Individual- Rudd was good till back flipping on "Small Australia" to "Big Australia" after the election. Sadly the Labor party is no longer the party of the seventies- and allowed its policy to be hijacked.

Foxy - yes Sun Tzu has one of the best descriptions of leadership I've seen - thanks for your feedback. I'm sure many could take note of the "win without fighting" strategy- but as Machiavelli says a prince needs to be willing to take the battle to the enemy. The Art Of War can be used more broadly than just for war - the Thomas Cleary translation gives the example of the family of doctors in the forward. Napoleon had one of the earliest western translations. It's required reading for officers in the military - but I, like yourself I'm sure, just like reading good books. The are many other other sources of good material on leadership- The Republic, The Prince, The Book Of Worldly Wisdom, Roman writers such as Gibbon, etc. As "Will Hunting" says - the old books are the best- they blow your hair back! Historical figures such as Monash, Attaturk, Medici's, Roman's, Greek's give insight into leadership. But your question was what are the most important attributes for a leader? In democracy, such as Australia, probably a capable population literate in history and strategy that is able to recognise good leadership and choose them.
The leader is not isolated from the culture/ community, their faction, their social grouping, their benefactors, etc- we get the leaders we deserve!
Many believe that it's impossible for a member of a population to choose good leadership in the modern mass culture world because the requirements of a good leadership is far removed from common experience. Confucius talked about the hierarchy of society being modeled on the family as a touchstone. Desmond Morris - "The Human Zoo" also talked about mass society. Some of us believe it's probably possible to use the formal hierarchy to choose good leaders in a "mass culture" by a bubble approach. There is no vacuum in politics!

North Korea is tricky.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
Foxy,
Does that mean you're supporting PC & the invasion of Europe & Australia next by Islam ?

Canem Malum,

It isn't easy choosing the traits that make for a
good leader because the kind of leadership
required in a military battle or the aftermath of an
earthquake may call for different qualities, and different
people, than the kind of leadership required at a
corporation board meeting or a political convention.

Style of leadership may be one of three basic kinds:
authoritarian, in which the leader simply gives orders
(Putin comes to mind); democratic, in which the leader
attempts to win a consensus on a course of action (Turnbull
comes to mind), and laissez-faire, in which the leader is
easygoing and makes little attempt to direct or organize
the group. (Clive Palmer comes to mind).

In Australia, at least, the leaders who seem to be most
effective in holding small groups together and seeing that
they accomplish their tasks tend to be democratic.
Authoritarian leaders as we've seen are much less effective,
because the work of the group becomes bogged down internal
conflicts. Laissez-faire leaders are usually ineffective
for the group lacks directives and tackles problems in
a haphazard way.

This doesn't mean, however, that democratic leadership is
the most effective in all situations. An authoritarian leader,
for example is more effective in emergency situations, where
speed and efficiency outweigh other considerations. For this
reason, leadership in armies, police forces, and hospital
emergency rooms is typically authoritarian.

Democratic leaders are more effective in situations where group
members are concerned about individual rights or where there
is disagreement over goals.

However, research on Australian subjects
who have been socialised to
react negatively to authoritarian leaders, cannot be
automatically generalised in cultures in which authoritarian
leadership is expected and in which there is virtually
no experience of democratic decision making.

As an ALP member I am aware we no longer are the party some want us to be, our win in 1972 came after Charlie Oliver, head of the AWU gave the big fella PERMISSION! to run for the leadership! head of a union, we moved, started the long trek towards the voters not away from them, as shown in the 23 years in the wilderness,Bob and Paul continued that move, right of our last position, we never stopped following the voters wishes, no victory in Australia for a true party of the left only,so wave good by to the lights on the hill, they shine now in that workers grandsons third rental home,Labor actively seeks the middle ground, while its opponent slips further to the right and leaves Menzies blue collar workers in its wake,what we need right now is another reforming ALP leader

Dear Belly,

What do you think of Chris Bowen?

very impressed with him Foxy, he will one day lead the party,not just yet but he will, changing the government, here and in America, will help stall the drift to the right,coming trade war will too