I've often wondered if we should have some sort of criteria for those who stand for election?
A minimum standard of intellectual ability would seem a good place to start. Perhaps a minimum time spent in the workforce too?
It would appear we are none of us overly impressed with the current crop, whatever our individual persuasions, so is there any way we could improve the breed by a more careful selection?

Maximillion, I agree in part but many of the current lot on both sides are highly educated and have work experience outside parliament. Some not much I admit. This does not seem to influence them once they have entered the hallowed halls of politics.

How does one test for moral fibre or character traits - such as honesty, integrity and enthusiasm to represent their electorate - that we would like to see in our politicians? That is the real challenge.

Dear Max,

I would expect a politician to be literate,
and have the necessary qualifications for a
life in the public domain. I would expect them
to have some knowledge and definitely an interest
in - social, economic, domestic and
foreign policy issues.

We elect them to represent us in
government, act on our behalf and protect our
interests.

I would expect them to be committed to
helping people. To have the moral desire to do good.
I think it would be great to have
some sort of background check and honesty test to
see if there are any tendencies towards corrupt
practices.

They must be quick thinkers, able to spot weaknesses
in their opponent's arguments. They must also be
resilient and able to cope with criticism and angry
protests.

Their personal lifestyle should be able to
take media scrutiny. They must have good 'people skills.'
That is - they must be good listeners -
(listen carefully to people, and ask the right questions -
in order to help solve problems). They must be approachable.
They must be able to work well with others - such as local
authorities, police, colleagues et cetera.

They must be able to debate
issues - think on their feet. They must be 'media savy'
that is - able to handle the media - be it TV, newspapers,
et cetera. Being good public speakers would also help.
And of course it goes without saying they must have a
love for this country and her people.

That's my wish-list for now.

yeah max i often thought it should be a post university course..[where all the applicants work the whole dept before being selected to be the minester over it

we well know how everything must be forward planned..[so you enter politics by working in the chosen field..demands a minimum level of qualification...where..[there are set measures to become the pm..eventually..

[id say by having been foreign minester/treasuror/armed forces/govener general/social securioty and public welfare..[for a minimum standard]...and a certainty that true public service is sought[not just the lurks/powers or secret knowledge/or high power contacts]

we could do worse than having minesters who actually serve..[and served well,..running the govt portfolios...i often thought also that those who hold their positions..must fully declare all their wealth/personal/business intrests..[that get set aside and run for them..while they are in govt positions..[for all govt workers]

i also see a vision where the crossover from govt..into any industry their portfolio oversees or regulates..is made a treasonous crime[like the many health minesters working for medical-industry]..or defense minesters working in the private arms industry

[depending on the secrets they bear..some may never be allowed to work in certain industries..ever again..[or sit on certain boards..ever again..[where they have been informed of the deptmental secrets..[for egsample]

there should be set oversights and constant testing..[of knowledge and coruptability]...public service..should be a prime calling..[and the assosiation with conflicting special intrests must be ended,

currently special intrests..sheppard their people into power positions..[to the level..where now lawyers can make laws ..then have the ability to rule on them..[or from lawyer become law maker]...the sepperation of powers has become too muddied

govt workers all should live purely off govt credit..[no extra cash/assets/share or outside intrests]..and be strictly policed..to ensure public service to the public weal...does not became the road to wealth..via powers obtained by deliberated collusions

The first thing to do is get rid of the party system. A lot of sincere people (probably) go in with good intentions, but the party machine soon brings them into line. Once they are elected, the party comes first, second and third.

In the last federal election, I didn't vote in the lower house - there was no party or person there I wanted - and voted for an independent in the Senate.

I intend to do the same in the future, looking for someone who will represent me and my electorate; I'm not interested in anyone who goes in to prop up some party and its dogma. It won't do much good unless most other people do the same, but at least my consience is clear.

It seems to me that it would be more beneficial to have some sort of character test for journalist. Our National Broadcasters are about as low as they can go (as shown by the Chasers) and our private run media is predominantly trash. Political correctness has led us to a place where truth has no meaning. Those championing moral relativism only scream when their own version of absolutes is challenged. We have seen recently great criticism of the Indonesian Government because our media convinced people that a family up to their ears in drugs was innocent. We have the fallacy of man made global warming causing our politicians looking very dumb indeed as they swallow a fantasy in the name of science. Poor old Wong and Garret look like fools along with Turnbull. We have State Premiers afraid to criticize the failed policies of multiculturalism instead blaming 'racist' Aussies for their ridiculous policies. No wonder Pauline got over a million votes.

