750 AUD per year for Engineer Australia membership. Is it a joke?

[TouV]

What services (if any) do they provide to ask this much? Or they can charge no matter how much they want since CPeng is mandatory?

 

[GregLocock]

I posted the official statement. It is borderline meaningless since it says you are an engineer if you do engineering calculations, but not if you are a scientist or a student.



You can read the rest of the drivel at https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/lib...ing-of-professional-engineering-services.docx

There's also this masterpiece, note the disclaimer, we can't even rely on these'guidelines'. I don't know about engineers, but lawyers will have a field day with this stuff, as my solicitor observed, if you provide several different definitions then opposing parties can pick and choose.

 

[Enhineyero]

NZ was going to copy OZ and require the registration of all "engineers" but now certification will only be required for certain work.

We will still have CPeng if you want it even if working in field with no statutory requirement.

In OZ what is the definition of "engineer" and does this catch out unintended workers?

NZ please dont. Regulation of engineering in OZ is currently a circus. Governments are rolling out regulation to appear that they are doing something in improving the industry.

Meanwhile, the regulations in place are drafted by people who probably never worked in construction or building consulting, at the same time concerns of industry professionals are just outright ignored (of course you or your professional organisation can send letters concerning the proposed regulations but they never amount to anything).

What a time to be an engineer!

 

[GregLocock]

I got the impression that whoever copied drafted the Victorian one didn't understand what they were reading and expanded it to include MEs thinking they worked like construction.

 

[human909]

I’m based in Victoria, and you’re right — CPeng is not mandatory, only RPeng is. However, most people opt for CPeng anyway since they’re applying for registration regardless. Another reason is that the company I previously worked for required CPeng/NER registration and EA membership for senior roles, and I believe many other companies have similar policies.

This is more due to legacy policies and mindsets. I've never had any issues. Though if I did, I'd get CPEng/NER if it was required.

I gained experience outside the normal pathways. I was quite intimidated by the CPEng/RPeng process and felt a fair bit of imposter syndrome (which is something rare for me). It took almost a year to get my paperwork, references etc in order to something that I felt was satisfactory. By the time I had the interview it was a breeze (as previously mentioned they aren't onerous). I was jetlagged on the other side of the world and a few IPAs down by the time I had the interview! (The interview was scheduled at 930pm during a previously planned holiday.)

I got the impression that whoever copied drafted the Victorian one didn't understand what they were reading and expanded it to include MEs thinking they worked like construction.

I agree with that!

It has turned out to be a nightmare for the the refrigeration industry who design the mechanical systems in buildings. Many of them aren't engineers and have never needed to be engineers. Then all of a sudden after the law seems to indicate that they need an engineering degree!

Seeking clarity on professional registration

As professional registration schemes commence across Australia, practitioners in the refrigeration sector are looking for a clear statement from government on which parts of their work will fall under…

hvacrnews.com.au

I do some work for a mechanical engineering firm (industrial processes). There are still not any registered mechanical engineers there are in the firm. From what I gather this is common across Victoria.

 

[Enhineyero]

I got the impression that whoever copied drafted the Victorian one didn't understand what they were reading and expanded it to include MEs thinking they worked like construction.

To add more damage, there was already an existing regulation in Victoria for engineers doing work in the building construction industry, this did not change. However, they changed the registration part, and took in a whole new level of stupid complexity (previous system was simple).

All existing RBP to undergo 're-registration' assessment (For no sensible reason at all). Plus they require all other engineers, who previously did not require to be registered, to be registered

Example, if you are an electrical engineer doing telecoms work, congratulations you now need to be assessed and be registered to do your job (it is as if your employers will engage someone who dont know what they are doing to do electrical engineering for an investment worth millions of dollars).

This is all because of one lawyers report, for a botched job in NSW, stating a 'lack of registration of professional engineers' (probably true in NSW but not in VIC particularly in building construction). These new regulations could have been better than the old one if governements actually took the time to ask and listen to current practitioners in the industry.

I guess its easier to craft legislation based on a report from a different state than engage the people in the industy who you are about to f*ck.

Well done Victoria! Truly the education state, if that means the need of re-education for those in power.

edit: added spaces on my rant.

