Introduction

The criterion for registration as a surveyor is defined in Clause 39(1) of the Surveyors Act 2003 which establishes that ‘competence’ is the basis of the registration system. Competence is also defined in the Act as ‘qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience’. The ordinary and everyday meaning of these words is clear.

The CF2005 Statutory Instrument competency framework properly addressed ‘competency’ within the meaning of the Act and permitted practitioners with or without academic degrees to apply for registration on the basis of the definition of competency as set out in the Act.

In addition, during 2005 and 2006, the Board undertook a review of the competency frameworks (CF2005) using an external organisation and, in August 2007, removed the CF2005 Statutory Instrument without explanation and introduced the CF2007 Statutory Instrument that mandated the possession of a three year or four year academic degree before an applicant could apply for registration as a Surveyor.

Please read on ………………….

This Institution was involved with the development of the competency frameworks through its input and considerable effort into the Competency Framework Working Group (CFWG). This group was comprised of the representative entities from the surveying profession that were recognized by the Board as having the knowledge necessary to develop the competency frameworks.

The Group met for 8 months from January 2005 until July 2005 in reasoned debate and collective analysis of the requirements of Clause 39(1) of the Surveyors Act 2003. As part of the lengthy meetings, the group members fully understood the clear meaning of the competency definition in the Act and developed a set of competency frameworks that were unanimously recommended to the Board. The Board adopted the CFWG recommendations without demur and formally published the CF2005 frameworks on the website. It thus became a Statutory Instrument and binding upon all parties – practitioners, the Surveyors Board and the State.

In August 2007, whilst the CFWG continued its assiduous work on the assessment criteria to support the previously adopted CF2005 Statutory Instrument, the Board suddenly introduced a new competency framework (CF2007) that completely stripped away the right of competent surveying practitioners from applying for registration as a Surveyor unless they possessed a three year academic degree from either USQ or QUT.

We have raised with this matter on numerous occasions with Ministers Wallace, Robertson and Nolan.

Here are the facts that are available from the evidence ………….

Statement of the Incontrovertible Facts

1) It is an incontrovertible fact that the meaning of the words used in Clause 39(1) of the Surveyors Act 2003 is clear. The definition of competency is ‘qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience’ and these words are to be used with their ‘ordinary meaning’. That is, ‘qualifications’ is not restricted to academic qualifications as the Board has imposed in the CF2007.

2) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Surveyors Bill clearly explains that competent practitioners can be registered as Surveyors and that “Registration is to be based on competency rather than academic qualifications.” (underline added)

3) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Explanatory Notes for the Surveyors Bill clearly explains: “While it is likely that most people obtaining registration will have completed tertiary studies, it is possible for persons to obtain the same level of knowledge without tertiary training. The focus of the competency framework is on the qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience that the person is required to have, and not on how they obtained them.” (underline added)

4) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Hansard record shows the fulsome support provided by the Leader of the Opposition for the Bill when Mr. Seeney advised that “.. qualifications alone cannot adequately test an applicant’s ability to work as a professional surveyor.” (underline added)

5) It is an incontrovertible fact that Minister Robertson, in introducing the Bill, states “ …. assesses and reassesses competency of the surveyors, and recognizes that an academic qualification is not automatically synonymous with competency.” (underline added)

6) It is an incontrovertible fact that the intention of Parliament was clear and that competent surveying practitioners with or without academic qualifications could apply for registration as Surveyors on the basis of their competency as evidenced by their ‘qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience’ and judged properly against those standards. (underline added)

7) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board undertook an 8 month process with the CFWG to develop the CF2005.

8) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board adopted the competency framework (CF2005) that was recommended by the CFWG at the Board meeting of 13 October 2005.

9) It is an incontrovertible fact that the adoption and publication of these competency frameworks created a Statutory Instrument that was binding on all parties. This was recognized as CF2005 and published on the Board’s website. A Statutory Instrument is not a Board document; it is a Public document that is managed on behalf of the State of Queensland by the Surveyors Board.

10) It is an incontrovertible fact that competent Engineering Surveying practitioners who operated competently and effectively for many years upon civil infrastructure projects were able to apply for registration as Surveyors under the provisions of the CF2005 Statutory Instrument.

11) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board resolved, on 13 October 2005, to utilize the assessment processes that existed under the Surveyors Act 1977 (SA1977) (an academically based Act) until the CFWG developed the assessment policies and processes in line with the CF2005 Statutory Instrument provisions.

12) It is an incontrovertible fact that this resolution to utilize the SA1977 assessment process requiring the possession of a degree discouraged or prevented competent practitioners from applying for registration as a Surveyor under the CF2005 Statutory Instrument.

13) It is an incontrovertible fact that during the period October 2005 until December 2006, a subcommittee of the Board began a review of the CF2005 Statutory Instrument without notification to the CFWG entities who had provided significant and vital ‘pro bono’ support to the Board for over eight months.

14) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board formally resolved to review the CF2005 Statutory Instrument on 15 February 2007 and agreed to pay a fee to an external organization to undertake the work. The Terms of Reference for the review of the Statutory Instrument were not made known to the Public the profession or to the entities comprising the CFWG.

15) It is an incontrovertible fact that, on the 22 March 2007, the Board resolved to adopt the recommendations of the Board’s CF Review sub-committee which recommended the inclusion of academic qualifications into the competency frameworks.

16) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board, on the 22 March 2007, in response to this Institution’s objections, drafted a letter to Minister Robertson requesting that the Act be altered to include academic qualifications. Minister Robertson did not respond to the request.

17) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board, on 22 March 2007, agreed to circulate to members of the CFWG, a copy of the Board recommended competency framework which mandated the possession of an academic degree before registration as a Surveyor could occur.

18) It is an incontrovertible fact that IEMSQ wrote, on 24 March 2007 and 5 May 2007, to Minister Wallace to express our serious concerns about the Board’s activities and to the content of the circulated competency frameworks.

19) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Land Surveying Commission of the Spatial Science Institute wrote, on 14 May 2007, to the Board raising objections to the new content of the circulated competency frameworks. The basis of the complaint was that it ignored the CF2005 Statutory Instrument and the content and context of that document.

20) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board, on the 26 April 2007, wrote to the Crown Law Office to request answers to specifically posed questions that arose out of the issues that IEMSQ had previously raised with the Minister and the Board.

21) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board posed questions of the Crown Law Advisor that elicited general advice regarding ‘qualifications’ and the making of alterations to a Statutory Instrument (the CF2005) without detailing the significant alterations that the Board had already decided to make to the CF2005 Statutory Instrument.

22) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board, when posing the questions to the Advisor, did not inform the Advisor that a competency framework (the CF2005) already existed as a Statutory Instrument and that the Board had already decided to make major alterations to that Statutory Instrument.

23) It is an incontrovertible fact that the advisor, in her reply of 01 June 2007, specifically asked for additional information pertinent to the matter so that the legal advice could be properly focused upon the exact situation of altering a Statutory Instrument that the Board was enquiring about. This information was never supplied and the Crown Law advice provided can only be regarded as of a general nature only.

24) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board, when providing advice to Minister Robertson’s office about the issues that IEMSQ had raised, has totally relied upon this general legal advice to inform the Minister that they had acted in accordance with sound advice.

25) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Board resolved on 9 August 2007 to remove the CF2005 Statutory Instrument and replace it with the CF2007 that mandated the possession of a three year academic degree before registration as a Surveyor could occur.

26) It is an incontrovertible fact that the reasons why the CF2005 Statutory Instrument failed to satisfy the requirements of the SA2003 were never made public nor is it clear that the CF2005 Statutory Instrument was ever formally rescinded by resolution by the Board. It simply disappeared from the website.

27) It is an incontrovertible fact that competent Engineering Surveying practitioners who have operated competently and effectively for many years upon civil infrastructure projects are prevented from applying for registration as Surveyors because of the provisions of the CF2007.

28) It is an incontrovertible fact that, in May 2011, the Board announced that it was undertaking a ‘review’ of the CF2007 and using the same organisation that developed the CF2007 which mandated the possession of an academic degree before application could be made.

29) It is an incontrovertible fact that, as of 01 December 2011, the review process of the CF2007 Statutory Instrument has not commenced.

30) It is an incontrovertible fact that the Terms of Reference for the review of the CF2007 Statutory Instrument have not been published as would be expected for a review of a Statutory Instrument.

31) It is an incontrovertible fact that, in December 2011, the Board published an alternate mechanism for applicants who wished to apply for registration as a Surveyor + Mining endorsement.

32) It is an incontrovertible fact that this mechanism, entitled “100 Points Test – Mining”, now permits applicants with TAFE level academic qualifications together with certified evidence of their experience (non- three year academic degree holders) to make application for registration as a Surveyor with a specialist endorsement.

33) It is a controvertible fact that, by the mere publication of the ‘100 Pts Test – Mining’ document, and by the application of some logical analysis, the Board has now publicly revealed that a three year academic qualification is NOT required for application for registration as a Surveyor with a Mining endorsement.

A summing up for the reader ……….

For over four years, the Board has vigorously and publically maintained that an applicant for registration as a Surveyor must possess a three year academic degree in spite of Parliament’s clearly stated intention that competent practitioners with or without academic qualifications could apply for registration on the basis of demonstrated competency.

The CF2005 Statutory Instrument fully supported the intention of the Act and did not require that an applicant must possess specific academic qualifications before application could be made. The applicant must provide evidence of competency. The Board removed this Statutory Instrument without explanation of its short-comings and failure to satisfy Clause 39(1) of the Act.

