His motives for his high profile pro-Republican stand were under vicious and severe scrutiny. Did he want a Republic only so he could be president?
Why had he turned against what would seem to be an anglophilic, high Tory upbringing: Sydney Grammar School, Oxford, the Bar and a merchant bank?
The attack was coming from Bronwyn Bishop, merciless cross-examiner of taxation commissioners, and Paul Lyneham, pitiless exposer of political hypocrisy.
Bishop said that whenever the monarchy was under fire, there was a group of attackers, who were really pretenders. Turnbull was one. He wanted power for himself. He coveted royal status.
The venue was the Canberra Theatre and the event was World Series Debating, so the protagonists could get away with facetious comments that would otherwise end them in court.
Indeed, some of the comments thrown were so facetious that an extra “e’ should appear in the word.
Lyneham said Turnbull put himself through law school by repossessing pace-makers.
So why does Turnbull put himself through this in the cause of republicanism? Why does he go through the media grill? He was before Lyneham again on Thursday night.
His republicanism was reinforced in the Spycatcher case. The British Government sought to suppress the book Spycatcher by former MI5 agent Peter Wright, saying it breached life-long secrecy requirements imposed by the Government on its employee spies. Suppressing the book in Britain was one thing, but presuming the suppression would hold good in Australia, where Wright had emigrated, was another.
Turnbull sensed a condescension by the Secretary of the British Cabinet, Sir Robert Armstrong, who was giving evidence on behalf of the British Government. He also sensed a lack of accountability and candour by the British Government that would not be tolerated in Australia.
In the upshot Turnbull cornered the British Government. He established through cross-examination that Armstrong was lying or the British Attorney-General, Michael Havers, was a twit. The NSW Supreme Court refused to ban the book.
Turnbull, then aged 32, had beaten the British Government.
With Spycatcher and his years at Oxford, Turnbull’s republicanism, then, comes after some first-hand knowledge of Britain and British institutions.
He did not like the way the British Press called him a wild colonial boy. It was not only condescending and wrong, but a cliche.
The point Turnbull hammers more than any in the Republican debate is one that befits a personal who has high personal ambition and who has gone far in his legal and banking career. Turnbull’s fundamental point is that the highest office in the land, Head of State, should be open to any Australian and should be chosen on merit.
He has frequently expressed his republicanism in that way. Other pro-republican arguments are peripheral or supporting arguments, not central.
Those other arguments are about Australia’s multi-cultural society made up of many people with no British ties, Australia’s place in Asia, the poor state of the Royal family and so on.
Turnbull keeps coming back to any Australian being able to aspire to the highest office in the land.
He then went on to co-found a merchant bank with the help of $25 million from Kerry Packer and $25 million from Larry Adler. This was before the 1987 crash, which unlike many others he survived.
He was in the right place at the right time in 1991 when the Australian Republican Movement got off the ground. The ARM set out to be broad-based. Any number of True Believers, academics and assorted prominent lefties could be found to take a role. But republican merchant bankers were thin on the ground (perhaps they were all in penthouses).
Turnbull was ideal. Normally, merchant bankers were conservative or apolitical, certainly not people wanting to get involved in publicity controversy, especially political controversy. They like to make their money quietly, without a fuss.
Turnbull, on the other hand, seemed to enjoy a high profile, liked public speaking and was very good at it. He was also more on the conservative side politically, than the Labor side. He was once a member of the Liberal Party. He became head of the ARM.
Turnbull once attacked Paul Keating for suggesting that republicanism was the sole preserve of the Labor Party or the politically left.
Last year he said that Keating was setting back the republican cause by accusing Liberals as bootlickers and lickspitters to the British.
“”In a sense, our battle is to win the hearts and the minds of the Liberal and National Parties, because until we have their support a referendum is going to be a doubtful proposition,” he said.
Now he heads the Prime Minister’s advisory body on how to set up a minimalist Republic. But he has not won the hearts and minds of the Liberal and National parties because they have refused to take part in it.
Earlier this week he summed up the practical difficulty. If there is a referendum for a Republic, people immediately demand to know: What sort of Republic. If, however, a committee starts to answer that question, the republicans get accused of pre-empting the debate.
Turnbull is not a part of the Labor Party’s True Believer tribe; he was chosen because he is a can-do person.
However, his record as a banker has not always been smooth. He did not achieve a seat on the Fairfax board, which was one of his aims when he joined the Tourang bid as representative of Fairfax junk bond holders.
And he was accused of a conflict of interest, and agreed there was a technical conflict, when advising on a restructure of the Ten network after so shortly being involved with its competitor, Nine. He defended that by showing that he had made full disclosure to all parties.
Turnbull has been a formidable debater on the Republican issue: both in the quick grab on television and radio and in the more formal forums against opponents like Sir David Smith and Lloyd Waddy, QC.
He has been praised for never being scared of the people he’s up against, but condemned for being an exploiter of publicity and being on the make.
An article in the Good Weekend quoted various friends and acquaintances calling him everything from kind, warm, generous, intelligent, a prick, a shit, easy to loathe, abrasive, will do anything to get what he wants, charming etc etc.
Clearly, he does not attract a consensus of opinion about himself _ exactly the same as Keating. Indeed, the words used to describe Turnbull would just as easily be found among descriptions of Keating.
Turnbull will bring some sharpness to the debate. He will tackle opponents, severely if necessary, no matter what position they hold. He will aggravate people, too. He goes in to win. He is not a consensus person.
Maybe Turnbull’s appointment shows that Keating is not especially interested in waiting for consensus on the issue, because it will be too long coming. Maybe the appointment shows that Keating wants someone who moves quickly to an objective and achieves it.
Consensus is a slow process. If you are going to achieve something quickly a certain amount of abasion is inevitable: some shells will have to be broken if we are to have a republican omelette whipped up with the speed Keating seems determined upon. Turnbull is good at breaking eggs and has made an omelette or two.
The similarity between Keating and Turnbull is interesting. Both believe in the cause (though for perhaps slightly different reasons); both believe in taking risks to achieve their ends; neither apologises for their position; and neither is frightened of taking on opponents either to forcibly persuade them, or if that fails to beat them.