 

[rowingengineer]

They say democracy is the poor form of government bar all others, I think this is much the same argument as rego for engineers and cpd vs costs.

To have no rego process or cpd is not great for the profession, because sometimes it does work when we have engineers being signatures for hire. In other words not all engineers are upstanding citizens like engineers that activity participate in online forums etc expanding their knowledge.

For example a cold formed engineer was written off in Qld by the bpeq because on average his design we well below standard about 35 percent and he had a heap of building fail in yasi, however that same engineer was still practicing in NWS, SA and VIC until VIC created the new scheme, unsure if he applied and got kick or he just decided it wasn't worth it?

So while I agree that$750 is a touch high, would think about $450 is the number I also don't think that a process that has not checks and balances is the solution.

 

[human909]

This is all because of one lawyers report, for a botched job in NSW, stating a 'lack of registration of professional engineers' (probably true in NSW but not in VIC particularly in building construction). These new regulations could have been better than the old one if governements actually took the time to ask and listen to current practitioners in the industry.

I'm not sure Australia has ever in recent times a comprehensive registration system of professional engineers. But I'm not sure the evidence has been there that it has suffered from it. And all attempts at "improving" registration of professional engineers have been a simply bureaucratic a box ticking exercise. Of course the only people the the government listens to is lawyers, other government agencies and occasionally EA and similar bodies. And EA has a vested interest in MORE box ticking and ticket clipping.

The US system seems like it is an order of magnitude harder reach PE status let alone SE. However I'm not convinced that hitting engineering with more exams actually reaches better outcomes. The real world is vastly different from exams. The real world isn't about speed in calculations, memorisation or "closed book" testing. So I'm not an advocate of the US approach, though I do recognise that it likely sifts out more unsuitable engineers than the Australian approach.

The reality is that it is almost impossible to impose suitable top down accreditation of skills. Ultimately individuals are regulated by themselves, their peers and their clients.

 

[Andrew ONeill]

My 2 Cents. Having lived and breathed it in QLD (QLD has had a professional engineers Act for about 100 years).
- CPeng (Engineers Australia) is not mandatory, but people see it has a defacto badge to indicate competence in the absence of any legislation (in litigation lawyers could argue it's a measure of competence)
- If practicing overseas it can again be seen as a mark of competence (hey look this person is a "chartered engineer" they must be good)
- I am not a member of EA, I used to be, but I saw no value in $800 / year for a magazine and an organization who's direction appears to be cozying up to government, not actually representing what its members want.
- RPEQ (i.e. Registered Professional Engineer QLD) is the legal requirement, this means I'm registered wit the State Government (not engineers Australia)
- Rather than the government directly assessing engineers, they have a sub-contract model for lack of better words, of which various organizations can be used to assess the individual (Engineers Australia is not the only one, there are many)
- The scheme is very similar to doctors, nurses, electricians, plumbers etc, but is run a on state basis (all those people also need to be licensed)
- There is a fairly clear definition of what "engineering work" is, and hot tip, it's not just doing numbers, much to the dismay of pure numbers engineers.
- there is a requirement to have P.I. insurance (either directly or through my employer)
- there is a black and white requirement for supervision, and a clear definition of what that is (i.e. you can't supervise from head office)
- the 50x hours of CPD is very easy to achieve, because it's not just "technical stuff" they want you to have a broad range of stuff like understanding of risk management, ethics etc. M typical year might include 1x formal 1-2 day course if I'm lucky, but I still have no problem full-filling the 50 hours / yr

Other states have started implementing legislation based on the QLD legislation, from memory NSW now has it and WA has it or is about to start it.
Whether I like it or not, it's statute, so I have to follow it, no point complaining, it gets me nowhere, so i just live with it and move on with my life

TLDR - In Queensland (and I believe all of Australia, except for some obscure references in one state building codes), there is no requirement to be CPeng, or be a member of Engineers Australia. However some states do have legislation that requires engineers to be registered with the state government.

 

[KevinNZ]

To have no rego process or cpd is not great for the profession, because sometimes it does work when we have engineers being signatures for hire. In other words not all engineers are upstanding citizens like engineers that activity participate in online forums etc expanding their knowledge.

