HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SURVEY (FUNDING AND PROMOTION OF SURVEYING QUALIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2009. Page 1664.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:53): The Greens strongly support the need for more licensing and registration of cadastral surveyors in South Australia. This means not only more training at the undergraduate level but also that we need more efficient processes to ensure that graduates are able to obtain their licences to practise in South Australia as quickly as possible. Things in the surveying profession are currently quite dire. We have an ageing workforce, South Australia currently has no viable survey undergraduate course and we have a declining number of licensed surveyors in this state.

In 1990 there were 202 practising licensed surveyors on the surveyors' register. From 1991 to 2008, 53 graduates became licensed surveyors in South Australia, and this totals 255 existing and new licensed surveyors from 1991 to 2008. In 2008 there were 131 practising licensed surveyors on the surveyors' register. This means that 124 surveyors have retired or left the cadastral surveying industry between 1991 and 2008. I should add that all these figures come from the Government Gazette. This is not a viable workforce for the profession of surveying, and there is no doubt that we need more licensed surveyors in South Australia.

To help address this, the bill proposes to allow the levy, which currently funds the Institution of Surveyors' activities in training, licensing and regulating licensed surveyors, to be extended so that it can be used expressly for the education of new surveyors. As I understand it, there will be a fee increase of $30 per survey lodged in the Lands Titles Office, on top of the current levy of $53.50. The levy, as I understand it, is not to be subject to regulation, but rather imposed by ministerial approval and that, over time, it will rise with the consumer price index.

This bill seeks to continue the central role of the Institution of Surveyors in every step of training, licensing, investigating and managing the survey workforce. As well as the need for more undergraduates coming through, there is another well of potential surveyors into which we can tap, and they are those people who are currently working in the surveying industry but who are not licensed. Many of these people are working towards obtaining their licence, but in the meantime they operate under the supervision of a licensed surveyor. In April 2007 a Study of Surveying Education in South Australia report was conducted by Brenton Burford for the Institution of Surveyors.

Criticism was levelled at the surveyors board requirements to obtain a survey licence, with a number of those interviewed for the report complaining that it was unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible, particularly in relation to training requirements. But this is not a new criticism of surveyor training. In fact, a report published in the Institution of Surveyors' journal, Tieline, in 1989 (which was just prior to self-regulation, which commenced in 1992) looked at postgraduate training for cadastral surveyors and highlighted precisely the same concerns. So, there is nothing new.

In fact, more recently in this place I moved to disallow certain regulations in relation to the qualification and training of surveyors. I did not, in the end, put that disallowance motion to a vote because it actually achieved its desired objective, which was to bring the various parties together, including the Institution of Surveyors and the union that has coverage of many surveyors; and, as a result of that dialogue, the training regime improved. There is an example of a disallowance motion not needing to go to a vote but achieving the desired result nonetheless.

There is no doubt that more undergraduate training is required, and the question is whether this bill—this process, this self-managed regime—is the best way to achieve a significant increase in the number of licensed surveyors in South Australia. We must remember that it is the same Institution of Surveyors that has managed the system since 1992 and therefore has been at the helm during the period of criticism to which I referred. In concluding my second reading contribution, I want to put on the record a number of questions to which I would invite the minister to respond. First, how much money will be raised by the additional levy, and will the minister confirm the amount of increase in the levy (which I understand is $30), and the total levy that will result?

How much will the Institution of Surveyors receive as a result of the bill? How much will be provided annually to the University of South Australia for its role in training? Of the annual contribution to training, how much will come out of the pockets of the existing practising surveying industry? What is the contingency plan if the University of South Australia decides not to supply the course or, at some stage in the future, cancels its existing course? What will happen to the funds in that situation?

What increased level of reporting will the government expect as a consequence of the increased amounts involved and the increased levy contribution? Have other ways to increase the number of licensed surveyors in South Australia been looked at, such as a process to accredit surveyors currently working in the survey industry who have obtained TAFE qualifications or the fast-tracking of licensing of those currently working in the survey industry?

Finally, what consultation has the government undertaken in relation to these changes? In particular, has the government consulted with the Australian Miscellaneous Workers Union, as representatives of many workers in the surveying workforce?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:01): I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party supports the bill, which is not extensive and contains only three clauses. The clause in question inserts a paragraph into section 10 of the Survey Act 1992 and provides an additional function, that is, to provide financial assistance for training, and I endorse the Hon. Mark Parnell's questions in that I think it is not terribly clear how this will operate. I think that the parliament deserves to have those questions answered because, in some ways, this is a market failure to provide the relevant qualifications in South Australia. My colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas asked questions in relation to this issue, and I think that he may well make a contribution either during the second reading debate or at the committee stage.

