Chapter 5
Addressing the causes of the skills shortage
Introduction
5.1
Chapter 3 dealt with the structural factors in the career pathway of an
engineer that have helped to bring about the current skills shortage, and has
proposed some potential measures to remedy them. Chapter 4 examined the impacts
of the shortage. In this Chapter the committee continues to explore the causes
of the skills shortage and how they might be addressed. This necessitates an
examination of how graduate training and recruitment can be improved, how
engineers can be encouraged to join and remain in the engineering profession,
and how the profile of engineers in the community can be promoted.
5.2
Engineers Australia acknowledged the difficulties inherent in the task
of addressing skills shortages. During the Perth hearing Mr Brent Jackson,
Director of National and International Policy, advised the committee:
Our work in engineering skills shortages shows that there are
no simple answers and that there is no simple remedy. Shortages are not
uniformly spread across locations, engineering specialisations or industry
sectors. The problem is complex and so too are the solutions.[1]
5.3
Consult Australia agreed with this assessment. Ms Megan Motto, Director,
told the committee during the Brisbane hearing that there was no simple
solution:
It is a complex issue, which unfortunately means there is no
silver bullet. There are both multifaceted reasons for the skills shortages and
also potential solutions to the skills shortages.[2]
5.4
Nevertheless, as the examples in this chapter will testify, the
committee was impressed by the considerable measures that governments,
universities and the industry have implemented to respond to the challenges
they face, and to plan for the future.
Graduates
Graduate numbers
5.5
The committee received conflicting evidence from other witnesses about
whether there are too many or insufficient engineering graduates. Some
witnesses, such as Engineers Australia and the Australian Council of
Engineering Deans, believe that there are insufficient numbers of engineering
graduates.[3]
Engineers Australia has argued that engineering must compete for students who
have strong mathematical and scientific skills with medical and actuarial
courses at universities.[4]
To address the skills shortage in engineering, these organisations suggest a
number of initiatives to improve the numbers of students studying engineering
at university.[5]
5.6
Skills Australia estimated that 7400 new engineering professional and
management jobs will be created annually over the next five years, and this
number is only slightly lower than the recent figures of domestic student
graduations (8,521 in 2010).[6]
On the face of it, this would appear to suggest that there are sufficient
graduates to meet the demand.
5.7
Conversely, other witnesses such as Professor James Trevelyan point to
data that indicates there are too many engineering graduates.[7]
5.8
The committee also observes that there can be little benefit in
increasing the number of engineering graduates without a corresponding increase
in graduate positions, a subject it deals with below.
Work readiness
5.9
Making potential engineering workers 'work ready' is critical to
addressing the skills shortage. The committee heard that a significant number
of applicants, while being qualified engineers, were unsuitable for the
particular positions on offer. Significant numbers of these were said to have
come onto the labour market through general skilled migration programs.[8]
5.10
Professor James Trevelyan argues that the problem lies with engineering
graduates not being 'work ready' and therefore not meeting the needs of
employers.[9] This view is supported by a survey conducted
by DEEWR where employers reported that:
-
Chemical engineering graduates often lacked experience in
specialised areas such as water treatment, minerals processing plant design and
odour control processing;
- Employers of mining engineers often required candidates to have
experience in their specific sector of the resources industry; and
- The majority of employers required engineers to have local
experience and, as a result, many international and interstate candidates were
often considered to be unsuitable.[10]
5.11
This was consistent with evidence from Skills Australia, who submitted
that 80 per cent of employers surveyed in 2011 sought to recruit staff with 5
to 10 years' experience.[11]
The Australian Council of Engineering Deans observed that, while many companies
do provide good graduate programs:
[In] the global environment of contract-based engineering
services, and price based competition, Australian companies will tend to seek
to employ experienced personnel from wherever they can be sourced, and
minimise training costs. One result of these imperatives is that there can
simultaneously be high levels of graduate unemployment and shortages of
engineers.[12]
Graduate programs and cadetships
5.12
Professor Trevelyan reported to the committee that his research
indicated the training provided to graduate engineers was generally extremely
poor. The best outcomes were experienced by graduates who secured a position
that was part of a graduate program.[13]
5.13
Traditionally, only very large companies provided graduate programs and
cadetships, and the bulk of entry level training was provided by the public
sector. As engineering skills were increasingly outsourced, it has a taken many
years for the industry to pick up on this responsibility. The committee heard
that in the past many companies simply did not have the time or resources to
invest heavily in graduate programs.
