While associations and governments have tried to find common ground, a deeper look into the long history of a national registration scheme reveals short-sightedness and a lack of understanding from government about what engineers can achieve for almost two decades.

By Chris Davis and Bill Yole

From the outset, with the National Engineering Registration Board (NERB), the topic of a national registration has always been a priority for Engineers Australia.  

While the board had a mandate to help introduce a national registration scheme in Australia, its ultimate goal was to increase the government’s understanding of engineering, and this was supported by active membership from a number of government agencies.

Michael Bevan was the Registrar of the NERB until 2013 and played a huge part in Engineers Australia’s push for national registration.

Michael says that a national model of registration would still be the most beneficial solution for engineers.

“Engineers Australia, along with other associations, is a professional organisation that has always strived to elevate the standing of engineers in the community,” Michael said.

“The national scheme was part of the NERB’s mission, but it was always involving reviewing competency standards, making sure they were appropriate to the profession and that it was engaged in the identity of the registration system.

 “Ultimately the board was there to promote an understanding of engineering into government and community.”

The NER and its evolution

Engineers could be registered under the National Professional Engineers Register (now called the NER), a voluntary scheme that represented membership grades from graduates to Chartered members and had been in place since 1989.

By the early 1990s, requirements for the NER became more rigorous to include continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. People on the existing register had to be reassessed and their CPD commitments were included in the assessment.

Throughout this time, Engineers Australia and other organisations represented on the board had the feeling the message of registration wasn’t getting through to governments.   

To get governments to understand the value of a scheme, the NERB delivered a campaign to directly influence government thinking and advance national registration as a viable policy option.

By 2012, the Board was also collaborating with economic consultancy ACIL Tasman to deliver a cost/benefit analysis to aid the case for national registration in 2012.

ACIL Tasman forecast that a national registration scheme for engineers would deliver $7.4 billion in savings over 20 years through reduced costs in substandard project outcomes and other efficiency gains.

COAG and the need for a national registration scheme

In the lead-up to a 2012 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), a Senate Inquiry into shortage of engineering skills released a report recommending that COAG adopt a national registration scheme for engineers as a priority area for reform, and members of the NERB were optimistic that COAG would seriously considering pursuing such a scheme.

By late July 2012, COAG stated it was progressing with the Abbott Government’s Seamless National Economy Reforms which involved national licensing.

A communique from the meeting stated that COAG was “pleased with progress around the National Occupational Licensing System reforms” – a country-wide licensing scheme for a range of occupations including gas-fitters, plumbers and real estate agents.

But by the following COAG meeting in April 2013, the National Occupational Licensing Scheme was unceremoniously scrapped and the National Occupational Licensing Authority was disbanded after just two years in operation.

While there was support in principle for a national approach to the National Occupation Licensing System, there was insufficient support on how the national scheme should operate. Despite COAG abandoning the scheme, then prime minister Tony Abbott agreed to a national approach.

“There should be a seamless national economy, so people could trade in every jurisdiction and not just where they were licensed….and that mutual recognition could bring that about without the extraordinarily difficult and endless processes national schemes seemed to involve,” he said.

Following the 2013 COAG meeting, the issue of a national registration or licensing scheme for engineering professionals was never put back on the table.  

 “We took our case to the federal Government and we took it to all the states, but they put it on their shelves. It didn’t seem to hit their radar at all,” Michael Bevan said.

Government short-sightedness

Michael says it was short-sighted of government to not consider the benefits to a national registration scheme.

“Regulation is preventative, it strengthens community safety and also the profession,” Michael said.

“It prevents (mishaps) from happening a second time if a person is incompetent or negligent, there is a mechanism that removes them from the system and to force them to work under supervision.”

Bevan says the register is not just about regulation, it is also about educating people on the economic advantages of national registration.

“Engineers Australia put a lot of effort into raising awareness of the economic benefits that are associated with removing risks arising from inappropriately qualified or inexperienced people working in the industry.”

Despite the history, Engineers Australia continues to pursue a national approach.

Bevan says a national scheme is still within grasp.

“Efforts are still being made, we haven’t stopped,” Michael said.

“We’re not going to give up, but we need to persuade government on the risk to public safety, and we need to highlight the very real benefits of a nationally consistent scheme of professional regulation.”