Engineer jailed for ‘huge’ nationwide building forgery​

 

[TouV]

I'm not sure Australia has ever in recent times a comprehensive registration system of professional engineers. But I'm not sure the evidence has been there that it has suffered from it. And all attempts at "improving" registration of professional engineers have been a simply bureaucratic a box ticking exercise. Of course the only people the the government listens to is lawyers, other government agencies and occasionally EA and similar bodies. And EA has a vested interest in MORE box ticking and ticket clipping.

The US system seems like it is an order of magnitude harder reach PE status let alone SE. However I'm not convinced that hitting engineering with more exams actually reaches better outcomes. The real world is vastly different from exams. The real world isn't about speed in calculations, memorisation or "closed book" testing. So I'm not an advocate of the US approach, though I do recognise that it likely sifts out more unsuitable engineers than the Australian approach.

The reality is that it is almost impossible to impose suitable top down accreditation of skills. Ultimately individuals are regulated by themselves, their peers and their clients.

I agree that the real world is different from an exam setting. However, exams aren’t just about quick calculations—they can still assess things like conceptual design and problem-solving approaches. As I mentioned earlier, the current process for obtaining CPEng through EA seems disconnected from actual engineering competence. It’s hard to see how asking a few superficial questions like “How do you deal with a conflict of interest?”—especially when asked by interviewers without engineering backgrounds—can meaningfully assess someone’s engineering ability. EA is essentially saying, “Give me money and I’ll give you the CPEng.”

 

[human909]

I agree that the real world is different from an exam setting. However, exams aren’t just about quick calculations—they can still assess things like conceptual design and problem-solving approaches.

Shouldn't that have been dealt with by actually obtaining an engineering degree?

As I mentioned earlier, the current process for obtaining CPEng through EA seems disconnected from actual engineering competence. It’s hard to see how asking a few superficial questions like “How do you deal with a conflict of interest?”—especially when asked by interviewers without engineering backgrounds—can meaningfully assess someone’s engineering ability. EA is essentially saying, “Give me money and I’ll give you the CPEng.”

IMO understanding your professional responsibilities is more important. Because ultimately THIS is the barrier to stop you practicing poor engineering.

eg; I am a good structural engineer (IMO) and worthy of the professional accreditation. But designing a large multifloored concrete building is currently outside my area of expertise. But legally I can do it and sign off on it. The key thing the bounds professional engineers is to only practice within their area of competency. No amount of exams will address that.

—especially when asked by interviewers without engineering backgrounds—can meaningfully assess someone’s engineering ability. EA is essentially saying, “Give me money and I’ll give you the CPEng.”

I can imagine that being a poor experience. My interview experience was with APEA was much better, though still easy. He was a well regarded professional engineer. The interviewer was there to see if I had a pulse and that I knew what I was talking about within my claimed areas of experience that I had submitted. He was clearly looking for inconsistencies too as he asked my referees about my experience in areas that I had already acknowledge having limited exposure to. My referees responses aligned with my own, so he clearly didn't shy from digging deeping.

 

[TouV]

Shouldn't that have been dealt with by actually obtaining an engineering degree?


IMO understanding your professional responsibilities is more important. Because ultimately THIS is the barrier to stop you practicing poor engineering.

eg; I am a good structural engineer (IMO) and worthy of the professional accreditation. But designing a large multifloored concrete building is currently outside my area of expertise. But legally I can do it and sign off on it. The key thing the bounds professional engineers is to only practice within their area of competency. No amount of exams will address that.

I can imagine that being a poor experience. My interview experience was with APEA was much better, though still easy. He was a well regarded professional engineer. The interviewer was there to see if I had a pulse and that I knew what I was talking about within my claimed areas of experience that I had submitted. He was clearly looking for inconsistencies too as he asked my referees about my experience in areas that I had already acknowledge having limited exposure to. My referees responses aligned with my own, so he clearly didn't shy from digging deeping.

I’m not sure about that. Many countries, including the US, UK, and several in Asia from what I know have similar exams required for chartered engineering status. This is particularly important in fields like structural engineering, where public safety is involved. Two individuals may both hold degrees, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are equally competent. Achieving CPEng should indicate a high level of competence, but I fail to see how how these awarded CPEng under EA’s process are “good”.