He raised an issue that some of us may not have thought of, namely, that it is unusual to assist in the funding of tertiary education through some sort of fee process. I think all of us agree that it is important to have locally trained graduates, and I ask the government: what were the exact circumstances of the course's ceasing to be offered in South Australia? As I mentioned, the Hon. Mark Parnell's questions are very important because this regime may well fall over, and I think that the parliament deserves more transparency in relation to what it is enabling the institute to do.

I would also like more information. I have a copy of a letter provided to the member for MacKillop (the shadow minister for infrastructure) from the Institution of Surveyors, as well as a copy of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2008, which leaves a bit of mystery as to what the current market of surveyors looks like, that is, the number of surveyors who operate in South Australia. I understand that a number operate through mutual recognition and are based in Victoria. Will the government provide advice on whether a monopoly, duopoly or oligopoly operates within this market so that people who require survey services are at the mercy of a specific company or forced to cross the border to find people who can offer those qualifications?

I would also like to know whether there is a set fee for those services and whether those fees can be provided to the parliament, as is the case in a number of other professions, particularly the health professions, where we know that there are certain fees, or are there recommended fees provided by the professional institution? What is the quantity of work—how many surveys are performed per annum? Can the government provide much greater detail about what the market for surveying looks like in this state that has led to this situation, where we need to undertake the unusual step of providing funds from lodgments to underpin, in effect, a new undergraduate degree course? With those comments, with some reservations, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (17:06): I thank honourable members for their contribution to this bill. Some questions were asked, and I will go into those in more detail at the committee stage. In 2005, the University of South Australia ceased to offer the undergraduate course necessary for a person to become a licensed or registered surveyor, and it meant that surveying qualifications were no longer offered in South Australia.

It is an extremely important profession, and I know that the supply of qualified mining surveyors is particularly tight. Of course, it is a very necessary occupation with the expansion of the mining industry.

We can follow this up further in the committee stage; it has not been made clear here, but indicatively we are looking at an increase in the levy. As I understand it there is a levy of some $50, which is payable when plans certified by licensed surveyors are lodged with the Lands Titles Office, and my understanding is that an increase in that levy of the order of some $30 would be required to give the institution the necessary income to meet the requirements of the University of South Australia. I believe about $150,000 would be necessary for the University of South Australia to continue operating or resume providing this course.

Of course, we know that within our state not all occupations are catered for at universities. If you want to do aeronautical engineering you have to go interstate, and until recently if you wanted to do veterinary sciences you had to go interstate. We now have courses here, but clearly those courses can be expensive for universities to put on, particularly if the number of students studying those courses is relatively low, so the government has addressed this issue.

It is important that we do so, and we believe that with the passage of this bill and the income that is generated it will enable the University of South Australia to continue this course, but perhaps we can pursue these issues in more detail during the committee stage. Again, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Parnell asked some questions, and in my second reading response I gave some indication. I think his first question was how much money was expected to be raised with this. It obviously depends on the number of surveys that are lodged, but the estimate is between $120,000 and $130,000 at $30. So, if you had a $30 increase, that would raise about $120,000 to $130,000. That would then go to the Institution of Surveyors, which has entered into an agreement with the university so that that money would then go to the university. My understanding is that the university was looking for $150,000 to resume this course, and this is really the mechanism by which it will happen. The figure of $30 would raise that sum. That would go to the institute and that would flow to the University of South Australia so it can resume the course.

The Hon. Mr Parnell also asked about the composition of surveyors within the state. I am told there are about 100 practising surveyors; that is the number actually practising. Most of them are small firms. About 35 or thereabouts are small firms, and the remainder would be working for other companies. A company like Santos, for example, would have a consulting firm, I am advised, which supports it. I know that in the mining industry surveyors are very important. So, we have 35 small firms and two really large firms, so I guess that is the structure; 35 or 40 one or two person outfits, then two larger companies that support the bigger industry and some in between. I trust that provides something about the structure of the industry. If you have any more questions we will try to answer them.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On that matter, is there any evidence that there is somewhat of a duopoly or that the current structure is impeding access to surveying services?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that there is no impediment; it is just a lack of surveyors. In 2005, the course was closed to new entrants. Some graduates have come out over the past three years, but the last lot comes out at the end of this year. That is why we need to ensure that we have another intake. I think the answer to that question is that the big issue is obviously the declining supply of surveyors, and that is more likely to have an impact than any sort of market power.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Does the government have an estimation, then, of how many new graduates it needs to be putting through on an annual basis, if you like? What measures have been taken over the past three years, while the training has clearly been in decline, to promote the profession to people who might be interested?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that you would probably need about 10 to 15 graduates to meet demand. The average has probably been about 6 to 10, but there will be 16 graduates assuming they all pass this year, so that at least gives us some hope. Obviously, to get that number of graduates, you will need more to start so you might like to have 20 or 25 actually beginning a course.

