Australian Engineer Registration Discussion (NER vs RPENG, Member vs Non-member)

[human909]

Australian Engineer Registration Discussion (NER vs RPENG, Member vs Non-member)

Hi All,

The thread subject probably is self explanatory of the question I have and the topic of the thread. I am keen on feedback on peoples choices and experiences. The benefits and the costs of different routes that are possible become a suitably registered engineer (if required) in relevant states. Additionally any benefits beyond getting that much needed registration.

[MY EXPERICENCE]
I am currently endorsed by Professionals Australia (RPENG) and registered in VIC and QLD. I perform structural engineering work across the East Coast.

In retrospect don't have a clear view on why I chose Professionals Australia as my pathway as opposed to Engineers Australia. I think I perceived that it was an easier route. When I first began the steps towards registration I wasn't filled with self confidence, but by the time I had gone through the hurdles to the interview I was confident and it was a box ticking exercise.

I am a current member Professionals Australia (RPENG) but I don't see the benefit and relevance the body has to me. Engineers Australia is likely more relevant so I'm considering jumping ship. Or I could be a member of none and just pay my fees when required to be re-endorsed. Professional membership cost is probably not a big factor if I can see some benefit in being a member. However currently I don't see ANY benefit of being a member of Professionals Australia beyond the slightly easier pathway with CPD and getting endorsed every few year


Anyway I'm seeking other peoples views. Particularly from younger engineers who have gone through the process but also from engineers with decades of experience who have navigated the changes. Any recommendations, comments or just your own experiences on this topic would be appreciated by me and also likely useful to others.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Just Some Nerd]

Disclaimer: Angsty, likely uninformed youngin' ranting below

As a youngish engineer, I'm often very confused what the inherent benefits CPeng/RPeng actually bring to the table. Very much a NSW centric bias, and mainly working on Class 2 buildings, but per Fair Trading NSW's rules being a "Professional Engineer" here just requires 5 years relevant experience and a relevant engineering degree, plus some other bits and pieces.

I would assume there are "soft" benefits in terms of clients, potential employers, etc. looking towards qualified individuals and having CPeng/RPeng on the email signature helps with that, but it's quite hard to see what else.

EA might be more relevant than PA, true, but within the industry it feels like the general sentiment is nobody holds either organisation in high regard. This also confuses me because it calls into question why people value the accreditation they provide.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[human909]

EA might be more relevant than PA, true, but within the industry it feels like the general sentiment is nobody holds either organisation in high regard.

That has been my observation.

Very much a NSW centric bias, and mainly working on Class 2 buildings, but per Fair Trading NSW's rules being a "Professional Engineer" here just requires 5 years relevant experience and a relevant engineering degree, plus some other bits and pieces.

As you likely are aware, other states notably VIC and QLD (and now WA) require accreditation from one of the accrediting bodies. But even practicing in NSW I've regularly been asked been expected to show evidence that I have suitable accreditation, even if there isn't the legal obligation.

I would assume there are "soft" benefits in terms of clients, potential employers, etc.

In my experience they are more than just "soft" benefits. For reasons above. Both the expectation of accreditation and the legal obligation in VIC and QLD.

 

[hokie66]

I have been retired for some years, so am not up to date with the current situation. I was a FIE Aust and CP Eng. Engineers Australia is to my mind just a professional organization, and the main benefit I received was the magazine.

Most of my practice was in Queensland, and here you are required to be a Registered Professional Engineer Queensland, RPEQ.

 

[human909]

I have been retired for some years, so am not up to date with the current situation.

Vic and now WA are now following the path of QLD. ACT and NT require registration. It is likely that other states will too. The states are largely making their own laws rules on the matter but in most respects it is following QLD's lead, it is a bit of a mess IMO and I'm not sure it will actually improve things it seems like it is just more paperwork.

Accreditation from a professional body is required in QLD, VIC and QLD so NER/RPEng or similar is needed. NSW has a registration process for class 2 buildings but it is an internal process that doesn't require professional body accreditation.

I was a FIE Aust and CP Eng. Engineers Australia is to my mind just a professional organization, and the main benefit I received was the magazine.

Respect to you Sir for those more preeminent post nominals.

It will be curious to see how desired more preeminent post nominals will be with the new registration regimes. My perception is that most organisations just want registration and that's it. Of course if you are a specialise consultant who can readily meet the criteria, it probably makes sense to standard out from the crowd with CPEng and FIE and similar. One engineer that I respect has: C.P.Eng., M.I.C.E., M.I.Struct.E., M.A.S.C.E., F.I.E.Aust.

