Building and Development Certifiers Regulation 2019

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Association of Consulting Surveyors

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    Michelle Blicavs

  • Position

    Chief Executive Officer

  • Organisation

    Association of Consulting Surveyors

Questions on possible options

  1. Is the commencement date of 1 July 2020 for the proposed Regulation and the Act allowing for a 6-month transitional period appropriate? Why or why not?

  2. Do you support the Secretary being able to require an applicant to complete additional training and having discretion to recognise other training? Why or why not?

    Yes. Training and improvement of skills and professional development is critical to improved performance and delivery of better services for the community. We have seen in the surveying industry the benefits of ongoing training.

  3. Do you support the grounds for finding that a person is not a suitable person to carry out certification work? Why or why not?

  4. Do you support the process and fee for a certifier to apply for a variation of registration? Why or why not?

  5. Are the requirements for professional indemnity insurance contracts and exclusions in the proposed Regulation appropriate? Why or why not?

  6. Do you support the proposed prescribed conflicts of interest in clause 24 and exemptions in clause 25? Why or why not?

  7. Do you support the list of particulars in clause 28, the requirement for a declaration and information sheet including the contents? Why or why not?

  8. Do you support the matters that an accreditation scheme must provide for in clauses 38 to 45? Why or why not? What other matters should be considered?

  9. Are the record keeping requirements, penalties and timeframes appropriate for registered certifiers, local councils and accreditation authorities? Why or why not?

  10. Do you support the exemption for registered certifiers employed by councils applying in relation to the payment of a penalty as a form of disciplinary action? Why or why not?

  11. Do you support the particulars in clause 64 that must be included in the register of registrations and approvals? Why or why not? What other particulars should be considered?

  12. Do you support the proposed classes of registration certifiers, including the way they have been streamlined and what each class is authorised to do? Why or why not?

    We are concerned that the classification of "surveyor - land" and "surveyor - strata" may cause confusion. There is currently a very clear definition of a "registered land surveyor" in accordance with the Surveying and Spatial Information Act 2020. Given the variations already existing for "surveyors", we are concerned that adding a classification of "surveyor-strata" adds a further complexity to an already busy field - building surveyors, quantity surveyors, land surveyors, mining surveyors etc. We are therefore opposed to the term "surveyor-strata". Our preference is for the term "registered surveyor" to only be used (though surveyor-land is more broadly understood) We are also concerned regarding the qualifications and skills for this proposed classification which we have outlined below.

  13. Do you support the proposed duties in the code of conduct? Why or why not? What other duties should be considered?

    The proposed duties for "surveyor-land" (and surveyor-strata if you keep that classification) should clearly state that they cannot certify a deposited plan or a strata plan prepared by their company. Deposited Plans can only be signed and submitted by a Registered Surveyor according to the SSI Act.

  14. Do you support the qualifications, experience, skills, knowledge and continuing professional development requirements in the proposed Regulation? Why or why not?

    Whilst we appreciate Schedule 3 outlines the qualifications and refers to a "Surveyor-land" as a Registered Surveyor under the Surveying and Spatial Information Act, we are concerned particularly about the term "Surveyor-strata". Simply having a "degree in civil engineering" or a "degree in land surveying" should not be sufficient. Registered Surveyors undertake an examination before the Board of Surveying and Spatial Information (BOSSI) in Strata and Community Title Schemes. It is our preference that those certifiers not registered surveyors must be graduate surveyors and undertake at a minimum the Strata Exam with BOSSI. We do not think the degree of Civil Engineer should be permitted to be a surveyor-strata. It is our preference that they are a registered surveyor.

  15. Do you support the proposed fees and penalty notice offences? Why or why not?

  16. Do you have any further comments regarding the proposed regulations?

    We would like the term "Registered Surveyor" to be defined in the opening definitions. In classes of Registration, we would like the Surveying and Spatial Information Act 2002 and the associated Surveying and Spatial Information Regulation 2017 to be included in the Definitions. We appreciate that you have included our organisation as a trainee provider as we delivered continuing professional development for Surveyors in land and strata. We appreciate this piece of work and believe it will be beneficial for the industry. However, we remain concerned about the terminology used and would prefer to continue being referred to as Registered Surveyors. It is our preference that only registered surveyors be able to undertake the certification of strata and land as per these regulations. We would be happy to discuss this further to avoid further terminology confusion within the community

At our discretion we may remove parts of submissions because of length, content, appropriateness or confidentiality (privacy) reasons.

Website https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

©