a role in the further education of graduate surveyors. In noting that the courses have been shut down because of a lack of interest from high school graduates, the surveyors board, in consultation with other members of the profession, has done some workshopping to try to establish how it can address this issue. It has talked extensively with the University of South Australia, and the reality is that the university has suggested that it would cost something like $750,000 over a five year period to introduce a new course and encourage some high school graduates to apply to undertake that course.

The surveyors board also has reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions so that, when we have surveyors moving from other states or New Zealand, they can be accredited with the relevant registration. The geospatial information systems course which is currently run by the University of South Australia does not satisfy the criteria, so that people graduating from that course cannot be accredited as registered surveyors in other jurisdictions and, indeed, in South Australia. The board has obviously come to government and said, 'We—that is, the institute and the board—would like to be able to support the education system such that we have a course which will give us viable graduates who could become registered surveyors.'

The Survey Act, which gives the power to people like the board for the functions they carry out, in section 10 sets out the functions of the Institution of Surveyors under the act. Section 12(2) states:

Fees and levies received by the Institution of Surveyors under this Act may only be used in carrying out the functions assigned to the Institution by this Act.

Section 10 (which sets out the functions) does not give the institution the power to put moneys towards a course, or towards encouraging high school graduates or other young people (hopefully) to undertake that course. That is what the board has decided is part of the answer to this.

The reality is that they would fund that by increasing the levy, which is payable when plans certified by licensed surveyors are lodged with the Lands Titles Office. I understand that a levy of some $50 on such lodgement is currently paid to the Institution of Surveyors to perform their existing functions. The opposition has been informed that an increase in that levy in the order of some $30 would be required to give the institution the financial wherewithal to meet the requirements of the University of South Australia to set up the appropriate courses.

That is what the bill does. The bill puts another function into section 10 of the act simply to allow the Institution of Surveyors to apply the funds that it receives under the act to ensure that we in South Australia are producing new graduates who have the educational requisites to become registered surveyors. As I said, the opposition supports the measure but we do so reluctantly, and we implore the government to relook at what is happening in our schools, because this is just one profession in which it is occurring. As I say, we have a similar sort of problem across all the science and engineering fields because our schools are concentrating on numbers and retention rates, and they place very little concentration on what they are actually teaching our students, particularly in the area of science and maths.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:43): I also rise to speak to this bill and support the member for MacKillop as the shadow minister and the person responsible for putting our position on it. One report about which I became aware last year and which highlighted the need for South Australia to ensure that it does plan for its future workforce needs—and the member for MacKillop has certainly spoken at great length about the education system in South Australia—was a report from the Economic Development Board talking about the future workforce needs of the state. It identified that, across a 15 year period, 206,000 people (commonly known as the baby boomer generation) will retire. Those people are employed in a variety of fields in this state and it is important, that we have the skill set to replace them. That is where the real concerns espoused by the Liberal Party are quite valid.

I know it is easy to shake your head and say, 'What we are talking about does not make any sense', but it is important to respect the fact that we do talk to communities and business and a variety of people across all electorates that we serve and in our shadow portfolio roles, and they express concern to us all the time about where the skill set will come from and where is the intellectual expertise that will be available across the state in order to perform in different areas?

It is important that we respect what surveyors do. Our system of land tenure and ownership in South Australia is based upon titles, whether it be freehold or Torrens title. It requires the lodgment of a plan, which has been prepared by a surveyor, with the Lands Titles Office. Having worked in local government and spoken to many surveyors about subdivision applications, it is obvious to me that the skill set those people possess is quite specific and it is important that we ensure we have people coming through the system to replace them.

I read the briefing paper prepared by the shadow minister, which highlights that the last time an intake occurred at the University of South Australia was in 2005. When I asked a question about this bill, he indicated that the intake probably involved about 20 people.

Mr Williams: It was probably fewer than that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The shadow minister confirms that it was probably fewer than that. It came as a real surprise to me that this area has not been identified in the last four years as one that needed to be addressed quicker. As I understand it, the surveyors association has brought this matter before the government in order to ensure that there is an ability to promote the need for this skill set and for surveyors to go to university to become qualified and then practise out in the field; and that, by doing this, there is some financial incentive attached to the bill which is part of the lodgement of fees by surveyors when they lodge plans with the LTO.

