Politics and engineering in Australia

By Clint Steele

Hello,

As you know I don't normally write blogs; I get smart expert people in to do that. However, I thought now that we have had a chance to let the major political parties speak before we all actually vote in the next election it might be worth reflecting upon what they have committed to or said that is significant to engineers and Australian engineering.

Well I do not know about you, but I haven't really heard much from any party about increasing Australia's engineering capability (and thus her wealth) for years; maybe even decades.

I recall a time when there were fairly good tax benefits for doing R&D work, which should have involved some engineers and which certainly should have carried over to all engineers. However, my experience with it when I was in R&D in the mining industry and Product Development in the Auto industry was that it was more important to the accountant than the engineers.

It was an effort at least, but I think it reflects the major issue that probably most engineers (and other technologists) have with Australian politics. It's dominated by lawyers and economists who really haven't a clue about any aspects of engineering. The end effect, in my opinion, is that they also haven't a real clue about what to do to efficiently support engineering capabilities or understand how they relate back to wealth generation. They don't seem to understand that the ability to find better (or more efficient) ways of doing things, and the ability to understand and implement these new ways, is the key to an improvement in wealth.

When it becomes easier to do anything (travelling through a city, making a product, building a house or sending information electronically for example), it naturally becomes more affordable for society. And those who know how to make it easier have not only been able to improve the wealth of society, but they will soon find themselves in a financially better situation themselves (unless they need to go through a drawn out legal process in another country like our friends at the CSIRO some time ago). So it should be clear that it is worth supporting real engineering (the ingenious type) in Australia.

But instead, what does happen? Well to answer this I actually need to answer the ‘why?' first. I have seen the way the governments in this country allocate funding to activities that one would associate with engineering. As mentioned earlier I noticed the tax benefits for R&D. I have also seen the allocation of funding through ATAs and CRCs where the governments encourage collaboration in research between various organisations. I have noticed a common theme to these activities: the effective handing over of decisions to others.

It appears to me that the Australian government has for years been so unsure and scared of anything scientific or engineering related that they have found ways to have others make the decision for them. Decisions on where the effort should go in activities that could support the development of engineering (and other related) capability. This seems sensible at first: let those who are most involved and expert, make the decision.  The trouble is that those who are they key influencers are usually the established players. Typically, the established players are not the ingenious and creative types they once were. They have become older and set in their ways trying to squeeze as much as they can out of an old technology, industry or market. Even worse, they are often close to death, but no one seems to realise it as they poor money in to prop these aging organisations up. On the other hand, those who could be on the brink of something new, and could be ready to really grow, are never heard in such a system. So what really happens is:

• The government tries to support the development of engineering
• But because it is so ignorant of engineering and related practices, due to the background of the average politician and government official, they are unsure of what to do and effectively pass the power over to established players
• These established players focus on older technologies and markets that offer less room for growth, and less room for the development of engineering capability and the wealth that comes with it.

So what to do? Well really, the only way we will ever see a real change in the government's attitude toward engineering is if there is a similar change in society's; Australia is a democracy after all. And that leaves the blame with us: engineers and engineering organisations. I would like to think that one day Ingeneers Network will be able to help with that even if the main focus here is on the exchange of engineering knowledge for the improvement of engineering capability in Australia. However, at the moment Ingeneers Network is too small. I always hoped that the other organisations might take the lead, but it does seem that engineers just aren't politically inclined.

So for now, and perhaps into the future, there will not be any party that the engineer can vote for. However, that is just my opinion, and I would very much like yours. Either leave a comment or take the poll.

Clint

This is the first blog I have chosen to write. Usually, I rather have others (who are expert in their area) to write. However, this time I just wanted a piece to get engineers talking about how engineering could or should influence society through the government. So please share your thoughts with the rest of us. A politically informed engineering community can only be good for society.