 

[mrlm]

It's not that NSW don't require registration, it's that the Building Commissioner doesn't like EA so is choosing to ignore them as a professional body for registration.

I agree with Just Some Nerd. I see little benefit in being CPeng or RPeng, save for the need for accreditation.

 

[bugbus]

I agree with others in this thread. I see CPEng as a total waste of time, and not really sure what it is intended to accredit (certainly not technical ability). I like the approach in North America where you sit a practical exam to become a licensed structural engineer, for example.

Having said that, mine and many others' workplaces seem to insist on everyone becoming chartered, so I'm begrudgingly going through the process.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't give a single cent to EA (luckily I don't personally pay for membership). I don't understand what service they provide to their members other than occasional seminars and a newsletter. Their main function seems to be as a kind of pseudo immigration service for overseas engineers. They seem to undermine Australian engineers every step of the way. What has EA done to push for higher salaries for engineers in Australia, for example? Of all the professional bodies out there, EA has to be one of the worst.

 

[Smoulder]

I got RPEQ direct from BPEQ. Only got CPEng later when NSW clients requested it for sign off and the managers were sick of being the only ones so paid. So some clients require it. Not sure if they'd accept just NER without a fight. Also it looks like mutual recognition won't get off the ground on all states so hopefully CPEng makes it easier if needed.

Bugbus was more direct than me. I was going to say their main function is assessing overseas qualifications.

@Bugbus Tests seem OK at first glance but I don't think US or UK testing really hit the mark. Either too shallow or don't match how modern engineers work. That's from reading this forum.

 

[human909]

I got RPEQ direct from BPEQ.

BPEQ no longer offers assessment. You need assessment from one of the approved assessment entities. Maybe it wasn't like this in the past but it is now.

The RPEQ registration is provided by BPEQ but still need an external body to assess you.

@Bugbus Tests seem OK at first glance but I don't think US or UK testing really hit the mark. Either too shallow or don't match how modern engineers work. That's from reading this forum.

Agreed. Testing in the US sounds hell and I don't think I personally would ever surmount that hurdle.** Closed book timed tests are a terrible way to assess real world skill and aptitude.

**I used to be great at tests early in my studies in but as they became more about speed and memorisation than ability my performance dropped. Combine that with a some personal challenges regarding them, I now struggle if performance is measured in this way. Fortunately in the real world I deal with real world challenges which I can face well.

 

[Smoulder]

@Human909 Yep. I didn't explain well. I got RPEQ under old system just before they changed. No one in QLD cared about CPENG so didn't bother at the time because IEAUST didn't accept RPEQ assessment so double effort. Now RPEQ and RPEV are same assessment as CPENG so lots of people get CPENG as well if company is paying. Main point is sometimes get CPENG request in NSW for non building work. Otherwise IEAUST doesn't have much benefit except networking and for business owners IMO.

 

[human909]

Yeah lots of things are changing. And what might be required by some employers/clients might differ greatly from others. If your clients are glossy big CBD names then maybe things might be different. But I haven't found barriers with my limited post nominals.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND: I'm relatively new in the engineering world. I spent my all of my 20s in a completely different field before finding myself lost, travelling and then struggling through as a mature age engineering student in my 30s. I've since made up for lost time and progressed rapidly due to plenty of luck and some hard work. I now am running a reasonable successful sole consultancy as a side hustle to a salaried employment position.

I have the bare minimum in additional qualifications. RPENG, Registered in VIC and QLD. I've never found an issue. However generally the clients I deal with are just after some signed paperwork. (Most clients I have are small businesses or smaller listed firms. I have one multinational on my books, they are happy that I do good work.) Anyway enough about me...

Implementing a good certification processes is a HARD task. I have no solution to the problem, but I don't believe the current steps have improved anything. What we have had has been superficial and what we are moving towards is barely an improvement beyond more paperwork. The reality is that the best regulation is ETHICS, the RISK of lawsuit and your CLIENTS.

I've lost count of number of incompetent things I've seen by registered and apparently highly qualified engineers. In fact 2/3rds of current job book is fixing other peoples mistakes.


The US clearly has a more rigorous testing regime. I was actually in the US when I was interviewed for my accreditation. Trying to explain to a fellow US engineer that my interview after several IPAs and still jet lagged was the equivalent of a US PE qualification just boggled his mind.