The ridiculous notion that private behaviour has nothing to do with public performance allows corrupt Politicians to flourish like never before. The Catholic church has taken a long time to learn that they need to vet potential Priests for character if they want to eliminate child molesters. THe strange thing is that a Bill of Rights will probably prevent them from doing this in the name of equality.

You put the car before the horse. Write first the main problems and after we can speak for what kind of ministers we need.
If you are against migrants then a member from KKK is the best solusion, if you are with labors then a good unionist is the best solusion, if you are with corporates then probably the secretary from employers organization is the best person AND IF YOU CARE FOR YOUR PERSONAL BENEFITS THEN PROBABLY YOU ARE THE BEST PERSON FOR MINISTER, AS ALL OTHER MINISTERS!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Those who think in depth about politics may not wish to be added to a list of unhappy voters.
I am quite happy with the federal government.
And thoughts that we should do away with the party system are unrealistic.
Yes some are useless, believe it or not I always thought our ex Minister for defence was/is a wast of the air he breaths.
Told him so long ago on the steps of Sydney town hall, at an ALP conference.
I find few, if any in federal alternative government who are of any worth.
But sweeping statements like the one this thread is about? deeper understanding is called for.

this thread is facist prpoaganda. yuk!

I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of current party political candidates were once either Party apparatchiks or political staffers.

The days of former train drivers or shopkeepers working their way to the top on merit alone are long gone.

Maximillion, why don't you cut to the chase and allow only the Aryan race to be elected to Parliament to guarantee highly intelligent representation ... isn't that where creeping facism is supposed to end up?

Oh Mein Gott, my evil plot has been exposed!
Whistler, why do you bring race to the discussion? No-one else has.
A Facist propaganda thread? Any chance you can explain HOW you figured that out? On second thoughts, don't bother, but I would be interested in what sort of Government you would like to see?

Maximillion, I won't pull punches.

many brave Australians have sacrificed their lives to the proposition that every citizen has an inalienable right to stand for Parliament.

you'll get no traction in this country for an arbitrary intelligence test.

now i see why you oppose women's legislatures.

surrending power and control over women, to women, is anathema to facism.

never mind that one in four women will be raped or sexually assaulted by the age of 18.

never mind that one in four men in gaol will also be raped so that Australian women live in prison conditions.

never surrender power and control.

Oh Whistler, bang that drum louder, I can hardly hear you!
I asked about it, not promoted it.
As for your Facist rubbish, nice bit of verbal Mobiosity there.
And I'd also suggest you go research what Facism actually IS, rather than just flinging the word around as some sort of insult, it sounds childish, to say the least.
The old punchline springs to mind.."rather than open your mouth and confirm it"!

Maximillion, facism is tampering with the right of a citizen to stand for Parliament.

On one level Max's question seem redundant in that every job that involves elevated responsibilities has prerequisites. These act as built in minimum standards, Drs, Lawyers, engineers, pilots, drivers etc.

Even polies have to go through selection process. Albeit of arguable appropriateness give the implied responsibility of the job(i.e.money, party acceptability and or popularity). It is sheer nativity, bloody minded ignorance or acute irrationality to suggest that anybody should be anything without selection criteria. The greater the responsibility it is perfectly logical that the selection criteria the more stringent should be the criteria.

The real question is then is...."Is the CURRENT selection process apposite to the needs of the position given the responsibilities?"
If they aren't then "what should it be and how do we make it?" implementable?

It seems to me that the latter two question are the basis of Max's excellent observationally based question

Thank you Examinator, you have expressed what I was asking far better than I. Whatever skills based criteria we could use, it would still leave a lot of questions, difficult ones. Maybe we could open a "school" with ethics and communication as core subjects? Open to all of course.
Whistler, you didn't research, did you?
When, or if, you do, don't be too embarrassed, it's a common fault.

How about only allowing volunteers?

People whose only objective is to serve their constituency.

No funding allowed.

From anywhere, big business, small business, lobby groups, foreign embassies, special interest groups and single-issue fanatics...

None.

It might limit the field.

