Malcolm in the middle
Australia's most impressive curriculum vitae has just been embellished with yet another blue ribbon entry. Malcolm Turnbull, the former Rhodes Scholar, personal advisor to Kerry Packer, Spycatcher barrister, millionaire banker and head of the Australian Republican movement, has now become the leader of the Liberal Party. That puts him one successful election away from the job he has long coveted: prime minister. I suppose it could even put him one successful referendum away from a post he would love to see created: Australian president.
With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, this has not been a good week for self-styled "Masters of the Universe". Turnbull has bucked the trend.
Now the 2010 election is starting to look interesting. Kevin Rudd is facing a plausible prime minister in waiting, at a time when economic issues will be front and centre.
A few words about the man that Turnbull defeated, Brendan Nelson, who called a speedy leadership election in the hope of throwing his rival off balance. Nelson always looked like a hostage to events rather than a commanding figure who could shape them. Nowhere was this more evident than in his response to Peter Costello's recent vacillations over whether he wanted the leadership. During that period of uncertainty, Nelson came across as ludicrously submissive and chronically indecisive.
Like Costello, Nelson is probably a politician for a different age. He is shy and error-prone, a losing combination in a fast-paced political culture which requires snap policy judgments and high personal exposure. The former earring-wearing doctor might have boosted his public image by emphasising his love of guitars and motorbikes. Instead, he came across as a rebel without a personality.
I saw him once on the Mike Carlton radio show being handed a guitar and offered the chance to play. But he awkwardly refused. These days, of course, politicians have to be much more availing. To win elections, you have to lose your inhibitions. Nelson remained resolutely buttoned-down.
Turnbull has problems. Within sections of his party, he is regarded as an over-ambitious elitist, with dangerously subversive views on the future of the monarchy. He is the richest parliamentarian who lives in Australia's richest street in Australia's richest constituency, Wentworth, which takes in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. No wonder he emphasised his humble roots in his first speech as leader, because Labor will seek to portray him as haughty and out of touch.
What this does mean is that Australia's two main parties are now headed by the country's most well credentialed politicians. Two avowed Republicans are also in charge, which opens the way for a measure of cross-party consensus on the question of a future Australian Republic.
2010 is now a real contest. Can Turnbull win over the country? And can he win over his party?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I suspect Malcolm Turnbull really wanted to be President of Australia. and when he realized the referendum was lost, he went into politics and decided to become Prime Minister instead.
To be honest, i still think he has a better chance of being our first President than our 27th PM.
Complain about this comment
All these republicans at the top. So when do we get to see some action on this? When will our head of state represent us, the people of Australia instead of a foreign monarch?
Viva the Republic mate
Complain about this comment
If not exacly the 'west-wingisation' spoke of earlier, it does seem the we're becoming more obsessed with personalities in politics of late. It's not just an Aussie thing - look at Palin in the States and the fact that Blair managed to win his last election despite the unpopularity of some of his policies, and the fact the conservatives now have Blair II in charge.
I saw a lot of journos trashing Nelson last night on tv, and Nick's continuing it now. No doubt they're right, maybe he could never have beaten the Member for Griffith at the next election.
I just think it's a shame that an obviously intelligent man can't succeed without cheesy media stunts, a glib soundbite for every occasion and the so-called "strong leadership" style. I'd like to think that the electorate can see past what's presented on our tv screens and consider what's actually said.
Considering the new bloke - everything I've heard and seen so far says he's got the strong leadership style (in other words a bit of a bully), he loves the camera (in fact he looks permanently smug) and he's working hard on his image. I don't see why a rich guy shouldn't appeal (especially if he got that way through hard work) and I have no doubt he'll be good entertainment. I just hope he has some policies to back it up.
