Politicians are not amateurs.
They get paid far too much for their useful output.
We seem to get the ones we either deserve or are prepared to pay for, but then, we don`t set their pay. They are in the enviable position of, almost, setting their own pays.
Despite the fact we are politicians employers we have a very difficult task to remove them when it could be necessary.
Despite the fact they are supposedly there to be our voice in running the country they seem to be there for their own ends solely.
Getting rid of the states would be a wonderful move. Removing several extra layers of services and getting rid of a lot more politicians could only be advantageous.
Having something like the wonderful Murray Darling Basin under one supervising authority would be superb. Instead of the present system of each upstream authority ignoring the necessities of everybody else we may end up with a sustainable river system once more.
Our whole governing system needs a basic and comprehensive overhaul.
Only problem is that the politicians would consider that task to be within their field of operation so nothing would change.
Suggesting to a state politician that his state be removed and incorporated into one country with NO states would probably not be met with much approval.
So like it or lump it our political system is unlikely to change much. Australia will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis with our leaders taking re active instead of pro active actions.
We will never lead the world in the necessary fields, if the human animal is to survive into the future in a sustainable manner, of population control or renewable energy.

An interesting article and one which I generally agree with. In South Oz, most of the economic problems are caused by external factors way beyond the ken or ability of the state government to do anything about: Whyalla, BHP, employment, lack of economic diversity, flagging population, etc. Yet we persist in flaying them like a pinata, in the hope it will pay off in the long term. It doesn't. State governments are short term 'fixers' and rarely provide long term solutions. It's a kind of 'perfect storm' as people look to the state for solutions but the state is weary and redundant.

I think we should reduce the scope and size of the federal government. That would be more achieveable and would simply the debates around health and education.
The feds could do tax collection, denfence, Avation, customs and forein affairs. Leave eveything else to the states.

Keith Suter's writings have an ongoing theme. He portrays the role of democratically elected governments as the "old way" and consistently refers to countries pejoratively as "nation states" and their politicians as failures who together cannot solve the worlds problems. He says that despised Corporations such as banks will fill the void of weakened nation-states . So who should run the new globalised world? Pollies no, national governments - no, Corporations No ...then what?

Suter creates a scenario where his only real solution is a centralized global government. How convenient for a Club of Rome member to arrive at this conclusion. A small number of unelected individuals with say over food,land and money redistribution for everyone?

Despite the inadequacies of our current system, Mr Suters answer that an unelected group of nameless officials from the UN and their club of rome think -tank buddies who divide the worlds resources as they see fit is the totalitarians dream and our nightmare. Politicians may have their problems but at least we can get rid of them. Not so for Mr Suters system.

I am with Atman.

Sure there can be govt reform and so on, but govt remains crucial to any half-decent society where the clash of resources and ideas needs an ultmate arbitator on bahalf of the people (albeit answerable and accountable).

After-dinner mints? Oh, puh-leeze. There's nothing more off-putting than a failed analogy to launch an article.

But seriously, far from being a tasty but irrelevant morsel, our politicians are the necessary evil of our political system, and should be treated as such. Individually, they are predominantly opportunistic chancers, out to make a buck for as long as possible, while actively avoiding anything that looks like a tough decision, or a personal commitment. Collectively, they are the oil in our country's administrative engine: we renew it regularly, but know that it quickly turns into an unappetizing thick black sludge.

The proposed "cure" is no such thing...

"...politics is one of the few activities where there are no prerequisites for candidates. They are a country's last set of amateurs. What needs to be done to make them more expert?".

Expert at what, pray? All that is required of a politician is that they make commitments to their constituency that they intend to keep. It is not rocket science. Not everyone has to be a whiz at Economics or Law. The thing is, we the electorate have lost the inclination to hold our members to account for their promises - the promises, in fact, that won them the right to suck on the public teat for ever and a day. Surely, the size of the prize is sufficient that we demand at least a modicum of operational propriety and ethical dealing?

The minute - no, the nanosecond - that we insist that any politician who acts against the wishes of the electorate is deprived of salary, benefits and pension, that is the moment when we will be able to exercise the control over them that the word "democracy" is intended to convey.