There has been lots of commentary in this election campaign on the subject of leadership. While both leaders have a good deal of political experience generally, they are relatively new to the task of leading their parties.
Neither lacks ambition. Both challenged and won. Both are willing to be judged by their fellow citizens in the ultimate test - a general election. At best that is nerve-wracking and, at worst, soul-destroying.
Add to that the increase in the media's scrutiny of their past and present words and deeds. They have become public property. I'll always remember a close observer of politics saying to me: "How do you do it? Political leadership looks to me to be a form of daily crucifixion!"
The first test of a leader, then, is personal. Do they have the strength of conviction to be able to do the job? Do they have the strength of character to be able to cope with the incredible stresses and strains of the job?
It's worth noting, however, that this word - "strength" - can be deceptive. Politics doesn't just involve decision and advocacy, it also involves negotiation and compromise. This is where the concept of political judgement needs to enter the equation. In other words, when is it appropriate for a leader to "hold the line" and when is it appropriate for a leader to give ground? There is no easy answer to this question, it is a matter of judgment in each circumstance.
In making that judgment, a leader will be caught between the often competing claims of public policy and public opinion. Leaders need the support not just of their ''true believers'', but also of the unreconstructed cynics, the swinging voters and the untutored punters looking for the risk-free bet.
What makes a good leader is not that they avoid compromise but that they have a sense of purpose and a clear direction. Yes, they need to manage events and keep in touch, but they also need to shape events on the basis of their vision for the future.
Shaping events and the opinions that underpin them is the toughest task of all. It means having a coherent story about the nation's past, present and future, and having the capacity to communicate that to the public. That means involving and engaging the public in a deeper and broader way than they might normally talk about politics.
From my own experience of politics, the public is willing and able to allow the boundaries to be pushed so long as the changes proposed are credible and it is not ''too much, too soon''. Indeed, public opinion is often more flexible than the pressure groups and interest groups that feed it.
To conclude that political leadership is only about personal strength, a sense of purpose and direction, political skills and judgement, and the capacity to communicate with and engage the public would miss the point that each leader has a different mix of these qualities, capabilities and skills.
Self-awareness and self-management is essential if the package is to be complete. This means building on the strengths and managing the weaknesses, listening and learning and taking advice.
Humility beats hubris any day!
Geoff Gallop was a former premier of Western Australia.
Email a friend