DOES anyone really doubt the major political parties need an injection of talent to keep up with the demands of 21st century Australia?
Around the country we are seeing state governments and oppositions struggling to live up to the expectations of those who elect them. The reasons for this are very complex, but they include the age of state Labor governments, the weakness of Coalition oppositions and the rise of strong independents filling the void. The dominance of Clover Moore and her independents in the recent Sydney City Council elections shows just how disconnected from constituents the major parties have become.
One obvious reason for this reduced appeal of the major parties is the increasingly shallow political gene pool from which the parties draw their elected representatives.
Today, more than ever before, state governments are dominated by former union officials and careerists from the growing ranks of the army of political advisers.
Leaders like Nathan Rees, who had a working life outside of unions and political staff, are becoming thin on the ground.
Having worked in government and opposition and as a campaign adviser to the Labor Party, I believe the problem needs to be actively addressed in the major parties by rethinking the way our politicians choose their ministers.
The problem, simply put, is the branch structure on which our major parties have always depended, is dying.
Branch meetings are now routinely dominated by careerists who regard a life in politics as a job more than a privilege.
Branch stacking to secure preselection - a much bigger problem for the Liberals than Labor - is often the only reason for any party membership growth.
This significant narrowing of the base from which our politicians are drawn means in turn the life experience of our ministers is also much narrower than it once was.
The last senior barrister to enter the Legislative Council was elected in 1990 - a far cry from when the Legislative Council was used as a recruiting ground for the likes of Neville Wran.
Breaking the nexus between the Labor Party and unions is not the answer. The success of the anti-Work Choices campaign is testimony to their continuing relevance to Labor and vice versa. But Labor needs to be a broader church if it is going to stay relevant to voters and the increasingly complex motivations of the electorate.
Some Labor leaders are actively going beyond the party to engage with the electorate. Examples of this approach can be found in Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit and his community cabinets.
Similarly, Mike Rann in South Australia has appointed two business and community leaders to his most senior cabinet committee. These non-politicians enjoy access to the most confidential government material.
Last week's decision by Rees to appoint two former Reserve Bank governors as advisers to the State Government is a step in the right direction. I think however, he can go further and give outside appointees positions on his Cabinet committees.
Ultimately, we should go even further and allow our premiers and prime ministers to appoint non-politicians as cabinet ministers.
There are a lot of people who would willingly give up three or four years at the height of their careers to bring real ministerial clout to any number of portfolio areas - health, education, finance and community services to name a few.
In the US, all cabinet ministers are appointed by the president.
Similarly, the British prime minister has recently been appointing non-politicians directly to his ministry - by making them life peers.
The other interesting aspect to these appointments is that not only do these appointees come from outside the parliament, none of these new ministers even come from the Labour Party.
Thankfully we do not have a House of Lords in Australia and the nearest equivalents are our upper houses. Unfortunately, the party machines control the membership of our Senate and Legislative Councils, not the people who would benefit most from an injection of extra ministerial talent - our parliamentary leaders.
Now we have entered the 21st century maybe the time has come to review our political institutions. Why should we rely on our elected representatives to be the source of all ministers? Why shouldn't the prime minister or premier be allowed to appoint a number of them - say 20 per cent - from outside the parliament?
Some day soon we will have a constitutional convention to consider whether we should have an elected head of state. Maybe the time has come to start demanding a broader convention to look at the viability of other more significant political conventions, such as how we should select the most powerful and important people in the parliamentary system - our ministers.
* Bruce Hawker is a political strategist and lobbyist for Hawker Britten.
