Gillard's formidable future

The past couple of weeks would have forced Julia Gillard to seriously ponder her life.

Is this job worth it? Am I doing what I dreamed of when I joined my political party? Is the public bile, anger and sexism directed at me really worth the price? Am I better off out of the game?

What she would know deep down is that a certainty for all political leaders who hang around is that they eventually lose their jobs.

In recent decades, national Governments led by Prime Ministers McMahon, Fraser, Keating and Howard were dismissed by voters, while Gorton, Hawke and Kevin Rudd were dismissed by their colleagues. Whitlam was dismissed by the GG, and that decision endorsed at the ballot box.

Even political deity like Robert Menzies came within a few communist preferences in Jim Killen’s old seat in 1961, and just hung on.

It’s an inevitable by-product of democratic structures.

But none have endured what Gillard has confronted. None faced the constant, unrestrained and beyond-the-boundary vitriol and personally directed hatred that has seeped into contemporary political discourse in a country once referred to as “lucky”.

With the daily polls conducted by competing media organs for one purpose, and chatter and briefings and omni-present predictions of political death, we can guess that over the past few months Julia Gillard has allowed herself moments of reflection on life after politics.

Will it come today, this week, or next? Or will it be delayed till September 14. She does not know, nor do we.

Her public resolve is undisputed, and admirable. She’s not for the turning. But by whatever hand the end of her prime ministership is nigh.

She will not only be quietly thinking how to concede gracefully in public and private (and like Kim Beazley, it will probably turn out to be one of her best speeches) but will be thinking of life after the Lodge.

Julia Gillard is not only Australia’s first female prime minister she is in the prime of life. She is far from normal retirement age.

So what should she do? Take up some NFP board chairs? Accept an emeritus professorship from the ANU or another major university? Return to the law? Travel the globe working in education for the UN?  The options are considerable and attractive – especially after the voluntary brawling life she’s led over the past four years.

But there is a better one – stay in politics, unlike most of her predecessors who didn’t bother fronting Parliament again after defeat. Stay and go to the likely barren Opposition backbenches and provide private counsel to the new Leader.

Why, how ridiculous? After all the country was in great shape economically, and she still led her once great party to humiliating defeat. And she was so lousy at the politics. Why should anyone take note of anything she has to say, ever? And besides, she’d be a constant source of distraction.

That may be true, but the fact is the special knowledge, insights, tests and hundreds of judgement calls are unique to the person sitting in that prime ministerial chair. It’s easy to be an armchair critic in Opposition, or backbench or in an unaccountable media – but none have had to face the music at times when it counts.

It’s a bit like the idea behind the Hillary Clinton TV ad when facing Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries. “Who would you trust when that 3am phone call came through to have the judgement to make the right and hard decision on terrorism”.

It was meant as a reminder to voters of where ultimate responsibility lies in political leadership. And that only comes from doing the job itself.

Gillard has a fine reputation with political leaders around the world. She is an experienced and successful negotiator (just ask Tony Abbott). She has an unblemished public life (despite the smears). She has a detailed grasp of all major public policy issues. She has strong values.  She has a sharp and inquisitive mind.

Surely these are qualities any thriving political institution would welcome within its ranks – especially one destined to occupy the benches of Opposition for some time.

Would not the new Opposition leader – whether it be Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Jason Clare or anyone else – welcome the insights and experience and contacts of Gillard, on the basis they were private and away from public glare?

There would be media demands on Gillard. She should shy from them. She can pen her own story in her own time, on her terms if she so wishes.

But, at the age of 52 – two weeks after the election – she will be a youthful former prime minister. If her interests remain in public policy (especially education) she could do much worse than cop the election result, return to Parliament for three years as a local member and offer her colleagues quiet counsel and rare perspective. Be in no doubt – they’ll need it. And she won’t mind a bit of perspective either.

Alister Drysdale is a Business Spectator commentator and a former senior advisor to Malcolm Fraser and Jeff Kennett.