Complain about this comment
Well as far as the republic issue, the Greens announced today;
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,24359644-5007062,00.html)
They want a yes or no vote in 2010 as to if australians want a republic full stop, no specific model and then if that passes which most polls still consistantly show a majority support for an Australian head of state. Before this Christmas they said they will introduce a bill in parliament for a referendum on the issue and the 'yes' numbers in both houses may very well outnumber the 'no' voters.
Complain about this comment
Brendan Nelson was always going to be a caretaker leader in place to weather the Rudd honeymoon and the usual 'can't do anything right' media reporting after you lose an election. Turnbull can come in with a clean sheet.
Turnbull may be a republican (like many of his ilk were in the last referendum) but the Coalition can't win an election if it alienates its core vote many of whom are royalists.
It'll be interesting to see how Rudd's Tony Blair impression handles real opposition.
Complain about this comment
How much do you Aussies think having a President will cost compared to having a Governor General? How many millions of dollars will be spent on elections etc. Or will the President just be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day?
What will be the powers of the President compared to the Prime Minister? Will this lead to political power struggles which could become divisive?
What precisely are the benefits of electing someone contentious as President (think GW Bush) compared to what you have now?
Will the President have the same functions and powers as the Governor General? If so, what is the point of becoming a Republic??? If the president will have more powers, what will these powers be and what would be the likely effect on the government in Australia?
Have you Republicans thought the whole process through? I doubt it.
Any proposal that Australia should become a Republic without setting out the exact model would be plain daft. The idea may sound attractive in principle but the devil is always in the detail.
Will becoming a Republic be a uniting or a dividing issue for Australians?
Just a thought. Why not simply elect the Governor General, who would continue to exercise all the powers and duties held by the Governor General, and retain
the monarcy just in name only? Wouldn't this compromise please just about everyone?
Complain about this comment
"US" Australian probably haven't given a seconds thought about how much a President would cost us; why should we? Having an Australian Head of State is worth any cost. The Republic is as much a matter of the heart as it is of the head. Can't foreigners understand that having a foreigner as Head of State is an insult to every one of the 21 million Australians who want the symbol of their nation to be ONE OF US!.
Complain about this comment
No-6, comment's that we should vote on the governor general and retain the monarchy misses the point, we no longer want a foreign (unelected) head of state, we are one of the very very few former european colonies which still suffers the indignity of not having its own head of state (or flag).
Complain about this comment
oioioi2 makes a point, busby2.
It's not about electing a "governor-general" or "president"
It's about having an Australian head of state, not a hereditary monarch who (in the case of the next in line) spent only a year at Australia's most exclusive private (public) school but really does not seem to understand or represent the Australian psyche.
But this is the precise argument monarchist John Howard used to wedge republicans at the referendum, splitting republicans in a mindless struggle over the model.
Some, led by mainly left-leaning republicans, thought the minimalist model of replacing the Governor-General/Head of state position with a Parliamentary appointed ceremonial president was elitist and wanted an elected president, ala USA.
The latter model is where the cost comes in, while the former retains the westminster status quo but allows Australia to actually have one of our own as our head of state or commander in chief.
But on cost, an Australian president would be heaps cheaper than an English monarch on grounds that every time a representative of "our" royal family deems it okay to visit the antipodies, we the taxpayer cough up with the money for the first class ticket from Heathrow.
If the head of state was also a resident, we'd only pay for outgoing visits!
On the matter of a new referedum, I'm with Malcolm on this one. It's no point until after the reign of Queen Elizabeth II is at an end.
The Queen is liked, loved and respected in Australia and there's no point in talking about a republic while it means turfing her out.
Charles, William etc are a different matter. Some of their behaviour alone is not befitting an Australian head of state (considering they are in line for the hereditary title, you'd think they'd show private decorum in a very public world) and downright embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
I do not see the point of waiting until the current queens reign has ended (also known as passing away) She could last as long as her mother! As a 50 year old I would like to see my beloved country cut the apron strings and move forward as an independent and proud nation. All kids grow and move on to become adults. I dread the thought of new generations of Aussies being visited by Queen Camilla.
