Yes,politics in Australian State parliaments is for lightweights.
People with no past.
Policemen who stand in threes.one can read, one can write, and the other one,who likes to stay around intellectals.
State Parliamentarians have reached such a low standard of collective I.Q. that they need speech writers,media advisors,consultants and an army lawyers and hanger-ons,just to function.
The days when men were men have long past.
If you have never controlled more than seven people in your life,for instance in the services or business you should not have the opportunity to represent the people.
Sir Joh,ran a successful contracting business before entering parliament.
He developed Queensland to such extent that the railways showed a profit,unlike any other State in Australia.He ran the public service like a business unlike any other state.
Many parliamentarians have never travelled beyond their own state borders, let alone overseas.
These naive individuals are promoted by a Party that sees them as numbers,so why do Australians still keep voting for a Party instead of a local character with experience in people management.

response to Narcissist:

I don't know whether what you wrote was tongue in cheek, but I would have thought that you were aware of what the people really expect of a government. A marginally satisfactory first term program would comprise:

1. Trebling of government expenditure.

2. Abolition of all taxation.

3. Balance the budget, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politicians assets.

4. Pay off the national debt.

The total failure of all politicians to implement this modest and reasonable program, whilst constantly pretending to partially do so, is the reason why when politicians were compared to used-car salesmen, the salesmen complained, and it was necessary to compare them to snake-oil salesmen. This is now deeply imbedded in out culture.

And thus is it ever so.

Paul Williams asks the question that any voter knows the answer too well

"What do we want to see in any candidate seeking public office?"

An honest man or woman of course.

I find it extremely hard to vote for the ALP- Beattie has controlled QLD for almost a decade and as far as i can tell has made a real mess of it. Doctor friends of mine tell me its incredibly hard to get a contract in QLD Hospitals- despite the fact health is listed as a priority by Beattie. The ALP is campaigning on the basis that it alone can urgently address the water problems- Um what has it done in the past ten years? Homes in SE QLD are averaging $400k-so why hasnt Beattie knocked out stamp duty as was promised when the GST was introduced?! Where does the massive revenue generated from the GST go in QLD?!

To be blantantly honest I find local and state governments in QLD an embarrassment. I cringe regularly and am constantly reminded of the dodgy MP in the film 'Muriel's Wedding'. But we have no choices. The liberals/ Nats in Qld (or whatever order they come in) are a laughing stock. For example did anyone else feel that sinking feeling when they launched the white feather stunt at the ALP offices in Townsville? It was supposed to represent the ALP's cowardice in relation to QLD health, but the poor ALP junior manning the office front desk was just as bemused as most other people. Flegg couldnt even organise a visit to a shopping centre for campaigning.

The conservative clique in QLD politics is useless and embarrasing. But what's worse it that they are facilitating the ALP's lack lustre performance- it answers to no one in QLD and it gets away with it. Beattie, Flegg, Caltabiano, Quinn Springborg- you are all a disgrace. Resign from your positions of influence and let others have a go at righting the mess you have created.Is it any wander that at a federal level, people are happy to stick with what works. No matter what you think of Johnny, at least he gets the job done. I'd like to see health and water infrastructure taken over by the federal government.

Cate stood up to Beattie & crossed the floor, & now she is out of the select group. In C.Q. he has a good old faithful in Jim Pearce, but even he has a struggle to get anything constructive done. Why, is it because he is not in the inner circle?

Winston Churchill said, "democracy is the worst kind of government there is, except for all the others."

Our system is crappy, and our leaders never give us what we want, but that's just as true of every other governmental system. The cynics put it down to the type of people who are attracted to politics, but I think the main issue is simply that democracy is fundamentally about compromise. No voter ever gets what he wants, because his wants are uncompromised, whereas politicians make decisions which are a compromise of many conflicting voter wants.

People think they want honest idealists in politics, but idealists rarely have the stomach for compromise that democracy demands. Whatever a leader's ideology, unless he respects the diverse ideologies he hopes to represent, and compromises his own accordingly, he has no business in our democratic system.

People often complain there are no real choices in politics, since both major parties really have quite similar approaches. Far from being a sign of the failure of our system, this is in fact evidence that our democracy produces moderate governments which reflect a compromise between all the conflicting views of the voters. Nobody is ever completely happy, but at least the politicians are aiming to keep 51% satisfied.