The key premise of this article is indeed sad since a true leader is one who takes charge not when things are good and who rides on the crest of the tidal wave of success, but rather a true leader is he/ she who comes to the role when all hope is lost and yet not. A person who believes that there is still hope and who rallies others to that cause. A soul who has not given up the fight.
That is real leadership and while economic circumstances will have an affect, the leadership is within the person more so than the environment in which they find themselves.
Thus, Nathan Rees should be compared to a Don Dunstan or to a Neville Wran, a Gough Whitlam or to a John Curtin.

One of the two classic elements of "leadership" is to inspire others. If you do not inspire others then you fail to be a leader of any kind (good or bad). TRUE democracies are not able to showcase leaders because the idea of leadership is fundamentally in tension with democracy. When was the last time a Prime Minister was popularly elected in Australia? Political parties choose their figureheads based on mileage - how long can we remain popular with this person at the top? The media may portray a political figurehead as a "leader" but as your article rightly points out they are constrained and it is not possible for these people to be leaders of anything, except their own demise. Upon reflection of history, many of the greatest leaders were murderous bastards (Hitler is a modern classic example). Personally, I don't care that much for leadership, I care that as individuals we create something special for everyone to live happy and safe lives.

I remember a call for a man whom we wanted

Gough Whitlam