Complain about this comment
Thank you all for the replies to my post #6.
wjburt #7 writes as though Australia is not an independent country. In fact Australia has far, far more sovereignty on governing themselves than we do in GB. When I visited Australia for the first time last year to stay with first cousins on both sides of my family, I found it refreshing and very pleasing to be visiting a country that governed themselves.
The advantage of retaining the monarchy for ceremonial purposes is that it keeps the dirty side of politics, which is ever present in both our countries, separate from the titular Head of State. You lose that when you become a Republic. Presidents can be controversial and divide countries in a way that having a monarch as a purely ceremonial head of state never will.
Don't ever underestimate the value of the monarch being above politics. If you mix the head of state up with the rough and tumble of party politics you will live to regret it.
I must take issue with Carltonblue in #9 when he/she wrote "But on cost, an Australian president would be heaps cheaper than an English monarch on grounds that every time a representative of "our" royal family deems it okay to visit the antipodies, we the taxpayer cough up with the money for the first class ticket from Heathrow.
If the head of state was also a resident, we'd only pay for outgoing visits!"
Surely these outgoing visits are likely to be far more numerous and far more costly than paying for all the outgoing visits of an Australian President, not to mention all the additional costs of having a President instead of a Governor General who would demand all the expensive trappings of a head of state.
Scrapthejack said it was time to cut the apron strings and move forward as a proud and independent nation. But who can deny that Australia IS a proud and independent nation now!!!
Oioiol2 wrote “Can't foreigners understand that having a foreigner as Head of State is an insult to every one of the 21 million Australians who want the symbol of their nation to be ONE OF US!”. I very much regret that an Australian appears to regard Great Britain as just another foreign country. We are both members of the Commonwealth with close ties of kith and kin, language, culture and laws which make settlement in Australia so attractive to the British. The feelings are mutual judging by the numbers of Australians that make it to these shores. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world a nation of 21 million occupying an entire continent would be well advised to retain traditional allies, the close ties and the goodwill that comes with it, in addition to forging new alliances closer to home. Up to now I think Australia has achieved this very well.
Complain about this comment
I hope the election of Turnbull to Op Leader brings about a fresh look at politics in Aussie and keeps Kevin Rudd on his toes, it seems both leaders of the major parties are fresh with new ideas and new challenges and this can only be good for the country.
Who cares that both are Republicans, I don't expect we'll see any major republic referendum announcements before 2015, Rudd won't call a referendum before the 2010 election and Turnbull won't promise much so as not to alienate the monarchists in the Libs. So, we won't see much on this topic until probably 2013-15. In the next 5-7 years why don't we instead focus on the things that matter NOW, like financial problems, climate change and terrorism instead of who gets toasted at Australian Parliament.
Personally, I would like to see an Australian President or Governor General as leader of our nation one day, but I can assure you, no Republic vote will win as long as Queen Elizabeth II is still on the throne, Australian's respect her thoroughly and won't offend her by dumping her. We'll dump Charles III
Complain about this comment
Good luck Australia on what now seems to be your unstoppable progress to becoming a republic. Where you lead, may the UK eventually follow.
Complain about this comment
Are these the same trappings of a head of state that the Governor-General already enjoys? You know, private secretaries, first class travel across the world etc, etc.
We are already bearing the cost for two effective heads of state. One here and one in London.
Complain about this comment
Have never seen Malcolm in person but he stumbles a bit too often on TV still. It is funny really ..in person ... a small groups Nelson is really good, very genuine, still like a real person - eyes connect etc unlike the practised pollie who always glazes over the minute they engage with you - that "I am talking to you because I know I have to but I have absolutely no interest in your response" look. We will have to see how things unfold - all I can say is thank God it is not Costello and thank all the Gods it is not Howard....ahhh politics - it takes good men and women and turns them into toothpaste commercials
Complain about this comment
At our wedding 35 years ago, we insisted that there be no toast to the Queen, as was the norm at the time, as we were both Republicans.
These days noone ever has toasts to the Queen, nor to the country or to the head of state(at least at any wedding I've attended)
But the change in thinking doesn't extend much further than that.
Busby2, I think that the majority of us respect the British heritage of the country which is a dominant one of our many heritages. I always have to teach my Year 3 class why we speak English, and that the Queen lives in England, not Queensland.
I actually think that many Australians identify with the English speaking world overall, feeling as strong ties to NZ, Canada and to a lesser extent the US as to the UK.
Complain about this comment
Just a note to Busby2
I understand the historical relationship between Australia and UK but the symbolism of our own head of state cant be measured. 40% of us come from non English speaking backgrounds, that's almost half our population, they have no historical ties to the UK.
As a 4th generation Australian I have nothing against the UK but I don't feel any connection to it.When I think of my place in the world I don't think of myself as an Aussie of British heritage I just think of myself as Australian.
As regard to the word foreign, it is not used as an insult, it is just a statement of fact. When you visit here or we visit there we both have to stand in the foreigners line at immigration, we are separate countries, thats just reality.
As a final word re symbolism. All countries have their own including yours. I make the point that the British kept the pound instead of going with the euro, a small thing but important to the national image. Aussie republicans desire the same thing for their country. Small but very important changes.
Complain about this comment
Busby #11 states that "I very much regret that an Australian appears to regard Great Britain as just another foreign country. We are both members of the Commonwealth with close ties of kith and kin, language, culture and laws... In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world a nation of 21 million occupying an entire continent would be well advised to retain traditional allies, the close ties and the goodwill that comes with it, in addition to forging new alliances closer to home."
At first I was merely offended by your veiled threat. Then I remembered all that the British do and have done for our freedom. Brilliant plans like Gallipoli, the Brisbane Line and our current attempts to gain a UNSC seat! For those not following there are 2 seats up for grabs in the Europe/Other category (Other consisting of Aust, Canada and NZ). The 3 candidates vying for the honour are Australia, Finland and wait for it..... Luxemburg! Current estimates believe we may just lose to Luxemburg. Why you ask? Because not even Britain will offer its support. You need to make up your minds, are you the head of a Commonwealth? (if so you can justify imposing your flag upon mine but will have to explain why I don't get special treatment at Heathrow) or are you European? (In which case you're very welcome to turn your backs to us when we need your support but will have to explain why you expect me to pay the travel expenses of Charles's... lady of the night.)
Complain about this comment
I agree with SydneyKate. Australia gets no benefit from its historical association with the UK, nor as a member of the Commonwealth. There is nothing to lose by becoming a republic and much to gain
Republicanism has waxed and waned in Australia since the 19th Century but modern republicanism In Australia dates from about the time of the Vietnam War. Australia was at war while..the Head of State lived 18,000km away in a country which was not involved. If for no other reason, we cannot have a foreigner as Head of State.
Complain about this comment
We'll always be able to find some excuse to not become a republic 'just yet'. We can't keep waiting for everything to be perfect and then become a republic out of something akin to boredom.
I love England and culturally it has much in common with Australia. We shouldn't overstate the importance of this though - we are different countries with quite different priorities - and the fact is the Queen is the British monarch first and ours only as a *very* distant afterthought.
It may not be rational, but having our country technically ruled by a foreigner *does* affect our national psyche. Yes, there are always risks involved in a change of this magnitude, but it is time we took de jure as well as de facto responsibility for our own affairs.
Complain about this comment
As a foreigner (not meant or taken in an offensive way - because it is what I am) we're on slightly dodgy ground even offering an opinion or the republic debate - after all we don't have any say in what happens.
All I'd like to say is that I disagree with Wollemi and Sydney Kate - Australia has and continues to get benefit from it's historical association with the UK.
