Johnny Frazer, from the Gold Coast, Queensland, would have been 20 when he got his call-up notice under the Selective National Service legislation of 1964.

Early in his basic training, Johnny met the assessment and selection criteria for entry into the National Service Officer Training Unit, and, for whatever reason, volunteered to undertake the 22 week pressure-cooker course. (It has since been claimed that all that were accepted as ENTRANTS to that course during the years 1965 - 1973 would, in the normal course of events, had they been entrants to what we now know as the ADFA, have graduated as commissioned officers into the Australian Defence Forces.) There was a huge attrition rate during those OTU courses.

Johnny graduated, and was posted as a platoon commander to an infantry battalion, in microcosm a powerful position of governance.

His battalion was in due course sent to Viet Nam.

One day, on operations, Johnny trod on a landmine.

He must have heard it click as it armed, because it was claimed he shouted the warning "mine". There wouldn't have been much time for the men behind to have gone to ground, and I don't know if all, or any, made it in time. As I have heard it recounted, Johnny was still standing when it detonated. His body is thought to have created a sort of 'shrapnel-shadow' for the men behind.

Did he remain standing deliberately? It would be hard to say - any decision would have had to have been a split-second one. It was, however, the sort of thing Johnny would have done, if he had had time to think about it.

Johnny died in the chopper while being medevaced. I think he would have been 22.

So it is possible that someone aged 20 may, if placed in a powerful position of governance, display, despite inexperience, the necessary character and ability that the position requires. Whether Wyatt Roy measures up is up to the electors of Longman to assess. Perhaps he was the only one in his party prepared to give it a go.

I have two concerns about old mate Wyatt.

The first is that, as a notably young member, he will be expected (fairly or otherwise) to be the 'voice of youth' in Parliament. This is all well and good, but as an elected MP he would also be expected to be the voice of his electorate - something that may clash with his other unofficial duty.

The other is that he won't have enough practice at 'being an adult' before slipping into the world of politics. I'm not saying this is a bad thing for politics - after all, there are plenty of voters his age or younger and plenty of young people whose interests need voicing. But it is arguably a bad thing for him: climbing into the ivory tower and detaching himself from the real world before he has had any real chance to develop his beliefs and convictions. Finding himself jaded with the lethargic world of politics before he even hits 30. Being savagely attacked by political opponents before he has built the diplomatic skills to deal with such attacks. We call them adults, but 20 year-olds are still very young.

Well said Forrest. I was lining up with the others in thinking he was too young. I don't know if you have changed my mind.

I will, however, give the question some thought, now.

He is not too young Forrest showed us that but I already knew.
Age has nothing to do with it he however has an uphill battle

Hasbeen,

I was simply trying to keep the windows of viewers' minds open to the possibility that Wyatt Roy may have the necessary character and ability to do the job, if elected.

To be fair (and, perhaps, safe) it must be remembered that there are two important differences between Johnny Frazer and Wyatt Roy, despite the similarities in age at their respective times in history.

Johnny Frazer did not ask for his microcosmic powerful position of governance, it was thrust upon him without choice, other than that involved in his acceptance of the opportunity to make the best of the time required of him during his National Service. Wyatt Roy, by contrast, as indeed do all candidates, seeks the endorsement of electors to place him in a like position. Therein lies a significant difference.

Perhaps more importantly, there was an objective and exhaustive set of selection criteria applied to all such as Johnny Frazer, oriented around leadership qualities, which simply had to be met before there was any prospect of such ever being placed in those, although microcosmic, relatively powerful positions of governance. By contrast, candidates for election, such as Wyatt Roy, generally face no such objective and exhaustive formal selection criteria, being effectively self-recommended and maybe possessed, in some cases, of little more than the necessary ego to aspire to the position and win a pre-selection, even though such formal selection criteria as applied to the Johnny Frazers of yesteryear would be almost equally relevant to any pre-qualification of parliamentary aspirants that might be thought desirable these days.

I know nothing about Wyatt Roy beyond what Ludwig has posted. I would like to think he might measure up to the sort of criteria that once were applied to Johnny Frazer. If he does, I would wish him well, and the rest would be up to the electors of Longman.

Perhaps an ideal compromise in a wider field of application would be if persons having the experience of age that could also have met such selection criteria as applied to Johnny Frazer were candidates up for election.

This is hilarious.. I agree with morgan and benny

toooo much. (perhaps it would be better put..'they' agree with me :)