5.14
Mr Bruce Campbell-Fraser, Executive Officer at the Chamber of Minerals
and Energy Western Australia agreed with this assessment, telling the committee
that graduate programs were still important but were very expensive,
particularly if the individual was 'poached' by a competitor after a couple of
years:
It is true that the best potential employee is someone who
has previous experience in the role you are offering. Five to eight years'
experience would be ideal, so that person might be undertaking a role for
another company or another organisation or industry. Companies are putting a
fair bit of effort into identifying and working with students, particularly
mining engineering and petrochemical engineering students, while they are in
university. As you would be aware, many of these courses require exposure and
work experience through internships so companies are getting a look at
potential employees and drafting a potential employee who is showing the requisite
skills and ability at university into their workforce and graduate program. The
chamber has done a bit of work with Professor Trevelyan over some of his
research and I am very familiar with much of that. But there is that bit of
skills gap between what a graduate can offer, particularly an international
student graduate who may have some language issues, and what a company's
requirements are.
I think larger companies, certainly the ones that we
represent, are very focused and have a solid graduate program. Graduate
programs, like recruitment processes, are expensive and you do want to make
sure you get the right person, retain them in the long run and invest in their
skills and ability. So that is what companies are focused on. The intern
program that runs at university is proving quite a success. It would be great
if there were more exposure.[14]
5.15
Worley Parsons, the largest employer in Australia of engineers and
project delivery personnel, considers that it takes five years of training and
support before a graduate is independent and useful.[15]
Manufacturing Skills Australia, a government funded Industry Skills Council,
suggested that enterprises dependent on government contracting are reluctant to
employ graduates or cadets when funding is tied to electoral cycles usually
three years or less. When it takes three to five years to train an engineering
graduate, employing graduates is a real risk when there is no certainty of
employment.[16]
5.16
Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, who is the former Vice
Chancellor of the Australian National University, advised the committee that he
believed graduates were of good quality, and it was inadequate for industry to
simply blame government or universities if they did not believe graduates were
of a sufficient standard:
Let me start by saying that I was once at a meeting with
employers and they were telling me that graduates were useless for four years.
I find that really remarkable since I think that today's graduates are
substantially smarter than graduates of my generation were in a whole lot of
ways. So I said to them, after they had been at it a little while: 'Look, I've
been around a long time. I know the people who employed you said the same thing
about you that you are now saying about today's graduates. What have you done
about it in the meantime?' And the view was: 'Nothing. It's the government's
responsibility.' I do not share that view. I think it is a shared
responsibility.[17]
5.17
Consult Australia argues that it is difficult for consultancy
engineering firms to employ graduates – which typically requires an investment
of 5 years – when there is not a pipeline of projects that the company knows
are coming up. Ms Megan Motto explained that:
The issue for firms is to provide a good pipeline of projects
for those graduates to work on so that they end up being five- or 10-year
qualified or experienced. That is something that our industry is unable to do
if there is not a solid and assured pipeline of projects from governments. So
government spending decisions and good information regarding pipelines of
projects is significant here in providing the comfort level that the private
sector needs to employ these people and know that they are still going to have
useful work for them to do in two, three, five, 10 years time.[18]
5.18
Nevertheless, the committee is cognisant of data provided by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics that, at a time of apparent skills shortage in
the industry, 33 per cent of the engineering workforce is either unemployed or
not employed 'in a manner commensurate with their training' and who 'could not
be said to be productively used'.[19]
Consult Australia suggested this could be in part because some engineering
professions are in less demand then they were ten years ago (for example, water
engineers). Secondly, Consult Australia observed that graduates with a
background in a language other than English often have poor English language
skills, even though they studied in Australia. The committee was surprised to
hear that a student could graduate from an engineering program at an Australian
university with poor language skills. Mr Jonathan Russell, Senior Policy
Adviser at Consult Australia, reported that he:
...had this conversation with universities recently and they
all go on to say things such as that it is perhaps not the written message that
they assess but their level of understanding of the concepts required to
graduate. But the employers need a much higher level of communication skills so
they can actually deal with clients and write briefs and write reports. A lot
of these people are probably being set up to fail by the migration system where
the migration system sets a bar for language skills for independent migration.