There have been some efforts put into careers nights and so on, as you do with any sort of small profession like this, to try to generate interest but, clearly, with small professions and with such a specialty area, it is difficult to get the message across. I am also advised that this is a national problem in relation to getting surveyors. There is a shortage across the country, so it is not just here that we have the problem of attracting surveyors.

At the national level, the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) has been involved in promoting the profession and trying to encourage careers in it. That has all been done at a national level. However, obviously, we need a proper course here in South Australia if we are to get the graduates, and that is why the government has come up with this proposal to ensure that the university does get the funds to provide the course.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is an interesting precedent that government would put on a levy to fund an undergraduate degree course. Can the government advise of any other examples in any particular profession where this has actually taken place?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are not aware of any. I did mention earlier that there are some other courses that we do not have or have not had in this state: veterinary courses and aeronautical engineering are two that come to mind. Of course, we do have a veterinary course now. We also have an automotive engineering course, which was established at the University of Adelaide, with some support from the government, I think, to establish that course.

The state government does give a significant amount of money to university courses in specialist areas and, of course, we also try to get industry to make significant contributions. An example of that would be in the area of petroleum engineering where Santos provides significant amounts of money and the state government, through my department, does provide some help but mainly at the level of trying to retain professors and the like.

There has not been help given so much to keep courses going as to ensure that they have the recognition. Generally, those courses where the government provides support have had sufficient throughput to enable the course to keep going. Rather, our support has been directed at having specialist professors.

Petroleum engineering is one of those that comes to mind. I do not have further detail on me now, but I know that there are those sorts of arrangements. The state government does provide significant funding for specialist courses, but I am not aware of any parallel for this particular arrangement. There may well be some, but I am not aware of them.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for addressing some of the questions that I raised in the second reading. I will just revisit some of those issues that might be appropriate now. The bill refers specifically to the conduct by a university in a course of instruction and training, but I would like the minister to tell the committee what other ways the government has looked at to increase the numbers of licensed surveyors. In particular, what steps are being taken to fast-track the accreditation of surveyors who are currently working in the industry who may have their TAFE qualifications or other qualifications but are not necessarily in a position to go back to university?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that to become an accredited surveyor you need to have a four-year university qualification. If you were to try to fast track that, I guess you would be breaching the act. The other problem is that any surveyor who is given accreditation without having done the necessary four-year course would not get recognition anywhere else in the country. That is why the government is trying to restore the university course—so that we can, in fact, get surveyors with a four-year qualification who meet national requirements.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I do not want it to seem as if I am trying to dumb down the profession or lower the standards, but in other fields and professions there is no shortage of examples where very lengthy experience and on-the-job training is more than a substitute for a formal tertiary education course; for example, we have had clerks of court with no legal qualifications whatsoever who have become magistrates. I guess my question is: is there any consideration of people currently in the system having their lengthy experience, and perhaps non-university training, recognised and accepted?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that, while there is some provision in the act so that if you do have experience equivalent to a degree you can apply, no-one has actually sought that. I know there is a similar provision under the Development Act in relation to planners and building surveyors; in certain circumstances, I believe the minister can recognise qualifications. One would always have any applications assessed independently—I think it would be wrong for the minister himself to do that—and under the Development Act the minister would act on the advice of the department.

If, for example, a council in a remote area of the state needed someone who had experience, you could recognise their planning qualifications. In relation to surveying, I guess there could be a lot at stake in terms of having someone suitably qualified. In short, the answer is that the provision does exist in the act but it has not yet been tested.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On another matter, given that the levy is to be substantially increased, is there any proposed change to the reporting or financial accountability requirements? Perhaps the minister could preface his answer by explaining the current reporting arrangements.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the Institution of Surveyors has to lodge a report to the parliament within three months of the end of the financial year. Clearly, if there is an increased levy, one would expect that to be picked up in those reporting requirements.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I also asked about the consultation that the government has undertaken in relation to this bill and, in particular, about whether the AMWU was consulted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are not aware of any specific consultation with the AMWU. My advice is that there have been a number of general meetings of surveyors where these matters have been discussed and, presumably, most of the surveyors are members of the institute. Basically, the advice is that they are members of the institute and so there would have been general meetings and so on at which this was discussed. One would expect that all the surveyors who had an interest in this would have participated in those.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The funds to be raised are estimated at roughly $120,000 per annum. What does that pay for? I imagine it might equate to one lecturer; if so, how will that sustain what I understand is a four-year degree? Are funds required from other sources as well, such as from within the university or some other industry? What will the structure of the course look like?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that there is a basic three-year geospatial information course that covers a lot of the material a surveyor would normally need. So, in effect, what we are looking at here is putting a fourth year on that course so that over the four years you have covered all of the requirements. If 16 graduate students is the size of the course, I guess that would cover part of those costs, and I am advised that the university will also contribute towards this. As far as we are aware, $150,000 upwards is the asking fee. That, combined with their own funds, will enable the university to put on this extra fourth year.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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