Australia is an anomaly (this is a good thing, it makes it more interesting) - a predominantly western, English speaking culture of only 20 million thats pretty isolated from most similar countries. To develop it's had a lot of help from places like England, Scotland etc. As time goes on and the world becomes a smaller place it needs these places less and less and the links lessen. But they're still there - where do a lot of Australian companies look to when they're short of skilled workers, for instance?
As for the notion that Brits gets special treatment here that isn't recipricated in the UK, I'm not sure how true that is. I seem to get the same treatment as any other EU citizen in Australia does.
Complain about this comment
During the republican debate from the early 1990s onwards, one particular word was used to describe the monarchy. That word was 'anachronism'. In fact it was used so often by republicans that it begs the question: if we are going to get rid of the monarchy because its an 'anachronism' then why don't we get rid of all anachronism?
That being so, then the first to go is the Papacy.
So lets have a referendum, and if the Queen is dumped, then so is the Pope.
For those who suggest that the monarchy is totally irrelevant to Australia, then how would you describe the Papacy?
Complain about this comment
Kevin Rudd was always going to be a one-term PM. A person so short of original ideas backed up by a team beholden to their political factions was always going to be a seen as a stop-gap until the coalition got its act together.
Now that that seems to be the case Mr Dudd must be having sleepless nights. He perhaps feels a holiday overseas would fix his problem.
My own thoughts on Turnbull are mixed. It could very well be that one year out from the next election if the coalition is still behind in the polls then Costello will be drafted in.
And Kevin747 will really be in panic mode.
Complain about this comment
The republican debate is much more than having our own head of state.
It's also about where do we give our allegiance - to someone who resides overseas, or someone who is part of the Australian scene.
If republicans resent having to give their allegiance to a person who lives outside Australia and is not Australian, then not only should the Queen and her descendants go, but also the Pope.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad this is being moderated by the BBC.
No Australian news organisation would ever tolerate any adverse comments about the Papacy.
Letters I've written to local newspapers over the years prove that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As a UK Citizen living in Western Australia, I find it frankly absurd that the Queen of the UK is head of state here in Australia...
let's face it - we are two seperate countries, with very very little in common besides history. Brits are not made welcome here - we are treated with just as much unpleasantness and venom as any other immigrant.
It's ridiculous enough that the UK is not a republic - it verges on surreal that Australia is not.
Complain about this comment
Note to brisbaneexpom, religion is voluntary, we have a choice about being in a religion, something to do with a democracy. So if you dont like the pope then I guess you just choose not to be catholic. We dont however have a choice about our head of state....yet.
Also, do you seriously think Costello will save the libs, possibly the most disliked man in aus....give me the pope anyday.
Complain about this comment
#21
paulcrossley
Australia is not an anomaly. It is in the centre of a region which was once Britain's Asia Pacific Empire, with similar British derived institutions and English as a first or second language....Singapore, Malaysia, NZ, the Pacific Islands, India... That's where a lot of skilled migrants come from.
It's actually the UK which is geographically isolated from these countries with like minded institutions
Australia becoming a republic is to complete the democratic process begun at Federation
Complain about this comment
Erm, no29, Wollemi. Firstly, you're wrong, Australian culture has little in common with any of the nations you mention, with perhaps the exception of NZ. If what you say is true, surely Australia would be diverging from those other countries now the British are no longer there? I'd say the opposite is true.
Secondly you appear to have taken the statement as an insult, and lashed out at the UK in response. The most interesting things tend to happen where you get a mixing of differences - whether it be cultures, environments etc.
I have no objection to a republic of Australia (it doesen't matter if I do) and I can see why many would want it. Just don't pretend that you don't still have close links with Europe, UK in particular, and don't pretend that you don't get benefit from those links.
I've found a perception amongst some Australians that Britain still feels it has special influence in Australian affairs. You know it's not true, we know it's not true let's get on with life.
