Reciprocation and discipline in Australasia

Abstract

The nine cadastral jurisdictions that function in Australia and New Zealand operate Torrens title systems that offer guaranteed titles to land and which are supported by accurate and reliable land survey data. There is little if any litigation over boundaries as a result of the maintenance of both the survey system and standards of technical and professional competence amongst cadastral surveyors. Statutory boards in each jurisdiction accredit those surveyors who have proven their competence in cadastral surveying and allow their plans to be lodged in their registration system. Such surveyors are also required to renew their accreditation annually (by a licence or registration renewal process) in order to retain that right of access to add to the cadastre. Boards have in place disciplinary processes (Coutts 2008, 2009, 2010a; Coutts and Grant 2009) to deal with complaints that any particular surveyor has acted in a way that demonstrates incompetence, negligence or unethical behaviour with respect to the cadastre. An Accord for mutual recognition of qualified surveyors from each jurisdiction by every other jurisdiction has existed since 1892 that facilitates the exchange and mobility of locally qualified personnel. This paper examines the use that is made of the reciprocal agreement by cadastral surveyors with the appropriate qualifications and the distribution, origins, frequency and nature of disciplinary actions taken in the last decade (2000–2009) by the Boards against surveyors accredited to work within the cadastre, and comments on its effectiveness. It further develops the theme of recent contributions by the author to FIG Commission 1 on the regulation and disciplining of cadastral surveyors.

Keywords:

• discipline
• cadastral surveying
• professional regulation
• mutual recognition