Inside the proposed changes to Queensland’s Surveying Code of Practice.
By Jasmine Bulman
The Surveyors Board of Queensland (SBQ) is overhauling its Code of Practice for the first time in 15 years. It is a necessary modernisation.
The surveying profession has rapidly transitioned into complex digital workflows, and the existing 2010 framework naturally predates the proliferation of AI, advanced geospatial data governance, and contemporary legislation.
While updating these rules is essential to protect public trust, the proposed draft has sparked significant debate across the sector.
Contentious clauses
At the heart of the contention is the delicate balance between elevating professional accountability and imposing unworkable administrative burdens on small and medium-sized surveying firms.
For private practitioners, the draft introduces several highly contentious clauses.
The most pressing is an attempt to subject private corporate records to the Public Records Act 2023 (Qld), effectively demanding public-sector style ‘disposal logs’ for a firm’s internal digital data.
Additionally, the Board proposed mandatory, continuous fleet-wide firmware tracking, an administrative nightmare for modern IoT-connected surveying instruments that receive automated over-the-air patches.
Finally, proposed changes to supervision duties construct a framework bordering on strict liability, offering no reasonable diligence defence for supervising surveyors.
Operational overreach
In its formal submission, Surveyors Australia advocated strongly against these operational overreaches, proposing practical alternatives such as fixed 7-year retention periods and limiting equipment mandates strictly to 12-month calibration certificates.
However, it also championed several key advancements. It supported the intent to regulate AI, advocating for a co-regulatory approach where the Board provides practical templates to help practitioners document the behavioural limitations of ‘black box’ algorithms.
Surveyors Australia also urged the SBQ to finally introduce a formalised CPD framework to ensure ongoing professional competency.
Powerful precedent
The proposed amendments apply only to Queensland. But should geospatial professionals in other states care about a Queensland code? Yes, because regulatory frameworks rarely exist in a vacuum.
As spatial technologies increasingly blur jurisdictional boundaries, how Queensland chooses to regulate AI oversight, digital data retention and remote supervision, will set a powerful precedent for reciprocating boards across the country.
If prescriptive, operational red tape is successfully enshrined in Queensland, it may soon appear in your state.
Conversely, if industry advocacy can secure a practical, principles-based approach to digital spatial governance, it will lay a positive, workable blueprint for the entire Australasian geospatial sector.
Jasmine Bulman is Queensland State Manager and Head of Advocacy & Certification for Surveyors Australia.