While I have some support for that, a philosophical viewpoint was raised in our shadow joint party discussion about this matter. Previously, education within the university system has been predominantly the financial responsibility of the federal government. Now we find there is a need to not only have and maintain levies but also increase the amount of the levies to ensure a sufficient pool of funds to promote the need for this type of career opportunity within the education system and to ensure that costs associated with the course itself can be partially offset.

While I recognise that it does occur, it is frustrating that there is a need to do this. It comes back to the fact that the person who pays for it will be the South Australian taxpayer. The South Australian taxpayer is a person for whom I have a lot of sympathy because there is no doubt they are being forced to take money from their pocket for a vast array of charges that are increasing exponentially and at a greater rate than inflation.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for MacKillop reminds me that South Australians are the most heavily taxed people in the nation. I believe, in comparing it with the national average, we are 11 per cent above that—111 per cent of the national mean. This is another example of community people—who are trying to get development opportunities happening and engaging the services of a surveyor—paying not only for the skills that the surveyor brings to that role but also to ensure that, in future, more surveyors will be available to do more work for people. The question that could be asked—and we on this side of the chamber believe quite legitimately—is: why is it constantly necessary for taxpayers to be forced to pull out of their pocket money that they would like to devote to other causes in order to ensure that this is available?

I have some concerns about the fact that we hear that mining is an important opportunity for the state—and it certainly is. As the shadow minister for industry and trade, I am talking to people all the time who are involved in this area. I know that the Chamber of Mines and Energy has spoken publicly and at length in the past about the fact that, in order for the mining potential in this state to be realised, we need a capital investment of something like $20 billion in infrastructure. It is important that the support services which allow this infrastructure to be developed are there, and surveyors are an important part of that.

While the opposition supports this bill, we do have some reservations about the fact that planning must take place at the highest levels of government to ensure the skill sets that will be needed in the future—not just for the next five or 10 years but, rather, across the next 50 years—will be there.

We have heard about the report of the EDB, which was presented recently to the Premier, and a desire to increase our population to two million by 2027 instead of the original target of 2050. In itself I believe that will require the construction of an additional 250,000 homes, or thereabouts, in South Australia to accommodate that increase in population. Most of that growth will occur in the metropolitan area, and we understand that. Most of that growth will occur in greenfield sites which will have to be subdivided, and that work will require surveyors to be engaged. It is obvious to me, and certainly it is obvious to my colleagues on this side of the chamber, that the complete skill set as it needs to exist across the state is lacking in terms of planning; but particularly in regard to surveyors, and the fact that we are considering this bill today does present a lot of concerns.

Whilst I and certainly the member for MacKillop indicate support for the bill, we do have enough concerns about the fact that planning is not there. We want to make sure that the surveying industry is there for the long term. I admit that, when I read the briefing paper, I thought, 'Well, if the people of Goyder decide not to have me in the parliament anymore, it might even be a reasonable career for me to pursue', because I have a bit of an interest in numbers, plans and that sort of stuff. You never know, we all have mid-life career crises—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. You never know, I might be one of the people in 52 weeks who will be looking for another career, and it might be that I express an interest in this one. We support the fact that the funds are intended to be in place now—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. I look beyond the polls. We talk to the people and we know what people think. We do. We are getting a very different message to the poll result that was in The Advertiser. I can assure the member for Mawson that the people we are talking to have different philosophical points of view. We support the bill, and we hope that not only is the fund established to a reasonable level as soon as possible but also, and importantly, that the attractiveness of skills to secondary school students is such that young people who have some level of interest and skill in this area are identified and that they are attracted to an industry that provides them with a great long-term future.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (12:51): I thank members opposite for their contributions and support for the surveying industry which this bill will provide to future surveyors. The government is very pleased to have this legislation before the house at the request of the surveying industry, and I thank members for their contributions.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT