I've just read an interesting article that I think
would make for a robust discussion. The link
below explains further:

http://torrens.edu.au/blog/what-degrees-ministers-australia-have-and-why-it-matters#.YWJQw9pByUk

Quoting from the link:

" If you're employing a tax agent to sort out your
finances you want to know they've studied accounting.
So what about the group of people we've "hired" to
run the country?"

"Some ministers are incredibly competent. However
it's not uncommon in our political system for
politicians to be handed a job in an area they've never
had any experience in. That's not great for obvious
reasons."

"Take Sussan Ley for example. At the moment when the effects
of climate change are devastating Australia - she is our
Environment Minister. Has she studied biology,
environmental science, or natural resource management? Nope.
She has a Master's Degree in Taxation and accountancy.
And she changed her name from Susan to Sussan due to a
belief in numerology."

When it comes to being a Minister in the Australian
Parliament surely qualifications and or experience - do
matter?

what often matters is intellect and a desire to do the right thing.

What does being an expert mean beyond science and mechanical expertise where no doubt you need experience and qualified expertise, although not always.

Law and economics are less important.

Most economists are merely trained the same way, and follow the same tune?

Only a minority of people predicted GFC, including one female historian.

and most professors i knew knew were not that smart imo, although I am sure some would glorify their titles.

So my answer is no.

They must most definitely have at least some previous engagement/exposure to in the field they're engaged to represent.
Even more important than a Minister's degree of competence is that of the policy makers/advisors.

Just read that list, what a shock ! None of them had any exposure to everyday life before becoming ministers ! No wonder things are so wobbly !

Because Ministers oversee the administration of
their departments and are accountable to Parliament
for their department's actions - legal
knowledge would be an advantage due to knowledge of
government regulations and court procedures.

The advantage of having studied the law would give a
person analytical thinking skills, and the ability
to think clearly using logic and reasoning and being
able to be thorough and pay attention to detail.

Therefore -qualifications in law and economics would be
an asset no matter what portfolio one was given. It would also
presumably result in - a person having
excellent verbal communication skills and active
listening skills - which would be an asset in any
position.

anyone can learn fundamentals of law and economics Foxy, not that hard.

I represented myself against a QC and several lawyers.

Load of rubbish a minister needs a law or economics degree.

what matters is intellect and passion, and few people have this as indicated by the pathetic standard of many academics and politicians we have who nearly always have some sort of degree

Hey Foxy, do you have a degree.

I have a PhD and would not rate that much higher than a toilet roll, so there.

Great to have a qualification as it helped me get some easy money from the university leech sector, but I don't think university education made the slightest difference to my ability to think.

Similarly, I doubt whether education made any difference to the short term thinking of our political leaders who were stupid enough to make Australia reliant on commodities, housing and China.

Oh, but now we should all study law and economics when many of them already did.

Most people enter politics usually to try to
make a difference. And most of the politicians
that we do have are hard workers who do have
the necessary passion that's required for the job.
Because as we know politics is a tough career.

Of course there are some rotten apples - but we can't
throw out the entire barrel because of a few rotten
ones. As Peter Costello said in his memoirs - most of
the politicians he worked with for so long - were
dedicated people.

That is right, passion and an ability to think most important, not the type of degree.

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/leader-360003-2016-12-28

Winston Churchill, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln did ok without a college degree

Hi Chris,

I have an undergrad and a post grad degree.
I've had a varied career over several
continents which included working for large
corporations, government departments, state
libaries, and universities. I consider myself
still a work in progress. I certainly still
have a lot more to learn.

That is good Foxy, but you also have a passion to discuss many policy issues.

That is the key point for myself. Passion for issues will lead a minister to learn all relevant information to resolve an issue, so I do not see why any type of education will make the key difference.

Of course, brilliance will indeed differ from person to person, but I cannot see why a law or economics degree will make that much difference.

The basics of both law and economics are not that hard to understand, and ministers have a lot of expertise they can draw on to help him or her shape their policy option to submit to cabinet.

Degrees most certainly are a bonus to natural competence but they can't create it !
Common sense is the other important ingredient & that doesn't come from a Degree either !
On the contrary, we've witnessed the killing off of common sense by Degrees !

Dear Chris,

The reason I mentioned law and economics earlier is
because I thought that the study of those subjects
would train and encourage a person's analytical skills
plus the ability to think clearly using logic and
reasoning as well as training people to be thorough
and pay attention to detail which I felt were good
skills for ministers to have. I did not mean that they
all should study law and economics - I only commented
on those subjects because it seems that many of our
politicians do have those backgrounds.

You mentioned Winston Churchill, Frederick Douglass, and
Abe Lincoln. Three exceptional human beings with exceptional
talents.

Winston - belonging to the British Aristocracy and a
graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Brilliant
orator. Frederick Douglass, abolitionist, orator,
writer, statesman - incredibly talented as was Abe
Lincoln - lawyer - self taught and in 1836 at the age of 25,
he obtained his law licence.

As you said - passion and talent - a hard thing to beat -
even harder to have.

Dear Indy,

It does take different skills to be able to
handle a unruly classroom or work in an emergency
department of a large hospital. Skills that are not
taught when studying medicine or getting your
teaching diploma. It takes certain talents that no
everyone has.

certain talents that no everyone has.
Foxy,
Agree unreservedly & that's why it is up to others to make the many realise that & stop demanding equal Rights & opportunities when it's clear that they're not suited for a position simply because they want it & applied for it !
They must accept that they can or rather should only be engaged in activities they can contribute to not just benefit from. Society has to benefit so that individuals can benefit !

We have expensive public servants who are employed for their qualifications. They advise politicians. The system works, with some of our best - wisest - politicians having little formal education of any kind. We need aware human beings in government, not narrowly educated academics.

It's the Prime Minister who chooses the government
members to be ministers. He expects them to work
together on behalf of the government. There are usually
20 ministers in the House of Representatives and
about 10 in the Senate.

We can only presume that the Prime Minister chooses
experienced and knowledgeable government members to
be ministers. But as we've seen - that has not always
been the case.

I have always believed that representatives in Government should be from heads of business and departments to properly represent the need of their interest. That they only serve while they head up what they represent. Like Education head of the education department, like army the head of the armed forces, like transport, Like aboriginal affairs one appointed by the tribes to represent them etc etc. This way we get proper understanding of needs and public funding where it is reguired, say from Mining, Agraculture and exports and manufacturing etc etc

Dear Josephus,

That would be ideal.

"Heads of business".

At one time perhaps,Josephus, but not any more, given business leaders' virtue signalling and barracking for zero emissions nonsense.

"Department heads".

Never. You are showing a belief in a 'management class' that thinks it can run any sort of enterprise. The sort that thinks that the sacked CEO of Australia Post can take over the AFL when Gil McLoughlin retires soon.

ttbn, Because there is a diverse cross section of community there is natural checks and balances. There would not be Department heads earning millions of Dollars as they are spending the money of the productive section represented in Government. Government members would be like a Senate and only receive an allowance above their awards to cover their costs.

They would be voted into the position by their peers, eg transport may need Road passenger and Freight, Rail passenger and Freight, Shipping freight, cruise and pleasure craft, Air passenger and freight; and transport workers union, and a services union.

While there's no academic pre-requisite to becoming
a politician, arts and law degrees are common amongst
Aussie MPs.

Josh Fydenberg is arguably one of the most educated
of our politicians. He completed a law and economics
degree (with honours) from Monash university, then went
on to get a Master of Philosophy, and a degree in
International relations at Oxford. After that he completed
a Masters of Public Administration at Harvard.

There's three Coalition members _ Michael McCormack,
David Littleproud and Daren Chester - who have no
tertiary education. And of course Pauline Hanson left
school at 15 as did Jacqui Lambie. Which just goes to
show that qualifications don't often count as much as
a person's skills and abilities.

That is the model I propose, A head of Tertiary education would need to hold a degree on the field of education to be voted by his peers to represent education. A Union representative would need natural understanding of workers needs and have leadership to be voted as rep of Unions etc.Each person would have to decide in what field they wished to be represented and receive one vote only. For us it might be a seniors Pensioner / retiree, who we would chose to represent us. Local Government would remain as is.

I think our senior bureaucrats in the Public Service get too high a salary too early, long before they actually become even familiar with chores let alone competent & far too many never even reach the first stage of usefulness.
Foxy mentioned Frydenberg & the only reason he's able to perform somewhat better than the rest of the team is because he has a cultural background that has responsibility & respect as its main ingredient !
When the basic prerequisites of responsibility & respect aren't part of peoples' culture then it is not surprising that performance reflects that lack in their duties.

Dear Josephus and Individual,

You've both raised some very valid points.

Thank You.

I'm starting to look at our politicians in a
different way now thanks to many of the
comments raised here. Our MPs are certainly a
mix of various talents, qualifications, and
experiences.

Hi Foxy,

As a general rule I don't agree that politicians have to be qualified, and therefore by default ministers. Having said that one would hope those in a senior position from Prime Minister down would at least be "cluey" enough to be able to handle a very complex job. My years of political experience tells me everyone from the raving idiot, to the well educated, sane, intelligent person seeks to represent us in parliament.

At the ministerial level, the minister is not required to be a genius at the operational aspects of the portfolio, he or she has public servants for that function, but rather the minister has to direct government policy in a particular area, and ensure those policy objectives are being met by the functionaries of the PS. Also the minister has to be able to explain policy broadly to the community through interest groups, media etc, he or she has to be intelligent enough to understand and carry out what is a very demanding job.

Do we get the best person for the job, not always, like cooks in a bakehouse some are better than others. AND after all they are all politicians first, and experts second.

Dear Paul,

Well put. You've said it much better than I could have.
I've worked with a few politicians, doing research
as well as writing speeches. And as you say - first
and foremost they were politicians - however, I did
learn a great deal from most of them - especially what
not to do.

Most politicians have more than one role.
That of parliamentarian, constituency representative,
and party member. These different roles can place
competing demands on a politician's time. That's where
their expertise or experience and the nature of their
electorate can influence the politician's work priorities
and their decisions as to where their most effective
contribution can be made.

That's why politicians do require a broad range of skills
to enable them to make an effective contribution across
the breadth of their work. Not an easy task.

Paul1405,
Well stated !

Politicians dealt with, now the Bureaudroids ! They're paid even more than the pollies & cause more problems !

Everyone has been experiencing testing times.
It is vital to have inner strength in order
to see the good and not dwell on things we
can't control. We need to count our blessing
in this country all in all our political system
does work well.

I heard the news this morning that NSW and Canberra
are slowly coming out of lockdown which is a good
thing. I hope that Victoria will follow soon. There's
so much emphasis to our world on misery and not enough
on being happy and stressing the positive.

When I read some of the posts on this forum - I get
depressed and think - God these people must make
others around them miserable! They never have any positive
to say - geeeez! At least one politician is coming through
with positivity - the NSW Premier - Dominic Perrottet!
Perhaps others will get the message?

Scott Morrison has said that it is "important" to be
in Glasgow for the CO26 climate conference in two
weeks. He's also noted however that there is still
no agreement yet with the Nationals.

Given that the Nationals are complaining privately
about being "railroaded" by the Liberals the PM
was careful to say that no agreement had been reached.

The Nationals party room is meeting later today (Sunday).
It will be interesting to see what the end result will be.
Will the Nationals demand new commitments to revitalise
regional Australia and boost employment in return for
supporting any shift in climate policy?

We'll have to wait and see.

Before I leave this discussion I'd just like to say
that the Liberals should dump the Nationals because
the Nationals are nothing but a hinderance to proper
government. Barnaby Joyce acts and looks like a drunk.
An image that the Liberal Party should not present.
Many Liberal supporters that I know are talking about
withdrawing their support. They are disgusted with the
current state of affairs and the problems the Nats are
causing.

Foxy, you are part of a city elite that knows very little about things in the Bush. Farmers are machine tech savy and can operate heavy machinery and work large machines in mines but they are not electricians and electrical installers. Most farmers left school at 17 to work on the family farm growing crops, sheep and beef and their lifestyle is set in their farms. They love their independence and outdoor life, working stock and machinery. What option are you offering them? Give some please or understand the National Party concern for loss of employment.

Josephus,

Here's the thing. I come from a long line of farming
folk. My roots were not in the city. It is time that
people realized that the world is shifting to a low
carbon future. Australia has everything we need to take
the lead and become a renewable energy export superpower.

By acting now we can make sure that Australia will thrive
in the global clean economy for generations to come.

We can grow our economy, create tens of thousands of new
clean energy jobs and lower our domestic carbon pollution.
When it comes to innovation, we know what we're doing.
Australians invented Wifi and EFTPOS technology that is
now used all over the world.

The modern solar cell was invented by an Aussie and today,
Australia has one of the highest rates of household solar
in the world, with one in four households having solar on their
roofs.

Aussie companies - big and small - are leading the way in
clean energy solutions.

Take a look at what's happening in the UK and Europe and
the problems they're having. Fossil-fuels are on their way
out. The rising prices are killing their fossil fuel industries.

Before I leave this discussion I'd like to once again
Thank everyone who bothered to respond. I appreciate
the comments and the responses.

Take care and stay safe.