Disciplinary principles for cadastral surveyors: a case study in Australia and New Zealand.

Citizens and their governments are dependent on sound cadastral information for a variety of purposes from mapping to mortgage guarantees. The integrity of cadastral databases, in turn, is dependent on the professional standards and ethical conduct of those responsible for creating the data. It is therefore common to restrict the production of cadastral data to those with specific qualifications and experience and who, on that basis, have proven their competence to an accrediting body. When complaints are received about surveyors who possess such accreditation and who may have made significant errors, not met the competency standards or who have their honesty questioned, it is necessary to initiate and carry out a judicial process to ascertain whether the accusations can be substantiated. If they can, the board then needs to decide whether they should suffer some penalty, be required to retrain or continue to be able to contribute data to the cadastre under specified conditions. Cases for investigation may be generated by the public, clients or government regulatory bodies. The six Australian states and two territories, along with New Zealand, share a common origin of their licensing system. Protocols first promulgated in 1892 allow for reciprocity of licence recognition between the nine jurisdictions. However, in the last several decades each jurisdiction has developed differing processes for dealing with the manner in which cadastral surveyors are disciplined following substantiation of a complaint. This paper describes the nature of the licensing bodies, definitions of professional misconduct that attract disciplinary action, the nature of the processes of dealing with complaints, and the penalties available to be imposed on surveyors found to be in breach of competency standards. It then discusses the principles involved in the fair and just handling of complaints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]