On the Engineers Australia website, there’s a section dedicated to submissions made to various government inquiries and consultations.

There you’ll find dozens of papers that discuss some of the most niche topics, including the National Hydrogen Strategy, Newcastle’s light rail scheme, power system frequency control and even cyclone shelters.

In the same section, you’ll also find a wealth of other information such as statistics, recent election analysis and reports around engineering policy.

National Public Affairs Manager Jonathan Russell says the collection of statements and submissions represent a consensus of views from members and the latest research to give government and industry an understanding of where engineers stand on an issue.

“These are the documents we’re armed with when we meet politicians or industry leaders,” he says. “This is what can prompt the conversation in the room and serve as a leave-behind if they want to follow-up our discussions.”

While many may only see technical jargon, graphs and data, these documents are the secret sauce for helping influence key decision makers.

Starting from scratch

A key output by the Engineers Australia’s Public Affairs is creating responses to government inquires or consultations.

Once the team has committed to responding to a specific opportunity, a team member is appointed to lead the submission process.

Acting strategically is key. Creating a compelling and persuasive policy position or submission can take a lot of consultation and fact finding to distil the right response.

Engineers Australia Senior Policy Advisor Advisor Steve Rodgers, who completed a submission in response to the Climate Change Authority’s recent consultation paper, says his first step is making sure that the inquiry they are responding to is the right move.

“We need to make sure what policy processes are running, what's happening in government, and matching that up with what engineers might be interested in,” he says.

Steve says a lot of the early stages of the process are focused around a clear line of argument with input from the entire team and other staff including state-based General Managers.

“For me, it's about doing the early ground-truthing to go ‘well this is interesting, we could say something like this about that issue, what do you think?’ And start rolling through ideas,” he says.

Going to the panel

Once the team has some firm ideas, they are then taken to members who are also subject matter experts. This is done through a number of established EA member advisory panels.

Members of panels, sourced from the full range of Engineers Australia Colleges and other national groups, include engineers from a broad range of backgrounds in industry, academia and government.

The team relies on input from these panels who offer up their diverse range of knowledge and expertise from various corners of the engineering profession. Steve says the members of the panel are more than just a sounding board for ideas – they are valued for their contributions, data sharing and even helping with the drafting of content.

“It's a bit of a two-way street in a sense that this helps us test something that's broad and we get a sense about whether or not it's something worthwhile doing,” he says.

“When it gets to talking about how we frame the solution and what can go into it, then that's a conversation that is open to the house.”

Finding agreement

With some panels having more than a dozen members from different parts of the engineering profession, the submissions can attract a number of opinions on a subject.

Public affairs staff and policy writers gather this information and discern how to frame the information in a concise and clear message that fits the policy discussion.

Steve says striking a balance with national strategy, subject matter content and policy insight is where the expertise of a public affairs officer comes into play.

“There are lots of perspectives on the issues and one of the skills that I'm bringing to the table is needing to be able to synthesise lots of different views,” he says.

Finding that middle ground can be hard on hot button issues.

Steve recently finished a submission into nuclear energy that investigates the nuclear technology market, highlights questions around costs, and looks into frameworks that look into nuclear as a safe, viable energy option in Australia.

When a submission topic attracts a range of differing opinions – such as nuclear energy – Steve’s role turns to critically assessing what's behind each of those views.

“One of my core jobs is to assess where people are coming from and to see if I can't think of something that reflects and respects the kind of view that the different people have, but results in something that can develop in the policy process.”

New technologies driving conversations

While the Public Affairs team rely on a small circle of contacts for expertise and advise, the organisation is now leveraging new technologies to bring the conversation to members who may have vital insights.

Recently, Engineers Australia’s new community platform EA Xchange was used to draw out opinions from members around the climate change debate to enable the creation of a new Climate Change Position Statement.

Jonathan Russell says like with any new community platform comes the common pitfalls of debate and conversation online, but did uncover perspectives and opinions that were yet to be considered.

“With many members now engaging with each other, we are also seeing many differences in experience and background, so it can occasionally get heated. Members are encouraged to engage in respectful debate and keep the platforms’ code of conduct in mind when replying to a comment or discussion in EA Xchange,” he says.

Steve says he’ll continue to engage with members to formulate the best ideas and arguments to put forward to government and industry.

While balancing counter points and opinions to form a piece of advocacy is a challenge, he’s encouraged by the passion and knowledge members bring to the table.

“The reality is that we have a really diverse membership across a really broad spectrum,” he says. “I think that makes us think harder about how we contribute to the conversation.”

“That respect for different views, it's actually probably reflective of the views that come from a broader society.”