> Alex,
>
> In Australia there is little formal legislation with respect to engineering,
> one or two states have some form of registration. In the main what
> legislation does exist mainly refers to the 4 year B.Eng and 3 years of
> experience. There is no restriction on who can practice and provide
> engineering services. However legislation may call up persons with national
> professional engineers registration (NPER) for certification and checking of
> proposals, alternatively state registration. There is no real plan stamping
> or seals held by engineers, most building work is certified by Building
> Surveyors.
>
> Mutual recognition agreements, such as the Sydney accord are largely based
> on the Institution of Engineers Australia's (IEAust) criteria. The IEAust
> however has basically stated that graduates with a B.Eng are professional
> engineers, to distinguish from car mechanics, train drivers etc... In effect
> they would be the equivalent of the US Engineer in Training (EIT), but that
> is not the terminology adopted. Also whilst the rest of the world refers to
> two year qualified Technicians, in Australia we refer to such persons as
> engineering associates/officers, our industrial awards otherwise refer to
> engineering technicians has having 1 to 1.5 years of education/training.
>
> The IEAust is currently in the process of moving from state to state
> attempting to implement legislation which protects the title of engineers,
> and also which recognises NPER. So where states have registration systems,
> moves are being made to achieve mutual recognition for those registered on
> the national system.
>
> Basically if you have engineering qualifications, then you can practice
> engineering. There is little self-certification, so all engineering
> calculations are reviewed by others: except in some states where some
> smaller projects are permitted to be self-certified by registered engineers.
>
> Many think the IEAust is an unwarranted cost, along with CPEng which is
> relatively recent, NPER still more recent. So in effect all that require to
> call one self an engineer is a B.Eng, experience not even really required.
>
> In other words our mutual recognition agreements are not based on legislated
> requirements in Australia, just IEAust membership which is voluntary. If an
> employer has little interest in IEAust, then not required. Most job
> vacancies typically refer to eligible for MIEAust membership, and do not
> require it. The IEAust also has no real power, if someone breach's the code
> of ethics, all that can really happen is they are expelled from membership,
> they can continue as they like. Which I guess is why the IEAust would like
> to see uniform legislation around each of the states.
>
> Basically MIEAust indicates achievement of minimum experience requirements,
> which use to be 6 years, now I think all grades reduced to 3 years. CPEng,
> indicates a more thorough assessment of experience and competence, but is
> only based to the writing of a work practice report and professional
> interview, there are no examinations. Registration on NPER requires CPEng.
>
> As for its value. I keep being reminded I am paying full fees, and have more
> than enough years experience to upgrade, I joined in 1995. Also what is in
> a title, to the IIE I am an industrial engineer, to the IEAust I am a
> mechanical engineering technologist, and to APESMA I am a professional
> scientist: because I have a 3 year Bachelor of Technology. Also to update my
> IEAust membership grade I can transfer from the mechanical college to the
> structural college: since all my experience is biased towards structures.
> And none of it provides added value to clients.
>
> Most jobs refer to B.Eng and 5 plus years experience, usually with respect
> to Australian codes. But most Australian codes are derivatives of British,
> American, or EuroCodes. Up until the global financial crisis, and its impact
> at the beginning of this year there was demand for overseas engineers in
> Australia, but that has tapered off, as unemployment as started to grow.
>
> In the main there is thus no legislated restriction which would prevent
> someone with overseas qualifications from practising engineering in
> Australia. Any problem would largely be the bias of the employer, and the
> IEAust may be referred to for equivalence checking of qualifications.
>
> That being said I do know people with masters degrees from overseas plus
> experience, who have had to go back to university and do further study
> before they could get employment. Not sure why, our degree programmes do not
> typically cover codes of practice, other than as a passing reference, mainly
> present theory.
>
> Also as you say CPEng is more the equivalent of the US, PE license.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Conrad Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
> Adelaide
> South Australia
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
This seems like a sort of "different path" than the U.S. embarked upon.
I'm not sure of the relationship between the federal and state
governments in Australia, but in the U.S. state sovereignty led to the
system we have.
Back before "registration" (now almost universally changed to
"licensure"), some time in the 1930s, there was no recognition of any
sort of vetting of engineers beyond the four-year degree. In fact, in
the civil engineering field it was very common for an "engineer" to have
gained experience solely in the workplace - starting as a draftsman or
survey party member/transitman/chief, e.g. - and yet have recognition as
an engineer equivalent to one with a college degree.
This persisted until quite late in municipal and state engineering
offices, in fact. When I was working my way through school in the late
70s-early 80s, many of the field AND office supervisors had titles such
as "civil engineer," "senior civil engineer," etc., but had at most a
state registration by exam as a Land Surveyor. Later, these titles had
to be changed when the title acts came into existence.
It sounds like in some ways Australia is about where the U.S. states
were in the 70s or so, and in some ways not comparable.
Whatever works for your country. That sovereignty thing - I'm pretty
much sold on it.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********