The key promise leaders seem all too willing to break

It’s arguably the most fundamental question asked of the public by an Australian political party and its leader: “will you let me run the place for the next X years?”

The acceptance of that responsibility is also the key promise made to the community. And yet, it’s the one which seems most brazenly broken.

Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk at national cabinet earlier this year.Credit: James Brickwood

Now-former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews bowed out last week after nine years in the job, three increasing election wins after much speculation the November 2022 poll would be his last.

Except until as recently as August, Andrews had repeatedly insisted he wasn’t going anywhere.

Before him, fellow pandemic-era Labor premier Mark McGowan pulled up stumps after the WA budget in May and saying as recently as March he would lead his government to the next state election in the west.

The pandemic years inevitably took a toll – as we saw in other states – as did the conflict that went with the job, as McGowan put it. Andrews said he came to his decision, based on family and a workaholic nature, “very recently”.

In Queensland, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk – one of only two pre-COVID leaders left nationwide, with ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr – has repeated similar pledges.

“I feel refreshed, I feel energised, and I’m absolutely determined to lead the party and this government to the next election,” she said again last month after a holiday amid since-quieter anonymous internal leadership grumblings and souring polls.

Who knows what those words mean though, or for how long. And that’s maybe the issue.

The practice of political leaders tapping out midterm is almost as old as our political institutions themselves, University of Queensland political historian Chris Salisbury told me last week.

But does it risk further undermining the already shaky trust we have in politicians?

“I certainly don’t think it’s as damaging as the tearing down of leaders,” Salisbury said, referring to the revolving door of prime ministers, both Labor and Coalition, since 2010.

“Most people aren’t going to begrudge Andrews stepping out after nine years ... [but] in that circumstance when you do so vocally commit yourself to the cause, and then opt out, that can also have some blowback.”

A longstanding leader who remained popular with the electorate could, perhaps, weather that. “It’s not like they were teetering and he’s jumping off a sinking ship or anything,” Salisbury said.

For any who do decide to go, leaving a successor enough time ahead of an election is also “viewed kindly”. Such was the situation the last time Queensland Labor’s leadership changed outside an election aftermath.

Who gets to decide the leader (the party’s MPs in parliament) is another issue entirely.

While there have been past suggestions nationally to tackle membership decline by embracing broader party leadership votes, including those seen in US-style “primaries”, that candidate-centred politics isn’t exactly exemplary.

In Australia, such power has only been given to party members. But even they don’t always get a say.

Under Queensland rules introduced in 2013, any internal contest unable to hashed out among MPs would be decided by a drawn-out three-way vote among MPs, unions and grassroot members.

However, the state party hasn’t had a contested leadership fight – like the ones seen among their federal colleagues – since 1982. Such a message of unity has become almost a badge of honour.

But not for everyone. John Mickel, a former Labor minister under premier Anna Bligh, has been a critic of the state party changes since they occurred.

He believes Labor MPs have a better understanding of their colleagues and should, alone, choose their leader in parliament. He describes the move to a more democratic system as instead resulting in an “authoritarian” one “so we can avoid a ballot at all costs”.

“If you have the parliamentarians sort it out amongst themselves, they might be able to have a contest,” Mickel said.

Reporting from Victoria last week suggested that, behind closed doors, the transition of power there wasn’t quite as smooth as the ultimately uncontested ascension of former deputy premier Jacinta Allan appeared to show.

But with a state election now almost only a year away in Queensland, and a successor not so clearly defined by Palaszczuk, the situation is a little different.

Mickel said it meant the three-time election winner could rightly argue transition arrangements were not settled in the Sunshine State, and only she had the profile to win another.

But things can turn quickly, he said. Be it an accumulation of media attacks or a comment from a loved one.

“You can’t be too indifferent to the constant belt you get.”

Some critical media commentary last week suggested it was time for Andrews to go – or he had even outstayed his welcome – despite his leadership being the choice of the state’s voters less than a year ago and no poll-shaped sign of a change of mind.

Even still, nobody would be wishing for return to the days of leadership by opinion poll. The research shows voters didn’t approve, and it ultimately failed to even benefit those who took the job or their parties.

Outside tragedy or scandal or maybe the lingering effects of a once-in-a-century pandemic, surely the right time for a leader to go is with notice at the end of their term, or when voters formally call time.

Beyond that, all we really have is their will and their word – and a guess at which will win out if the pair ever face off.

Sean Parnell sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.