It was until recently IELTS level 5. What we hear from employers is that IELTS
level 7 is probably the bare minimum to be able to function without too much
supervision in terms of their communicating with clients. That is part of the
problem. I do not think you will see too many domestic graduates driving taxis.[20]
5.19
Some larger companies that employ engineers have begun to invest in
graduate programs – realising that there are not enough engineers in the
marketplace. General Electric (GE) runs a graduate program with 20 positions
each year. Mr Kirby Anderson, Policy Leader Energy Infrastructure,
explained why GE had decided to invest in graduates:
We have been traditionally in the business of attracting
staff primarily with that five or greater years experience and then going about
the business of retaining them. We are attracting the staff which our customers
may also be seeking to attract as well. This is a real commitment. We need to
also be in the business of developing and retaining staff rather than simply
attracting and retaining those staff in Australia.[21]
5.20
The GE graduate program provides rotation throughout different business
areas, and mentoring support. Mr Anderson acknowledged that GE's graduate
program was a risk for the company, as essentially there were no guarantees the
graduates would stay, once they had received a 'passport for them to work
across the industry'.[22]
5.21
Ms Verena Preston, Director, Worley Parsons, described the company's
graduate program to the committee:
As a program that covers a range of technical as well as
non-technical skills, we would expose them to all aspects of being able to
deliver a project. Obviously, we want them in line with becoming a registered
engineer. It is a really important piece of that. We give them buddies and
mentors. There is a whole organisation and budget to complete that.[23]
5.22
Professor Trevelyan submitted that industry needed to create a cost code
for training newly graduated engineers, so that senior professionals had a way
to account for the time taken to mentor and support a new worker:
One of the questions that I ask and have asked consistently
over the last few years when I visit a company and talk to them about the
training program is: 'When a senior engineer has to help a junior engineer,
what charge code do they have? How do they account for the time they spend
doing that?' Very few companies even have a charge code. So the senior
engineers are put in the position where they have to take time out. They either
have to charge it to a project which they are working on or do it effectively
in their own time. There is so little emphasis and so little value placed on
workplace training.[24]
5.23
The committee believes that the creation of a cost code for senior
engineers to use to account for time spent training new engineers is an
excellent suggestion, and its implementation may serve to improve outcomes for
graduates. One of its principal virtues is that it would put a dollar figure on
training and development, and in doing so give employers a better handle on the
quantum of investment necessary to bring a new recruit up to speed and keep
them there.
Committee view
5.24
Despite some criticisms of graduate programs, the committee believes
that properly funded and supported graduate programs are a crucial measure to
address the skills shortages in engineering. The committee recognises that if
only a handful of companies provide this training and support then those
companies may be disadvantaged as their competitors will recruit trained
workers for free. However, if more players in the industry provided graduate
programs this potential problem would be alleviated.
Industry experience for university
students
5.25
Throughout this inquiry the committee heard time and time again that
industry cadetships had been crucial in motivating and supporting engineering students.
For example, IPWEA strongly supported the development of opportunities to work
part time for undergraduate students, and called for the federal government to
subsidise this work.[25]
Mr Ross Moody argued that early engineering work experience achieves much
better outcomes for the student and the industry:
A lot of undergraduates have to work to earn money to pay for
their living expenses and also pay for their HECS fees, but most of that work
is done in a non-technical area; it might be at McDonald's, dare I say, or some
other place where they are getting no benefit other than earning an income.[26]
5.26
Reflecting on his own experience of early industry exposure, Mr Moody
commented that:
When I was studying at university each year, and this started
from first year, I was able to work in local government during the vacation
periods and it was the university that made those placements. Of course, that
gave me work experience along the way. I got an appreciation of what civil
engineers did and I ended up working in local government.[27]
5.27
The Australian Industry Group spoke highly of cadetships and work
experience for university students. Ms Megan Lilly cautioned the committee that
in order to be really useful for students sandwich courses was a 'structured
and assessable' component of the curriculum, not just 'time off from the
course'. Ms Lilly explained:
I think that is where the guarantees are built in terms of
consolidating the student's learning in the first instance, or applying it,
plus setting up a framework for continuation of that learning but also getting
the employer engagement around that individual. As long as there is a really
strong curriculum framework built around that sandwich course—and there
generally is, so that is not necessarily a criticism but it is a safeguard—I
think it is a terrific solution.[28]
5.28
However, Professor James Trevelyan believed that industry would not
support lengthy work experience or cadetships for students:
I think that most of my faculty colleagues would welcome that
kind of development. It has been discussed extensively at the industry advisory
panel meetings that I have attended. The difficulty is that companies will tell
you: 'We like internship programs, because that gives us a chance to look at
the graduates that we would later employ. But we think that more than 12 weeks
is far too long.' In other words, they see the cost of supervising and training
these graduates and then saying: 'But they are going to leave us. They are not
even going to stay with us after the 12 months.' So the practical difficulty is
how to get companies to provide support for this.[29]
The Australian Power Institute
Bursary example
5.29
The Australian Power Institute was established by the power industry to
respond to the engineering skills shortages in that sector. The Australian
Power Institute runs a bursary program that provides paid work experience to
selected engineering university students. During the Brisbane hearings Mr Michael