Complain about this comment
#30
No I didn't take it as an insult Paul. I gave a matter of fact reply as to why I thought your perception was wrong. Namely that Australia shares some commonality with countries in a region which was once part of the British Empire via institutions and the English language This goes deeper than the obvious cultural differences, thus Australia is not 'isolated' And - no lash out - that's not the case for the UK in its geographic region.
And - no lash out - it might be useful to outline your comment about Australia's benefit from links Trade? Defence? Special queue at Heathrow? Support for a seat at UN Security Council?....
Complain about this comment
#31
I can see some commonality as a result of being part of the British Empire - mainly English, albeit as a very much secondary language for a lot of countires - in this way you have closer links with your neigbours than say the people of the Falklands do.
My argument was that as your links with the UK lessen you're actually getting closer to your neighbours, in terms of trade etc. However to get to this point you had those strong links in the first place.
The links I'm talking about are the cultural ones. The strong ties between countires and families mean that Australia has been able to find a ready source of skilled labour (of course people only come if they want to come).
I'm not saying that Australia gets any 'special' treatment at political level from Europe - as an independent nation I'm sure you're not expecting that (or are you). You'd obviously have to provide the same in return as a result.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about the UK been isolated. Sure we whinge about Europe, but we are part of the EU whether we like it or not. The most widely spoken language across Europe is English. We regularly visit other European cities. We're physically connected to two European neighbours.....
Complain about this comment
scrapthejack #28
Interesting that you should object to having a foreign head of state, the Queen, who hasn't any political influence or power over the Govt and people of Australia but have no objection to another foreign head of state, the Pope, who does exercise real power and influence over the legislature and people of Australia through the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which are backed up by the claim that the Pope is infallible and cannot be wrong.
Complain about this comment
busby2
Two completely different situations(in my opinion) our head of state represents us to the world and should reflect who we are as a people.
Historically we have a low ratio of regular churchgoers so I would question how much influence the pope actually has over legislation.
If there are people out there who think the pope is infallible well what can I say about that, they can choose to believe whatever they want no matter what I think of them. I just cant see where the catholic church has a substantial influence over my life.
Unlike the pope maybe Im wrong, can someone clear it up for me?
Complain about this comment
Hi scrapthejack
The Queen is a figurehead and it is the elected Govt of both our countries, led by our respective Prime Ministers, that represents our nations to the world.
The Pope is not however a figurehead. He is both a head of state and head of the RC church.
The Roman Catholic population of Australia is very substantial and numbers 26% of the population according to the 2001 census. I think you may therefore be under estimating the influence of the Pope and the catholic church on the way catholics and catholic legislators vote on divorce, birth control, abortion etc. It happens here, where a smaller proportion of the population is catholic, so why not in Australia?
You wrote "Unlike the pope maybe Im wrong". The Pope may say he is infallible but that doctrine is a nonsense and a total absurdity to non catholics. Our protestant tradition, which we took to Australia, is that we think for ourselves and don't let others, like the Pope, do the thinking for us.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hi Busby2
In the period of 1996 to 2001, acording to ncls.org.au 1,524,700 australians attended church of any denomination. That is an overall drop of 7%. Of that number 26% were catholics, a drop of 13%. In a population of 20 million you can see that is a very small percentage of us.
No-fault divorce has been around since the 70s. The pill has been on the free list since the 60s. Condoms can be purchased at any supermarket, convenience store, petrol station or pub toilet. Gays have the same rights as anyone ( barring marriage ) Stem cell research progresses. Abortion is not legal but is avaliable, the debate continues on that.
As you probably know, the pope opposses all the above and yet here they are, legal.
So maybe you do overestimate the popes influence here. So maybe non protestants can think for themselves.
Thanks for clearing up who the queen is for me. For a country of so many catholics, far more than protestants, why does our head of state have to be head of the church of england. Seems to me the 759,900 church going protestants in this country have a dispropportionate influence.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS