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.