Griffin, Chief Executive Officer, explained the program to the committee:
Our bursary program has been running for just over five
years. We have currently about 180 bursary holders across Australia. Each year
we go and promote the bursary program to all the universities across Australia
that have a commitment to power engineering—in other words universities that
have a power engineering curriculum. We use industry members to promote power
engineering, what power engineers do et cetera. We generally get into the first
year and second year classes. When we first went we had on the order of 50
bursaries to give in the year and we had about 160 bursary applications. Last
year we had 50 again and we had about 300 applications, so we are getting a lot
of interest amongst young people. The word is getting out there from our
existing bursary holders to their mates and the like.[30]
5.30
The Australian Power Industry conducted surveys to identify what
Generation Y students find attractive in engineering. Mr Michael Griffin
summed up for the committee the key motivators for students: 'be in demand, be
challenged, be rewarded and make a difference.[31]
5.31
Mr Griffin outlined the selection process for selecting bursary holders,
emphasising that students are chosen by the industry itself and the achievement
of successful applicants is properly recognised:
What we do is that when we select those bursary holders they
are not selected by the university academics; they are selected by our industry
members. So, on a state-by-state basis, I go around the country and bring our
industry member representatives together and they look at all the applications
they got for their state and select the bursary holders on some stated criteria
that we have. At the end of the year we have an awards ceremony for our bursary
holders and we invite chief executives and state or federal ministers to come
and present the awards. We try to make a big deal of it. We ask their parents
to come along. We want that recognition aspect so that they feel it is a really
worthwhile program to be part of. We then organise vacation employment for them
throughout their studies. On the summer vacations we organise that with our
industry members. They can work anywhere between a month and three months. This
is really invaluable.[32]
5.32
The committee was especially interested to hear that the bursary program
is paid work experience for students and that industry members of the
Australian Power Institute support this program without the assistance of
government funding. Mr Griffin told the committee that a high number of
industry members are active supporters of the program:
Generally 80 per cent of our member companies would take
people. From year to year there might be no project, so the smaller consulting
companies may not be able to take someone. There may be commercial pressures or
whatever. I think we are very well supported generally by our membership: 80 to
90 per cent of them will take more than one of our bursary holders. But, having
said that, we have to work hard to get them. If we could have some incentives
and some support from government for the program—maybe some contribution—that
might even lift it by 20 per cent. It might make the difference between a
company taking a bursary student and not, if you know what I mean.[33]
5.33
The committee asked the Australian Power Institute if it could assess
the effectiveness of this program. Mr Griffin said that while the program was
still new, already the benefits could be seen:
]By] having 50 of these graduates and potentially, throughout
years 1, 2 and 3, 180 right across Australia, there is in fact a pull through.
These bursary holders do not live in a vacuum. Their mates will see what they
are doing, what they are getting to experience. We are seeing in the
universities a commensurate increase in interest from students who miss out on
our bursary program in undertaking power engineering electives and that sort of
stuff. We are seeing some early signs of success that our bursary program is
leading to increasing enrolments in undergraduate study in our field. That is
because we actually get 300 applications a year. There are 300 students each
year who actually have to go and find out something about this industry to put
in an application. [34]
5.34
The Australian Power Institute also reported that the number of workers
in the industry aged below 30 has more than doubled.[35]
However, the Australian Power Institute was at pains to point out to the
committee that only 50 bursaries are offered each year (selected from 160
applicants in the last round) and the power industry needs 1300 graduates over
the next 5 years.[36]
The Australian Power Institute would like government support so it can offer
more bursaries, but did acknowledge that membership fees to the Institute –
through which the bursaries are funded – are likely to be tax deductable.[37]
5.35
The Institute has also launched a website to promote engineering careers
to high school and early university students.
Committee view
5.36
As discussed in chapter 3, the Australian Council of Engineering Deans
(ACED), Professor Bean and Hadgraft, and others, called for more practical work
exposure for university students.[38]
However, the ACED noted that there are significant challenges in implementing
good quality practical work experience for students, and one of the largest
challenges was to find sufficient numbers of employers willing to take on more
than 6000 students a year. The committee believes that practical work
experience provides benefits to industry, government and students and in the
long run will assist in addressing the skills shortage. The committee hopes
that over time as the success this program becomes more apparent other
industries will decide to adopt its model.
5.37
The committee believes that the Australian Power Institute bursary
program, sponsored by companies in the power industry, is an excellent example
of the type of paid work experience that should be available to many more
engineering students in many more engineering-related industries.
5.38
Currently university students are required to have 60 days work
experience across their whole degree. In the committee's view while this is
better than nothing it is not good enough and the Australian Power Institute's
bursary program represents best practice.
Recommendation 8
5.39
The committee recommends that the government work with states and
territories through the Council of Australian Governments to engage with
engineering industry peak bodies with a view to developing measures to
encourage the provision of practical, paid work experience to university
students.
Workforce training
5.40
It is clear that training for experienced engineers has also been
diminished by the demand for their services in revenue earning activities.