Or it might actually become a vocation, a three-year sabbatical from one's day job to genuinely serve the people. Or something to get your teeth into once the kids have left home. Or an opportunity to develop some real life skills in the business of working for others before going to university

At least it will ensure that we only get to choose between people who want to serve their community, instead of a bunch of self-serving party hacks feathering their nests and hooking into a nice fat pension.

intelligence tests, built in minimum standards, selection criteria, a "school" with ethics, the idle rich, how do we make it?" implementable?

emigrate to Afghanistan.

I believe if an aptitude test is the answer then it must've been a silly question.
It seems to me that being a politician is/should be a skilled position.
As such they should be trained before they stand.
I have no problems with a real politics degree that focuses on ethics, the constitution, law, the functions of the bureaucracy, courts, states, public administration, business big and small etc. Specialising on specific areas (i.e. health, technology, defence etc.) in the final year. Pass mark of 75% + to warrant the degree. The unsuccessful electoral aspirants and others can apply for appropriate jobs in the PS.
The idea is to get the brightest/most competent into public service/parliament.

Parties, should be forced to present and advertise their candidates experience and educational suitability . With EC approved thumb-nail sketch on all literature, ads and the ballot . Everyone knows the party policies and what they say they're going to do locally but what we need to know is the competence of the potential members. I have problems with current system of members (“represent” ?) in safe seats.

Ministers must have relevant backgrounds and education (last year degree specialisations in relevant portfolio) and their proposed hierarchy stated on their ballot (i.e. Joe Smith Xy party, 2nd choice for ministry of W Qualifications B. Politics Hon in W ) .
What should be avoided is currant reward system of that allows union heavyweights, Drs/historians, lawyers etc. being in charge of Dept of Defence etc.

I argue that we don't pay ministers to learn at their wage levels. Anywhere else it is assumed they are competent before gaining a promotion/position. Likewise the public has a right to know before the election who is likely to do what In cabinet.

If in the case a minister is found deficient/inappropriate he/she must be replaced by someone with the appropriate qualifications from the same party's back bench or be forced to risk an early election.

It will therefore be appropriate to have more than one qualified person in each discipline in parliament.

This might raise the quality in the parliament.

bottom line is if you're not happy with the quality of representation in the parliament then go get elected yourself.

subject your views on filtering canditature to what you consider is intelligent to public ballot.

good luck!

wooops, the person next to you just got elected on the platform that you're not very intelligent at all.

you don't get to stand for election after all, sorry.

i can only agree egsaminator...but i think we should get ride of the big fish,..[able to do big evils]..and have a form of govt that works locally[but is watched over federally]

so each town/region..has an elected god head..[dictator]..that runs his/her fiefdom..[but as a benevolent dictator...he/she says yes or no..keeps the beuro-roc-rats in line and follows the plan he outlined in his electoral nominated plan, can be appealed to as the supreem power[over all maters in his/her juristiction]

he she is overseen by all his/her neighbouring 'godheads'...and they are called into account for any failings occuring on their watch..federally they hire and fire the god heads..[according as the votes their electorral plan outlined and defined].

...they are fully accountable for any govt mandated services in their district going awary[any appeals are made direct to their office[who manditorally report directly to the fede level[and all their neighbouring juristictions..the neighbours sort the issue out and submit their follow up reports within 7 days

for this service they live in the best houses get treated like gods[but under the auspiciouses of to whom much is given much is expected[with full accountability//[but you do good service..you get to keep your honarium title for life..[and thus become a candidate for higher offices

[nationally and internationally..[eventually to the highest office the sovereign united nations [s.u.n.]..body and its overseeing instrumrents of international governance bodies of commerce...finance law and medicine etc..internationally overseeing all human activity

at the federal level we all get to nominate a truelly representative rep[right wing and or left]for each major demographic in the world

One quote for you Whistler, very applicable in your case I feel....

"There are none so blind as those who WILL not see"

Once again we are asking ourselves about our Parliamentary representatives, but why are we not asking them to ensure that when they labour away on our behalf, that we have an effective and certain method of either enforcing the laws they make, or having them struck down. It is the same wth the High and Federal Courts. If these useless well paid individuals were honest, yes honest, we would have a way of enforcing Statute law, and it would not matter how bad our pollies were, we could do something about the bad laws and keep the good ones.