 

[Tomfh]

It’s hard to see how asking a few superficial questions like “How do you deal with a conflict of interest?”—especially when asked by interviewers without engineering backgrounds

I was asked how I handled an ethical dilemma. I gave an example where we’d approved a large number of anchors, then found they were non-compliant after the scaffolding was down. Fixing it would be costly, the real-world risk was low, and we’d missed it earlier—so there was strong temptation to look the other way. But we retracted our approval, because we couldn’t in good conscience say they complied. The fallout was as expected, and we nearly had to notify our insurer. The assessor, who didn’t have an engineering background, said, “But isn’t that just doing your job? How was that an ethical dilemma?”

 

[Enhineyero]

Shouldn't that have been dealt with by actually obtaining an engineering degree?

Exams arent perfect but they serve their purpose. Example, you can pass your concrete design subject without completely understanding how long-term deflections are calculated because its only <20% of the curriculum. In real life this isnt acceptable, if your structures fail in one critical aspect then say goodbye to your career.

 

[human909]

I’m not sure about that. Many countries, including the US, UK, and several in Asia from what I know have similar exams required for chartered engineering status. This is particularly important in fields like structural engineering, where public safety is involved. Two individuals may both hold degrees, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are equally competent. Achieving CPEng should indicate a high level of competence, but I fail to see how how these awarded CPEng under EA’s process are “good”.

And is the engineering quality clearly superior in the US, the UK or Asia? Australia seems to be an awfully popular place for student from Asia to come study engineering....

Two individuals may both hold degrees, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are equally competent. Achieving CPEng should indicate a high level of competence

That is stating the obvious. But likewise two individuals holding a professional accreditation doesn't mean they are equally competent.

Achieving CPEng should indicate a high level of competence

Actually that isn't quite correct. It or the equivalent is professional accreditation is necessary to practice as an engineer. It would be naïve to think that every accredited professional is of a "high level of competence". It doesn't matter whether we are talking about engineering, law or ANY profession. This is especially true of 'entry level' accreditation. And CPEng/RPEng are entry level accreditations now thanks to our state governments making it a requirement to practice.

Also also exams will never be a good indication of the level of competency of a professional. They cannot. They are a good indicator of the candidates ability to study and apply knowledge under exam conditions. That is a long way from my definition of competency.

but I fail to see how how these awarded CPEng under EA’s process are “good”.

I'm not sure anybody in this thread has argued that the CPEng accreditation is "good". So you are arguing a strawman there.

Exams arent perfect but they serve their purpose. Example, you can pass your concrete design subject without completely understanding how long-term deflections are calculated because its only <20% of the curriculum. In real life this isnt acceptable, if your structures fail in one critical aspect then say goodbye to your career.

That is exactly my point. Exams are not going to be able to suitably filter out all this stuff. Likewise how does adding more exams after you graduate improve things?

I won't claim to currently fully understand how long term deflection in concrete are calculated. But how does that matter if I'm not engineering concrete structures?

I would guess that the majority of engineers here don't have have zero or minimal experiencing in calculating loads for bulk material storage vessels. Or how to calculate the buckling capacity of a cylinder under pressure. But are practicing in areas of engineering where that matters then why should they know. For me it absolutely does matter and no amount of exams is going to change that.

 

[TouV]

Actually that isn't quite correct. It or the equivalent is professional accreditation is necessary to practice as an engineer. It would be naïve to think that every accredited professional is of a "high level of competence". It doesn't matter whether we are talking about engineering, law or ANY profession. This is especially true of 'entry level' accreditation. And CPEng/RPEng are entry level accreditations now thanks to our state governments making it a requirement to practice.

Also also exams will never be a good indication of the level of competency of a professional. They cannot. They are a good indicator of the candidates ability to study and apply knowledge under exam conditions. That is a long way from my definition of competency.

I never claimed that RPEng should indicate a high level of competence—nor do I believe that one must possess a high level of competence simply to practice as an engineer. What I was specifically referring to is CPEng. A Chartered Professional Engineer designation should represent a high level of competence. That’s certainly the case in many other countries where chartered status is earned through rigorous assessments and exams.

That is exactly my point. Exams are not going to be able to suitably filter out all this stuff. Likewise how does adding more exams after you graduate improve things?