5.41
The Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management observed
that training has tapered off in recent years, and this has impacted workplace
productivity:
A lot of workforce planning has been undertaken to various
degrees around Australia, but the action to address those key findings has been
slow and, in some cases, nonexistent. With that in mind, it is no coincidence
that productivity in Australia has been declining. One of the contributing
factors to that decline since the early 1990s is a lack of training and a lack
of a focus on training.[39]
5.42
The committee was impressed by the practical attitude taken by some
organisations. Mr Dan Reeve, representing Roads Australia at the Canberra
hearing, but also the General Manager for the Snowy Mountains Engineering
Corporation's Australian operations, explained that he viewed training as an
important way to address skills shortages:
Even though I am from an engineering consultancy, I have been
involved in a number of the large alliances. I am on the alliance leadership
team and therefore I get active involvement in the governance and leadership of
those large projects—for instance, the Ballina bypass and the Banora Point
upgrade projects. I work with the contractors on that. Part of what we do there
is look at how we train and upskill our people as part of those projects. We do
not want to just employ the people, have them do the job and disappear. We
realise that, because we cannot get enough people, we have to upskill the
people we have got. We help a lot of the labourers to get their certificate IV
for training in different levels so that they can have skills. We find that, by
giving them that education as part of the project, they have more interest,
they perform better and they have something to go away.[40]
5.43
Mr Reeve's attitude demonstrates that even in the midst of short term
government contracting, it is possible to see the benefits of training staff
for a project as the returns will come in the future on the next project, when
the firm has a 'larger pool of skilled workers to call from'.[41]
In the committee's view this is an attitude more engineering employers should
share.
5.44
The Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management has
developed a pilot program to recruit people to engineering. The program outcome
was trialled by Western Australian Roads with excellent results. Mr Woolridge
told the committee:
We selected training programs from a variety of providers out
there—things like road safety audit training; crash investigation; traffic
management in roadworks; traffic signal training; AutoCAD, to improve design
skills; and design seminars. So we tried to cover the broad cross-section of
training requirements. Some of that was through training courses, some through
experiential learning. They spent six months in each location, some in the
traffic services area where they deal with local governments. In the traffic
operations project and development area they learnt how projects are developed.
In the traffic operations centre they saw how real-life traffic works. There
was meant to be a placement at local government, a reciprocal right, so we are
getting skills built up in both of those. I do not think local government
proceeded after I left Main Roads but they had a different component in there.[42]
5.45
General Electric suggested that training and workforce development would
be improved if it was a mandatory inclusion in project plans for large
developments. Mr Kirby Anderson told the committee that companies need to
explain:
How do they compete with other infrastructure potential,
particularly here in Queensland, where we are talking about upgrading the Bruce
Highway and other initiatives? How is the energy sector going to compete with
that demand for skills? So we think there is a good reason for having some sort
of inventory into how these projects are going to develop and what the skill
requirement is going to be. I think that sends a powerful signal not just to
companies like us but to registered training organisations—the TAFEs—and also
to governments, to say, 'How do we address this future skill demand?'[43]
Committee view
5.46
The committee believes that cadetships, graduate positions and workforce
training are crucial measures to address the skills shortage. The committee
believes that governments can use their purchasing power to encourage industry
to meet its training obligations. The recommendations made by Roads Australia
and General Electric appear to have some merit, although the particulars of any
incentive program attached to requests for tender processes will need to be
looked at closely by government.
Recommendation 9
5.47
The committee recommends that the government consider how it can
encourage commonwealth contractors to provide graduate and cadetship programs
through its procurement processes.
Engineers working in non-engineering roles
5.48
It seems relatively well accepted that another cause of the engineering
skills shortage is the choice by qualified engineers to work in other fields –
either as a result of promotion within their organisation, or as a result of a
decision to work in a different field. Added to this, a number of international
students graduating from Australian universities decide to return home after
study, and those who remain often do not possess sufficient communication
skills to be easily employable.
5.49
Census data from 2006 reveals that reveals that only 55 per cent of
engineering graduates were employed in an engineering occupation.[44]
Skills Australia observed that an individual's willingness to 'seek employment
outside the skills set they acquire through training or education, while in
many ways a benefit to both the labour market and individuals, can often also
result in skills shortages'.
5.50
During the committee's hearing in Perth, Professor Trevelyan explained
where he believed engineering graduates were ending up:
[We] actually have huge numbers of engineering graduates who
are employed in unrelated occupations, and many of them emerge extremely
frustrated because they find that the job they thought was waiting for them on
graduation simply isn't there.
...
The reality is that we train large numbers of graduates and
they go out and end up working elsewhere. ABS statistics will tell us that
there is a surplus of somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000 graduates. They are out
in the community now, many of them driving taxis. Some are real estate agents.
They could be engineers.[45]
5.51
Consult Australia submitted that the problem is exacerbated by the fact
that university engineering qualifications are attractive to other industries.
During the Brisbane hearing Ms Megan Motto, Chief Executive Officer, told the
committee:
[There may be] many graduates but they are being poached by
other sectors and not doing engineering at all. The number of graduates that
are going into the financial services sector, that are being picked up by the
big management consultancies, that are going into the banking sector and that
are going into project management in IT and other fields is quite
extraordinary. Our industry is also competing with those other market sectors
that are now significant competitors for the best graduates with the analytical
and problem-solving skills. They are greatly valued.[46]
5.52
Skills Australia cited anecdotal evidence that graduates are often
targeted by the financial and insurance sectors who can offer higher wages, and
who value the analytical skills that engineering graduates possess.[47]
If more graduate opportunities were available for graduates in engineering
sectors, Skills Australia believes more of these students could be retained in
the engineering discipline.
5.53
Mr Kirby Anderson of General Electric made similar observations:
The other issue that I think Engineers Australia have
identified, particularly in their submission to the National Resources Sector
Employment Taskforce, is that some of those qualified engineers that do actually
take up their degree and join the workforce are also quickly moved into the
management of companies, so therefore their engineering skills are lost to the
company and they are used more as management personnel. There are many examples
of that even within GE; many of our senior managers are also senior engineers.
You cannot stop them from moving up the chain.[48]
5.54
The committee believes that if a higher number of graduate opportunities
were available, more engineering graduates would choose to pursue a career in
an engineering related field.
Retention
5.55
Employers compete against each other for engineering talent in Australia
and internationally, and attracting, training and retaining graduates is hard,
as discussed in the preceding section. The committee heard that it has been
particularly difficult for engineers who are women to stay in their profession
and that industry is feeling the impact of the retirement of older, more
experienced engineers. Efforts have been made in some companies to promote the
participation of these experienced engineers.
5.56
Furthermore, positive retention policies to encourage indigenous people
to join and remain in the engineering workforce are in their infancy but are
being developed. One such example, the National Resources Sector Workforce
Strategy report, Resourcing the Future, recommended measures the federal
government should take to promote indigenous participation in the workforce
sector. In another development, the federal government is aiming to boost
Indigenous employment opportunities through its Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) on Indigenous Employment and Enterprise Development, entered into with
the Minerals Council of Australia. The MOU recognises the value in developing
regional partnership approaches between Indigenous communities, the minerals
industry and governments.[49]
Women
5.57
The rate of workplace participation in engineering jobs among women is
very low. Low participation rates can be traced to low numbers of women
graduating with engineering qualifications, but also to low retention rates of
those women who do obtain employment in an engineering related field. These
rates are usually attributed to inflexible and male dominated workplaces and a
traditional association of engineering with masculinity.
5.58
Engineers Australia reported to the committee that only 14.4 per cent of
domestic students who commence engineering bachelor degrees are women, with the
percentage of women graduating slightly higher than that of men.[50]
Ms Leanne Hardwicke, Director of the WA Division of Engineers
Australia, told the committee that while women had high completion rates, the
difficulty was retaining women once they entered the workforce:
I think the problems come when they get into the workforce
and they find that it is not as female friendly as they had hoped, that it is
very difficult if they take maternity leave, for instance, to come back in in a
part-time capacity. The expectations of the job are that you will come in full
time and the time that you have missed away is time when you could have been
building a career.[51]
5.59
Skills Australia's research supports Ms Hardwicke's conclusions, finding
that female engineers tend to leave 'for reasons connected with the workplace
culture (with discrimination and sexual harassment), family responsibilities,
travel and study'.[52]
A survey conducted by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and
Managers (APESMA) reported that one quarter of female respondents planned to
leave the engineering sector because of work life imbalance or a need to change
for career advancement.[53]
5.60
Dr Sally Male echoed these views and provided a sobering observation of
the experiences of many women in the engineering profession:
Women in engineering have fewer children than men in
engineering or women in other professions—that is not just women in general;
that is women in other professions—in Australia, indicating that there is a
barrier to women with children in engineering. Over 20 per cent of women in
studies report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. With all
of that evidence, it is no wonder that women also leave the engineering
profession at higher rates than men. Having recognised that there are barriers
to women in engineering, we need to look at what they might be caused by. There
has been a lot of focus on doing things to change the women, such as helping
them become more aware of opportunities in engineering, or on making minor
changes to the environments in which women might work, which are valuable,
including things like parental leave. However, we need to look at the sources
of these barriers.
There is plenty of evidence that these barriers are arising
from entrenched cultures. The men and women in those cultures, without
realising it, are involved in processes whereby they are making decisions and
engaging in engineering practices but are not seeing the assumptions that are
made around the stereotypical masculine ideal forms of engineers—for example,
that the ideal engineer has a wife at home looking after the children and
therefore does not have to leave at a certain time.[54]
5.61
The committee heard that steps were being taken to begin to address the
obstacles to employing and retaining women with engineering qualifications.
Looking at the problem, the National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce recommended:
That DEEWR or the Equal Opportunity for Women in the
Workplace Agency work with the Minerals Council of Australia, Australian
Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, Australian Constructors
Association, unions and education and training providers in appointing a
consultant to develop a strategy for attracting and retaining women in the
resources and construction sectors.[55]
5.62
The government accepted this recommendation and has made the Office for
Women available to assist businesses increase the number of women working in
the resources and construction sectors.[56]
5.63
Skills Australia reported that the private sector was also rising to the
challenge by improving workforce flexibility, part time career opportunities
and access to childcare.[57]
5.64
In June 2011 the Australian Mines and Minerals Association received
funding from the government to lead a project to attract and retain women in
the resources and related construction sectors.[58]
For its part, Engineers Australia has established the Women in Engineering
National Committee to attract, retain and support women in the engineering
profession.[59]
5.65
The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia has also put
measures in place to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in
engineering professions. Mr Bruce Campbell-Fraser told the committee that:
Currently, about 22 per cent of our workforce is made up of
females. That is up from about 19 per cent in 2008 so that has been a good
focus for companies. We are the largest employer of Indigenous people in
Western Australia: about 4.2 per cent of our workforce is Indigenous. To put
that in context, only 2.3 per cent of the WA public sector is Indigenous, and
the Indigenous population in Western Australia is 3.8 per cent. Those numbers
are much higher in the Pilbara both in terms of population and participation.
That is primarily where many of our major operators are.[60]
5.66
To address gender and other imbalances in the long term, Dr Sally Male
suggested that the engineering profession should reassess its 'cultural bias':
We need education for engineers at all levels in the
engineering workforce to help them to critically analyse decision-making
processes and practices within engineering and to uncover ways in which the
culture is causing those decision-making processes and engineering practices to
impact differently on women and men and then to work out how to address that.[61]
Committee view
5.67
The committee believes that if the participation of women in the
engineering workforce were to increase, this would go some way to addressing
the skills shortages. The committee encourages employers of engineers to work
to promote diversity in their workplaces and seek to recruit and retain women
engineers.
Recommendation 10
5.68
The committee recommends that the government work with the Australian
Workforce and Productivity Agency and employers to develop targeted policies
that encourage women to remain in, or return to, the engineering workforce.
Mature workers
5.69
A number of engineers are not participating in the workforce or will
leave the workforce in the next few years. For example, 30 per cent of workers
in the road industry are expected retire by 2019, and in Western Australia this
figure is estimated to be over 50 per cent.[62]
5.70
Some engineering firms have taken steps to encourage older engineers to
return to the workforce, for example as mentors for younger engineers. Ms
Verena Preston, Director, Worley Parsons told the committee that they were
considering how they could tap into the older workforce:
I think it is certainly an issue that we are grappling with,
and trying to address pretty aggressively at the moment, because with the
ageing workforce we have to come up with ways that we can actually engage them
in a different way. That is certainly something that we are doing. And yes,
there are many examples that spring to my mind where we have people within the
organisation that actually started out in the public sector and they are in
that mentoring phase at the moment. We are really trying to support that and
make it work. It would be nice to make that a bit more official.[63]
5.71
Ms Preston observed that in her experience there are not that many
engineering professionals actually retiring. What is more common is 'retired'
engineers return to the workforce. Usually to industry associations,
universities or their former company.[64]
5.72
Engineers Australia recommended that government departments at the
federal, state, territory and local level should implement policies to retain
internal engineering expertise. It suggests that this could be achieved through
...the creation of senior technical specialist roles that
would provide a technical career pathway (in tandem with traditional
managerial/generalist career pathways) for those seeking to build specialist
knowledge while continuing to enjoy career/hierarchical progression.[65]
5.73
Skills Australia advised that it is working to develop strategies to
keep older workers in the workforce across the board, and reported that if
workforce participation in Australia could be increased from 65 to 69 per cent
of eligible persons The economic benefit to Australia would approach $25
billion by 2025.[66]
Committee view
5.74
The committee believes that it is important that the government develop
policies to encourage older engineers to remain in the workforce for longer.
Older workers possess a wealth of experience and their contribution to the
engineering profession and trades could prove invaluable in addressing the
skills shortage.
Recommendation 11
5.75
The committee recommends that the government work with the Australian
Workforce and Productivity Agency to continue to develop targeted policies that
encourage mature engineers to remain in or return to the workforce.
The profile of engineers and engineering in the community
5.76
The low profile of engineers in the community was a
consistent theme in the submissions received by the committee and the evidence
taken during hearings. Many submitters linked the low profile to a lack of
awareness of what 'being an engineer' means. For example, Mr Ross Moody from
the Institute of Public Works Engineering, explained that most people did not
know what an engineer was, and those that did know, would not think a public
works engineer was exciting. [67]
5.77
The Australian National Engineering Taskforce (ANET) believes that the
low profile of engineers, and in turn, the skills shortage, can be addressed by
creating a federally funded position of the Office of the Australian Engineer.
ANET posits that this office could increase the level of interest among school
leavers in engineering careers and improve overall support for the engineering
profession.[68]
ANET believes the Office of the Chief Scientist performs an important role, but
cannot represent engineers as 'a scientist can advise on issues relating to
science, while an engineer can deliver tangible solutions in forms as
manufactured products, systems and infrastructure'.[69]
The committee asked Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb,
to comment on the proposal, Professor Chubb responded:
I think government needs good advice and government needs
input into these areas, probably in ways that it might not have had before.
Whether you do that through having a chief engineer in a sort of similar role
to the one I occupy or whether you have it as part of the overall office so
that you have maths, on the one hand, where there is also a problem, so you
might think about that too; engineering, so you might think about that; and
science more generally, I think there is an issue about how you get really good
independent advice to government all the time on these key matters.[70]
5.78
The Australian Power Institute advised the committee that its research
did not indicate that prestige was particularly important. Rather, other
factors attracted graduates to the industry, such as making a difference and
travelling. Mr Simon Bartlett, Chairman, told the committee:
We have done some research into what attracts young
Australians to a career. I am not sure that prestige is high up there. There is
wanting to make a difference to the world and they do see—and we are trying to
promote this—that the power industry is a way by which we can make a difference
to Australia by a reduction in carbon footprint and helping with renewable
generation. They want to be challenged and rewarded, so we are promoting that.
It is a skill that is transportable. There is travel that comes with it. Travel
is a big attractor.[71]
5.79
Mr Bartlett also observed that engineers in the power industry held some
prestigious roles, and that while a Chief Engineer might be helpful, it was not
essential.[72]
The committee gave particular weight to observations made by the Australian
Power Institute due the success its bursary program has had in promoting power
engineering to university students.
5.80
The ANET also called for a national registration scheme for professional
engineers. This proposal was also supported by other submitters, such as
Consult Australia, the National Engineering Registration Board, and the
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia.[73]
ANET argued that registration would 'assign value to the profession' and
establish regional boards which 'can promote the profession and safeguard
standards'.[74]
Registration would also promote workforce mobility across Australia and
continuing professional development requirements would ensure that engineers
maintain and develop their skills. In the context of engineering disasters,
discussed in chapter 4, a national registration scheme would also protect the
professional standards of engineers.
5.81
In a study commissioned by the National Engineering Registration Board,
ACIL Tasman forecast that a national registration scheme for engineers would
deliver $7.4 billion in savings.[75]
The key financial benefits include:
- a reduction in large engineering failures ($13.2 million a year)
-
reduction in botched engineering projects ($207.08 million a
year)
- benefits for migrant engineers ($29.91 million a year); and
-
other efficiency gains (207.6 million a year).[76]
5.82
ANET advised that the cost impacts of national registration are minor as
such a scheme would be largely funded by engineers and employers. [77]
The committee notes that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is
working toward national registration schemes for trades, as part of the
National Partnership Agreement on a Seamless National Economy. [78]
Further, COAG is currently considering national registration of a number of
other occupations, including engineering.[79]
Committee view
5.83
The committee believes that it is important that the concerns of the
engineering profession and trades are represented at the highest levels of
government. The committee was interested to learn that the Australian Federal
Parliament currently has three qualified engineers, and its alumni exceed 25 in
number. [80] This is
probably roughly proportional to the numbers of engineers in the community.
5.84
Australia's Chief Scientist considers it one of his roles to promote
science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects to high school and
primary school students. The committee notes that the decision to award the
2012 Young Australian of the Year to engineering student Ms Marita Cheng
has already resulted in raising the profile of engineers in the community,
especially amongst young women.[81]
The committee also notes that one of the five experts appointed to the Prime
Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council has an engineering
background. [82]
5.85
The committee believes that there is merit in working towards a national
registration scheme for engineers, and is pleased that COAG is actively considering
the expansion of national registration of occupations, including engineering,
as part of the Seamless National Economy reforms. The committee considers that
national registration of the engineering profession should be made a priority
area for reform over the next decade.
Recommendation 12
5.86
The committee recommends that the government continues to work with the states
and territories through the Council of Australian Governments to make a
national registration scheme for engineers a priority area for reform over the
next decade.
Conclusion
5.87
The engineering skills shortage in Australia can be attributed to a
number of causes. One key stimulus is the departure during the 1990s of the
public sector from engineering training and the failure of industry to
resulting fill the gap. Graduate programs are thin on the ground, and graduate
engineers are very employable in other sectors, which results in large numbers
of engineering graduates choosing not to pursue engineering careers.
5.88
Although the numbers of international students studying engineering in
Australian universities continues to increase, large numbers of these students
return home after studying and many of those that remain struggle to find
employment. The mining boom in Queensland and Western Australia has created
further demand for engineers in those states, and prompted shortages in other
industries that need engineering skills such as manufacturing and power. The
low participation and retention rates of women have further contributed to this
shortage, as has the numbers of experienced engineers approaching retirement.
5.89
While there may appear to be sufficient numbers of engineering
graduates, many are compelled to opt out of engineering careers early on
because industry tends to demand experienced engineers rather than new
graduates. Others are lured by higher salaries in other sectors.
5.90
International experience demonstrates that government investment in
education and training will not be enough to address skills shortages, and that
stronger partnerships between educational bodies and industry will 'encourage
more effective use of existing skills'.[83]
The evidence throughout this report supports this conclusion.
Senator Chris Back
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page