For many who had long endured the hollow hectoring of Tony Abbott and his fellow autocrats, with their pointing fingers and sneering words, it was as though civilised discourse was coming out of hiding at last to rescue Canberra from its night of the short slogans.

"Seeking to persuade," he said; words like water for the thirsty.

As recently as July I wrote in The Canberra Times: "Something has fled from the chaotic cacophony that politics has become – and we need to hurry in search of it … The art of persuasion."

And now, one of those convoluted power struggles that have destabilised Australian politics and bemused a watching world has coughed up a prime minister with an avuncular manner and a great respect for the power of words.

Of course, we have a long way to go to escape the policy desert. Turnbull, much as he tries to be humble, is an arrogant man. For all his urbane polish, he can be a deadly fighter if he does not get his way.

And worse, behind his back (but pretty much in plain sight) a muttering group of conservatives are up to Monkey Pod mischief organised by the po-faced Immigration Minister Peter Dutton.

Does Turnbull really have it in him to outline a vision for Australia and win the hearts of the Coalition, let alone the people?

Well, the jury is still out, but his speech on national security in Parliament on November 24, and his speech in Paris yesterday on the first day of the climate conference, have given some indication both of his strengths as an orator and the extent to which he is hamstrung by the conservatives.

His national security speech following the murderous rampage in Paris of the Islamic State terror group passed the test of reason and eloquence.

That rampage, in its calculated brutality, was enough to spur rage in the calmest breast. It has the power to bring out the worst in countries like Australia – a lightning rod for all the insular prejudices and fears harboured by so many people.

So many politicians would have used the speech to show just how tough they were, to call for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Turnbull chose a very different path: "We should grieve and we should be angry, but we must not let grief or anger cloud our judgment. Our response must be as clear-eyed and strategic as it is determined.

"This is not a time for gestures or machismo. Calm, clinical, professional, effective – that's how we defeat this menace."

While Abbott and some supporters had urged a strong military response, Turnbull emphasised the real answer lay in the strength of multicultural societies.

"We will defeat these terrorists," he said. "And the strongest weapons we bring to this battle are ourselves, our values, our way of life."

Part of what Islamic State is trying to do with their psychopathic atrocities is to make their opponents react with the sort of brutality that exposes how morally bereft are the infidels they are battling.

It is a twisted and illogical strategy that will ultimately fail, but meanwhile it is vital that we demonstrate our moral superiority by reacting in a measured and civilised way. As Turnbull's words implied, by demonstrating that we stand for the unity of all, without regard to race or religion, we can win not only the moral high ground but a true victory against this diabolical group.

His were well-crafted words, rhetoric in the service of reason. They have nuance and rhythm.

For the new prime minister to stand up in this fraught time, and express himself with grace and calm, in language with real emotive power, is very good news for Australia.

His performance in Paris was less impressive. It contrasted markedly with the boyish enthusiasm and positive attitude of the new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who spoke at about the same time. "Canada is back, my good friends. We're here to help."

Trudeau successfully conveyed the impression that Canada had left behind its climate-denying past and was prepared to make big commitments.

Turnbull's speech was much more an exercise in egg-dancing – an attempt to show just how committed Australia was to fighting climate change, without the real substance and inspirational words to back it up. It was somewhat reminiscent of the ducking and diving, the complex sophistries, he indulged in under Abbott.

Let's hope that, over time, Turnbull will be able to break loose to let his words and ideas really fly.

Tony Spencer-Smith is a corporate and government writer and writing trainer. He is also an award-winning novelist and former editor-in-chief of Reader's Digest magazine.