In article ,
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote:

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I couldn't get a job as a floor sweeper at the corner grocery store if I
didn't have a resume.
However, it is quite apparent that this is not a requirement in the heady
world of polotics.
You can be the prime minister, dictator or president without disclosing any
abilty to do the job whatsoever. Who would you blame for that? They get
away with it because we have continued to let them do so.

I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but a political campaign here
provides a very thorough review of the candidates' resumes. It's an
adversarial situation, something like a courtroom trial. The opposition
is quick to pick on any perceived weakness in the other guy's
background, and the other guy has to either just accept the punishment
or defend himself. Compare that with sending a resume through a "human
resources" office to be evaluated by someone who doesn't really
appreciate what is required to do the job the applicant wants.

Also (somewhat related), it takes a license to run a beauty salon, but
not to teach and take care of other people's children in a preschool.
Is the situation any different in Australia?