While exams are not perfect, they remain one of the most effective tools for evaluating and filtering engineering competence, especially when compared to EA's ridiculus process. Below is a list of countries that require rigorous exams for Chartered or Professional Engineer status in the field of structural engineering: the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Singapore....

Does passing these exams automatically mean someone is a "good" engineer? No. But the likelihood that someone who has passed these demanding assessments possesses a high level of competence is significantly greater than someone who has simply been accredited as a CPEng through Engineers Australia. With EA, the primary requirements are accumulated experience and the ability to pay the membership fee

I would guess that the majority of engineers here don't have have zero or minimal experiencing in calculating loads for bulk material storage vessels. Or how to calculate the buckling capacity of a cylinder under pressure. But are practicing in areas of engineering where that matters then why should they know. For me it absolutely does matter and no amount of exams is going to change that.

You don’t need to be good at everything. These exams are designed to assess fundatmental engineering knowledge, not to test for perfection. You’re not expected to score 100% to pass.

 

[TouV]

I was asked how I handled an ethical dilemma. I gave an example where we’d approved a large number of anchors, then found they were non-compliant after the scaffolding was down. Fixing it would be costly, the real-world risk was low, and we’d missed it earlier—so there was strong temptation to look the other way. But we retracted our approval, because we couldn’t in good conscience say they complied. The fallout was as expected, and we nearly had to notify our insurer. The assessor, who didn’t have an engineering background, said, “But isn’t that just doing your job? How was that an ethical dilemma?”

The ironic thing is, EA doesn’t really have any ethics itself. They clearly don’t care about properly assessing engineers' skills — if they did, they wouldn’t be using assessors with no engineering background in the first place. All EA cares about is money, money, and more money.

I got my BLA, which lets me work as a structural engineer in VIC, and I only applied for CPEng when my company made it a requirement for a senior role, which seemed fair enough. But after going through the process, I honestly don’t see the point. Like all I had to do was answer a few non-technical questions from these so-called assessors. What would companies even ask for with this box-ticking exercise, as if EA’s current process proves anything...

 

[Enhineyero]

That is exactly my point. Exams are not going to be able to suitably filter out all this stuff. Likewise how does adding more exams after you graduate improve things?

I won't claim to currently fully understand how long term deflection in concrete are calculated. But how does that matter if I'm not engineering concrete structures?

I would guess that the majority of engineers here don't have have zero or minimal experiencing in calculating loads for bulk material storage vessels. Or how to calculate the buckling capacity of a cylinder under pressure. But are practicing in areas of engineering where that matters then why should they know. For me it absolutely does matter and no amount of exams is going to change that.

I see exams as a way to filter engineers who are competent enough to take a project alone and who arent (i.e. structural engineers doing buildings must be able to size/frame buildings and come up with practical structural designs/solutions). A good setup is the IstructE exam where questions cover various industries and you get to pick a couple (likely relevant to your industry) to answer and prove your competence.

A degree gives you some of the engineering theory required to be a competent engineer, the remaining ingredient is experience and knowledge of current construction/engineering practices in the industry (plus CPD). However, not all work experience is the same. Five years in a large multinational consulting firm doing mostly member design for a big infrastructure projects is not the same as five years in a medium-sized firm running all aspects of structural engineering on smaller projects.

One way to know if you have enough experience is an exam similar to what IstructE offers.

In an ideal world, engineers would only practice within their competence. Reality is that there are always people who are willing to do work outside their expertise, for a few $, at the risk of the public. The exam, while not perfect, does prevent this to some extent.

 

[human909]

Fair enough. I'm not a fan of the exam model. But that is my personal opinion. And I recognise that there are valid arguments regarding exams.

On the matter of CPEng vs RPEng. They are both post nominals that are effectively the same. One can receive them when they get accredited by an endorsed accreditation organisation. It does seem that some people here don't understand that. Those accreditations if current let you be registered RPEQ in QLD, BLA Registered Engineer in Victoria.

CPEng and RPEng have essentially the same requirements are the same, people are assessed against the same set of criteria. To try to differentiate between CPEng vs RPEng is like Coke and Pepsi. Don't blame me for suggesting they are of the same calibre, they reality is they ARE effectively the same. CPEng has a longer history in Australia and a legacy reputation that is rapidly dying.