Now we have the situation that the Board has publically announced that a TAFE qualification and a period of certified surveying experience will permit an application for registration as a Surveyor with a mining endorsement. This situation flies in the face of the Board’s oft and loudly stated public position that an applicant must possess a three year academic degree before applying for registration as a Surveyor.

The simple logic is now clearly and finally revealed: in spite of the Board’s 2007 decision and subsequent actions, an applicant does not need a three year academic degree if they wish to apply for registration as a surveyor with a specialist mining endorsement. But the Board choses to continue to impose this academic requirement in spite of Parliament’s clearly stated intention that competent practitioners could seek registration on the basis of competency as defined in Clause 39(1) of the Surveyors Act 2003.

For those that may wish to examine this matter further, we refer you to ……………..

Bibliography:

1) Surveyors Act 2003 – Clause 39(1)

2) Explanatory Notes to Surveyors Bill 2002

3) Hansard Pages (2003)

Impacts upon Engineering Surveyors

1) Engineering Surveyors (those surveyors who do not undertake surveying for land matters) are employed by State and Local Government Departments, design organisations and small and large civil construction firms to provide a professional surveying service.

2) The survey work is directed to the collection of data of the terrain and the existing infrastructure so that the investigation phase, the design phase and the construction set out during the construction phase of a project can occur in a competent manner.

3) The Engineering Surveyors undertake their surveying duties so that the information collected or set out on the project are spatially accurate and delivered in such a way as to minimize delays to the project.

4) These surveying activities are undertaken by our Members in a competent manner with the competency being recognized in a commercial sense by the senior roles that these Members hold within the Company or Project hierarchy. They are recognized as experts in the project surveying that is required across Queensland.

5) There are many major projects across Queensland that relies upon Engineering Surveyors to deliver their surveying activities accurately so that the project can be delivered on time and within specification. These responsibilities cover the surveys for the calculation of progress pay claims, the setout of bridge and decks, the set out of tunnel boring machines, etc. which requires that the work is delivered accurately and professionally.

6) There are significant Work Place Health and Safety aspects that pertain to the Engineering Surveyor’s role in that they may operate in construction sites amongst heavy equipment or upon heavily trafficked roads where accidents may cause serious injury unless the work is undertaken by competent practitioner.

7) There are significant Public Interest aspects that pertain to the Engineering Surveyor’s role in that, unless their work is conducted competently, delays could occur in the delivery of the project to the accuracy specification. This delay could cause cost and public safety implications for the Queensland public.

8) These Engineering Surveyors were permitted under CF2005 Statutory Instrument, to apply for registration as a Surveyor by providing evidence of their qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience, and, having established their competency, becomes registered.

9) This avenue has been removed by the introduction of CF2007 Statutory Instrument. That is, because these Engineering Surveyors do not possess a three year academic degree as mandated by the Board they are prevented from applying for Registration as a Surveyor.

10) The Bligh Government has introduced significant legislation (Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011) (WRRA 2011) in response to the public pressure for accountability for the management of the environment.

11) The WRRA2011 contains requirements that the execution of the surveying measurements is to be undertaken or “certified as accurate by a surveyor under the Surveyors Act 2003”. The surveying work that is required under the WRRA2011 is no different from similar types of survey work that Engineering Surveyors have successful and competently completed over many years.

12) Many civil contracts for major civil infrastructure projects in Queensland have or are beginning to include clauses that require the survey work is undertaken or to be certified as accurate by “Registered Surveyors”. The Engineering Surveyors on these projects have demonstrated their competency on many past projects but will be potentially denied future opportunities to be engaged upon projects as they have been excluded from applying for registration by CF2007 Statutory Instrument.

13) The SBQ’s requirement that applicants possess a three year academic degree has thus removed a right granted by the SA2003 and CF2005 Statutory Instrument for competent Engineering Surveyors to be able to apply for registration as a Surveyor.

14) The actions of the Board in imposing the degree requirement will result in these Engineering Surveyors being unable to undertake the survey work on the sites affected by WRRA2011 that previously they were able to do. They have previously demonstrated their competence to undertake the work and their trade has been affected by the Board’s requirements.

15) This Institution accepts that the Government did not intend that restrictions be imposed upon the trade of competent practitioners by its sensible requirements for surveys undertaken as part of the WRRA2011.

a) The actions of the Board in imposing the academic requirement upon applicants have clearly established a restriction upon the trade of these Engineering Surveyors.

b) These Engineering Surveyors have successfully delivered the type of surveying work over many years but the CF2007 Statutory Instrument actively prevents them from applying for registration as a Surveyor.

c) These Engineering Surveyors cannot legally undertake the survey work in spite of their demonstrated competency to do so.