Perhaps fuelled in part by the unreserved opprobrium towards the Bill from the six professional councils directly affected, the hearings were reportedly not only robust, but, at times, accusatorial.

The Bill's proponents, led by the Department of Public Works (DPW), asserted that a more consolidated approach was needed, not only to foster greater standardisation across the professions, but also to ensure compulsory registration, improve governance and regulation and, crucially, to accelerate the transformation of what are still predominately white-dominated disciplines.

The main tool for achieving this would be through the establishment of a juristic person to be known as the South African Council for the Built Environment (SACBE).

This new ‘super council', as it has been dubbed, would also result in the relegation of the existing councils, including the well-regarded Engineering Council of South Africa (Ecsa), to the status of professional boards.

Outside government, the Bill has found favour with individuals and organisations that believe the current councils to be obstacles in the way of transformation and the registration of black built-environment professionals, particularly engineers. Especially aggrieved, are those, mostly black, graduates who have obtained their credentials from institutions outside of what were traditionally considered white universities and technikons.

A particularly vocal proponent of the Bill has been one Abram Rakau, who is a member of the South African Black Technical and Allied Careers Organisation, or Sabtaco.

In his submission at the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee hearing, Rakau asserted that Ecsa was delaying the registration of black engineers and, thus, allowing white engineers to continue to dominate the profession. He asserted that, while government was working to alleviate the engineering skills shortage, Ecsa was sabotaging it by deliberately delaying the registration of qualified black engineers.

NOT OUR POSITION
However, Sabtaco national executive committee member Bafana Ndendwa distanced the organisation from Rakau's submission, telling Engineering News that he did not have a mandate to speak on its behalf and that his submission was made in his personal capacity.

Ndendwa added that some of Sabtaco's members were also Ecsa council members and that the organisation's official stance was that, while there were still material transformation challenges to overcome, it did not see the solution lying in the creation of a super council.

He also appealed to government for a far more thorough consultation process, involving not only the councils, but also the voluntary professional bodies and organisations such as Sabtaco, before allowing the Bill to proceed any further.

Ndendwa's appeal for less haste and more consultation is in line with the aspirations of many of the Bill's other opponents, which include the councils for engineers, architects, architectural landscapers, project and construction managers, property valuers and quantity surveyors, as well as a host of voluntary associations and employer bodies, such as the Chamber of Mines.

They all believe the Bill to be fundamentally flawed and have described it as real threat to the high standing currently attached globally to South African-registered built-environment professionals.

INTERNATIONAL STANDING IN JEOPARDY
For instance, Ecsa, the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers and the South African Institute of Civil Engineers have all argued that global accords and recognition agreements will be placed in peril should the Bill become law and authority for registration be bestowed on the SACBE.

This is mainly owing to the fact that independence from government prescriptions on standards is a key principle in the Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords, governing professional engineers, professional engineering technologists and professional engineering technicians respectively. Indeed, current international recognition is premised on this independent registration process, which includes a peer review.

In the engineering realm, where there are currently 29 000 registered professional engineers, this generally requires a graduate to work as a candidate engineer with a company that has a memorandum of commitment with Ecsa to train him or her in the rigours of the profession.

As a candidate, the individual is required to work for a minimum of two years before applying to Ecsa for registration as a professional. The employer then submits reports, for adjudication by Ecsa, on the candidate's readiness for peer review.

The review itself could involve an examination as well as an oral interrogation by two professionals from the voluntary association covering the specific discipline. This service comes at a relatively low cost as those conducting the peer review are paid only a modest honorarium.

Following the review, Ecsa receives a report on which it bases its registration decision.

PEER REVIEW VERSUS TICK-THE-BOX
The fear is that that proposed legislation might open the way for a purely administrative system of registering professionals, which would see the SACBE simply creating a ‘tick-the-box-type' bureaucracy, which excludes peer review and nullifies the role of the voluntary associations. Alternatively, it could require the creation of an "expensive bureaucracy" (with one estimate putting the cost to government at nearly R8-billion) so as to ensure the continuation of an internationally acceptable review process.

Opponents are also unhappy with the fact that only one seat will be set aside on a 20-person council for a representative from each existing professional council. The engineers suggest this make up to be disproportionate, given that their 29 000 members are by far the majority in a built-environment arena comprising 55 000 professionals.

They are also unimpressed by the far-reaching powers that are proposed for the Public Works Minister, some of which could even infringe on the authority of other Ministers, most notably the Education Minister.

These powers could also allow the Minister to arbitrarily exempt individuals or groups from the registration process.

There is apparently a good deal of lobbying now under way to ensure that the Bill's passage is arrested.
A key feature of this effort is to refute the oft-stated assertion that the councils are anti-transformation gatekeepers.

In its submission to the committee, Ecsa stressed that 56% of all the professional engineers registered over the past three years had been previously disadvantaged individuals. While the electrical engineers asserted that black individuals had comprised 61% of all registrations between 2005 and 2008.

What is far from apparent is whether the DPW is taking heed of the rising anxiety levels. There is a deafening silence from the department and the rest of the executive. And, if the tone of the public hearings is anything to go by, it appears that the legislative branch is also far from sympathetic.

What has to be obvious, though, is that South African engineers are in high demand not only at home, but also abroad. There are adverts every day in every newspaper across the country seeking to entice these precious individuals from our shores.

ILL-CONSIDERED & POORLY CANVASSED
It is, thus, ironic that, in an environment where all countries are scrambling for scarce engineering resources, South Africa's DPW is pursuing legislation that could well undermine the international standing of South Africa's highly regarded professional engineers.

By all accounts, the drafters have not consulted adequately, nor, it seems, have they fully applied their minds to the consequences of stripping the professional councils of their autonomy and placing them under a super council.

Now, these consequences are serious.

For one, it could accelerate emigration by those keen to safeguard their coveted international recognition. Secondly, it could well lead to a far less rigorous approach to the registration of professionals as the bureaucracy required for a super council to do as thorough a peer review would be prohibitively expensive - one voluntary association estimates the cost at about R8-billion. Thirdly, it could reduce the attractiveness of the profession at a time when we desperately need young people to be magnetised by the idea of being an engineer.

It appears, too, that government is seeking to address the skewed demography of the profession at the wrong end of the pipeline.

Instead of dealing with the chronic inadequacies in maths and science teaching and learning, and homing in on improving the conversion ratios from student to graduate engineer, and graduate engineer to professional engineer, it is looking for a short cut through a watered-down, probably purely administrative, compulsory registration process.

Now compulsory registration is an ideal that should be pursued, but not through a flawed Bill. It should be halted and government should take seriously the concerns being raised by not only the engineering profession, but also by all other built-environment professionals.

The solution, surely, lies not in building a false ‘Berlin Wall' around our scarce skills by potentially stripping them of their international accreditation, but in becoming a preferred destination for technical professionals by offering a stable, prosperous and rewarding environment.

We should be wrapping our engineers in cotton wool, not adding to their stress levels with ill-considered and poorly canvassed draft legislation.