Number 21 – Editorial and society news

Quo Vadimus?*

As all members of the Institution of Engineers would be aware, IEAust has recently been debating and deciding the direction in which the “Peak Body” for the engineering profession should be heading as we move towards the 21st Century. Amidst much debate, the Institution released its “Towards 2000” document which set out the vision for progress as envisaged by the majority of the Institution’s executive body. One of the main catalysts for change was the Federal Government’s offer for recognition of the Institution as one of the main representatives of the engineering industry, as well as the engineering profession. With this obvious “carrot” went an equally obvious “stick” – if the Institution didn’t restructure itself to represent the entire “white collar” engineering work force, other bodies such as Trade Unions would be offered the opportunity to do so.

After much debate, some of it acrimonious, the membership of IEAust effectively voted to accept the Governmenfs offer, change its structure and expand its membership base. Although the Institution states that its ”Learned Society” function will remain unchanged, it is difficult to see how this will be achieved in view of the increased membership base and the obviously increased role it will play as an industry body. IEAust could therefore be seen as an organisation catering for the engineering industry rather than the engineering profession. This change of direction (which perhaps is really no change at all) is clearly demonstrated by last year’s decision to change Professional Engineers Week to National Engineering Week.

It would also seem that the Institution tacitly accepts this change in primary emphasis by the setting up of clear direction and organisation for so called “Technical Societies”. AGS is held up as a model for such Societies and, whilst it is pleasing to note this, it is also incumbent upon us to act in the best interests of AGS members and the geotechnical profession as a whole.

Whilst AGS caters for all facets of the geotechnical profession, the IEAust’ s “Learned Society” role is continuing to decrease and this offers AGS the opportunity to take a stance in the future even closer to that of a Professional Body, as epitomised by the AMA or Law Society. Such a change would require a change in attitude on all our parts as we would be called upon to play a much more active, visible role within the profession. As well as continuing to provide a forum for technical presentation and debate, we should seek and then shoulder a more public profile. This might require us to expand the role we play in some or all of the following areas:

• act as spokesperson for the geotechnical profession and industry
• continuously seek to improve standards of practice
• actively seek to represent the interests of the geotechnical profession in all forums, public and private
• accept responsibility for professional self regulation by setting standards for professional performance
• become an arbiter in geotechnical matters play an active role in Institution affairs to ensure that the interests of the AGS and the geotechnical community at large are adequately represented.

A further, very important issue to be considered relates to money. At present, AGS operates with considerable financial support from IEAust and, to a lesser extent, from AusIMM. However, funding arrangements are again in the spotlight. Whilst it is quite clear that the AGS will be allowed to operate on its current basis, this situation is clearly anomalous and one does not need a crystal ball to see what pressures will be applied to AGS once other “Technical Societies” (which, if they comply with the IEAust model, will be almost totally self funding) have established themselves. Will we be allowed to continue relying on our parent bodies for continued support? Do we want to do so? Are we prepared to bear the (considerable) cost of striking out on our own?

We make no apology for the engineering slant of this Editorial since it believes that it is of immediate direct interest to the entire AGS membership. We therefore earnestly implore ALL members to consider the implications of the changes taking place within the IEAust and to let State Group and National Committee members know how you feel. Changes can occur without your realising it and you might will be left feeling disappointed and perhaps bitter about the changes that have taken place. Your representatives care very much but can only act as they see fit unless they receive input from the membership at large. We are standing at a crossroads – Which way should we go? We are unlikely to get this chance again and so, unless you express YOUR feelings, vital decisions for the future may be taken without your input.

PS: This article is being written just before the Australian geotechnical fraternity prepares to go to Auckland for the 6th ANZ Conference. The Editorial Panel of Australian Geomechanics hopes the conference and the associated International Symposium on Landslides will be significant successes and will be of interest and benefit to all attendees.

God Speed!

* For those that didn’t have the doubtful advantage of a “classical” education. this means “Where are we going?”