Max was going to get one of his polly mates to investigate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If it is law it fixes the problem like this

Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

As I have said before, a search of Hansard in 1985-1986, will prove it was enacted as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . It says it was assented to on the 6th December 1986. Sections 12 and 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, make a Schedule part of any Act. When are we going to ask the Parliament to stop, until it makes sure that what it enacts is law, and enforceable. This law makes solicitors and barristers criminals, because they are members of an exclusive club. Is the only law what a solicitor or barrister says is law?

Maximillion, why not bring back eugenics so that any person exactly the same height as Ivan Milat is prohibited from standing for Parliament because obviously they're a potential serial killer.

This would have nipped John Howard's political career in the bud but there'll have to be some sacrifices to improve the quality of Parliament.

Or maybe you could just torture anyone member of Parliament who disagrees with to catch the rubbish that slips through the cracks.

Waterboard your way to parliamentary perfection.

The sky's the limit when you're trashing democracy.

Sensible selectivity, what about selectively sensible. Why have we allowed a small monopoly to take over the government of Australia? We have allowed this to happen because we have the worst set of lawyers in the whole world, and probably the worst religious leaders as well. We have allowed the lawyers to take the place of the Pastors and Priests, and reduced the pastors to hand wringing apologists for the mightiest power in the Universe, Almighty God.

We have a High Court that excludes most people from access to it. It could allow everyone to access its power, and cover itself with glory, but it has made regulations, 6.6 and 6.7 High Court Rules 2004 that directly contradict legitimately enacted Federal Statute Law. When are the Attorneys General of the State and Commonwealth, going to indict them for insubordination, strip them of their salaries, and superannuation, and put a bit of the fear of God, in their black hearts.

If the High Court were to accept everything offered to it, without any discrimination, as Parliament has directed, it does not have to hear all these applications itself as it does now, throwing nine out of ten out. It should teach itself the meaning of a Capital letter, when used in Statute Law. In S 2 Judiciary Act 1903, Appeal is defined to include an application for a new trial, if the matter has been decided by a Court or Judge. The Constitution does not use the words Court or Judge, standing alone anywhere in Ch III.

They have the power in s 44 Judiciary Act 1903, to send every application received back for a new trial with a direction for a jury, to either a State Court or the Federal Court. The lazy dishonest and totally inappropriate behavior, currently carried out by the High Court, should be the subject of contempt proceedings in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. This nonsensical selectivity, indulged in by the High Court where it obeys some Statute and ignores others is deplorable. It should be all in or all out. Seven Judges should be accountable

When Sir John Kerr, handed government to Mal, in 1975, he stipulated that the Government do nothing except caretake, and pay its bills, until it went to the big jury in a general election. You be the big jury in this case. The High Court stands indicted in the forum of this electronic medium. You are the judges, the same judges as a word used in S 79 Constitution.

It says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. There is one capital letter on Parliament. Parliament has not prescribed how many judges there should be. It has created Judges, but in s 2 Judiciary Act 1903, it has prescribed a new trial, if a Judge sits in a Court.

The High Court stands accused as a criminal corporation, of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. It stands accused of discrimination, it stands accused of failing to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and do its sworn duty owing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by leaving Her name off all process issued out of that Court since 2004. It stands accused of directly ignoring a clear Statutory prescription from the Parliament of the Commonwealth, contained in s 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979. S 33 says: All writs, commissions and process issued from the High Court shall be: (a)in the name of the Queen;

The High Court Rules make no mention of the Queen. By Section 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) this document is admissible against them. We should also indict all the staff who aid abet, counsel and procure these individuals to break the law, and every barrister who goes there to defile the Parliament by accepting this contemptuous conduct. The cry in 1972, to the big jury was Its Time. In 1975, the big jury said Times Up. Perhaps unless KR and Julia see fit to call times up, to the disrespectful unsubordinate High Court, you, the big jury may call time out again

No, I said I have a work connection where I bump into them occasionally, and I would print out your question and pass it on. I have printed it, but as yet haven't crossed paths with them, sorry.
When I do, I will, and see if they provide an answer. No promises though, I'm in no position to push them.
They're no mates of mine, I wouldn't let one in my door, not without locking up the valuables, and the breakables.

Max,
You know my local member too? What bothers me is his incessant snuffling as he rolls in the mud. Then runs off squealing when faced with something he doesn't understand....which is anything that isn't in HIS immediate benefit.

Although he is a perfect argument of why we need either a better selection criteria for parliament or the activation code for natural selection. :-)