Fewer coups, more chance of courageous leadership

It’s up to the Liberal Party how it chooses leaders but the rule change to protect a prime minister from mid-term challenge makes sense, as did Labor’s similar change in 2013. The two-thirds majority in the Liberal party room (or 75 per cent of Labor caucus) necessary to oust a prime minister would require extraordinary circumstances of the kind that would vindicate such action in the opinion of the electorate. But there is no denying that the removal — and sometimes recycling — of five leaders since 2010 has angered voters who understandably believe it is their prerogative to vote out a prime minister they voted in. This is not to encourage a pointless rerun of the arguments pro and con for each leadership change. Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull all had their failings, which we pointed out at the time — without any enthusiasm for a coup while they were still in office.

But rapid rotation of prime ministers has done a lot of damage to a system of government already suffering with voter disengagement from the mainstream, a rise in political fortunes on the fringe and a retreat from the difficult business of public policy. It has not been a good advertisement abroad for Australia Inc. It’s true in a technical sense that electors do not choose a prime minister but, rather, a local member. And as John Howard has said, rightly, the office of prime minister is in the gift of the party room. But the political reality is that our federal elections have become more presidential, and canny voters make a careful assessment of the character and leadership qualities of the MP offered as their next prime minister. In a practical sense, the electorate gives its mandate to an incoming prime minister and a frontbench team. It’s a different matter in opposition, of course, when a defeat at the polls typically is followed by a change of leader as part of an attempt to rebuild political fortunes.

For Scott Morrison, the rule change amounts to yet another attempt to gain the initiative with the message that the party’s leadership struggles have been left behind. The new rule does not apply to Mr Morrison because he was not elected as prime minister, but it should dispel the spectre of a challenge. And that may neutralise Labor’s attack line, come the election next May, that even if voters support Mr Morrison, they may end up with someone else before a full term is run.

The more substantial appeal of the new rule is political stability and continuity but it will be up to each prime minister to make good use of the opportunities of office. The temptation of short-term tactics and populism driven by an obsession with opinion polls and the 24-hour news cycle will not disappear. Consider the opposition. With an unpopular leader insulated from challenge, Labor has adopted a string of policies that in our opinion would slow economic growth with new tax imposts and discourage wealth creators and entrepreneurs. It has not made the best use of its new-found unity and discipline. Even so, a prime minister who is capable and wise — and secure from internal rebellion — should find it a little less difficult to lead in the national interest and pursue reformist policy by taking calculated risks now for enduring benefits in the future. That is the challenge ahead.