Page 3181 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
work and mathematical calculations involved are usually a great deal simpler than those undertaken by some of the practitioners mentioned above.
However, the point of registration and licensing of surveyors to be deemed competent to carry out land surveys is to provide surety of land title, just as solicitors are required to undertake the legal aspects of dealing in land titles. The minimisation of conflicts and enablement of general commerce that come from secure property rights is the paramount concern. I am also told that a registered surveyor’s assessment of where a boundary is on the ground is based on professional judgement born of proper survey practice and legal precedent and legal requirements as to qualifications and demonstrated competence as tested by an examining panel of boards of surveyors.
The divers institutions of surveyors professional status derives from this and not some self-appointed gold star of “certified professional”. These are the words of my friend the surveyor. When choosing candidates for membership of the advisory committee, I am advised they should be sought from the Institution of Surveyors Australia, Canberra Division. At any rate, most ACT-registered surveyors in fact have dual membership with the SSI. I am told the situation came about by members of the founding bodies being offered free membership of the SSI when the vote was taken to form the SSI, and this was achieved by merely ticking a check box on the voting form. So, digressing from what I have been told, it may not be an issue if everyone is in both organisations or if most are.
I am told it is on this basis that the SSI may claim to have greater representation of spatial professionals than the Institution of Surveyors Australia. Finally, I am told the federal council of the Institution of Surveyors Australia entered into a service agreement with the SSI, and funding for this comes from the capitation levied on members of the state bodies that formerly went to the Institution of Surveyors Australia.
So there you go, Mr Barr. If you take that on board, it may not be a practical problem. There might be some demarcation dispute there, but it was a great concern to a person I have known for many years who has been in the profession. So if you take that on board I am sure the local surveyors would be very grateful.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.41), in reply: I thank Mr Stefaniak, Mr Seselja and Dr Foskey for their comments. Certainly, as I indicated to Mr Stefaniak when we discussed this matter in the stairwell last week, I was very happy to get the detail of the issue. He has certainly now provided the detail—in fact, a considerable amount of detail—and I am very happy to take that issue up with the Planning and Land Authority as appropriate. I thank the opposition and the Greens for their support.
I will of course be moving some amendments shortly. I thank members for their indication in advance of their support for those amendments.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .