This gives him a freedom to set new directions and make good policy, unconstrained by short-term political needs. That is the capacity to change the economy, the polity and the character of the nation that Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott could only dream about.

Let us hope he does not squander the opportunity. That is not necessarily the same as hoping he succeeds in all of his policy calls, because many will be contestable. But it is an infinitely better politic when the debate is about facts, substance and possibilities than about slogans, personalities, spin and endless efforts to divide the nation and make its citizens paranoid.

Even better if the opposition saw the merits of the thing from its own point of view, and concentrated on winning back the public's trust as a party of ideas, ideals and action in the public interest.

It seems that Labor has pretty much abandoned hope of winning the next election, whether under Bill Shorten or any possible successor. Turnbull may not yet have changed a great deal of the Abbott government's policies in action, but he has very definitely changed the tone of government, created the impression of new and competent people in charge, and seems to have decisively achieved the public's confidence.

The more so perhaps because many in the public had become sick of long and embarrassing periods of shrill and mindless division, inept administration without coherent theme, and had been waiting for someone calm, confident and competent who just got on with it. The appeal of Turnbull, it seems, is something more than the promises by Abbott that he would not be like Gillard (though he was) or of Gillard that she would not be like Rudd.

If Labor's hopes have evaporated, they may well reason that they would be better off going down with Shorten. Why squander another potential leader, assuming that such a person exists? It seems unlikely that a mere different personality could make a great difference. Turnbull himself is not a negative issue, and there are no significant sections of the electorate now crying out for anyone, anyone, to lead the country, so long as it is not him. Even Turnbull's mortal enemies on his right, and many rusted-on Labor voters, seem comfortable enough with his stewardship.

In such circumstances Labor should be focusing on the country's long-term needs, and how it is prepared for power when, and if, the public is ready for it. It should be amending its short-term political tactics to position itself as a party of principle, an engine room of good policy ideas, particularly in health, education and social welfare, and as a germ of inspiration for social justice at home and abroad.

Just as importantly, it should be making a serious start in rebuilding a movement now in tatters because of rule by party bureaucrats and powerbrokers, suits and public relations people. There have been no changes or reforms to the party worthy of the name over the past few years. Neither the party, nor its parliamentary leaders any longer have the excuse that serious reform should be delayed for fear that it might cause disunity and tumult at a time when the party had to be ultra-disciplined and united for an impending election.

If indeed Labor has any sense, it would be anticipating the outcome of the royal commission into trade unions, and implementing radical change now. And that not because the Heydon findings and recommendations will have extra cogency by virtue of the inquiries, but because the facts have long been clear, the conditions a disgrace, and a number of people (including Shorten himself) have been shown to be seriously wanting as leaders of the labour movement.

Once NSW Labor might have mitigated some catastrophes had they themselves dealt with characters such as Eddie Obeid and Ian MacDonald, or the actions of an array of branch secretaries. Instead it left it to an ICAC and the public, forfeiting public confidence in the party's will to be honest. Sooner or later, the party will be reformed, from outside if necessary. The critical point is not about alleged abuse of union power, but about the nexus between party power and union numbers. All the more reason, perhaps, for Shorten, a particular beneficiary of the problem, to be on the bridge as the ship is torpedoed by the public. But others might think it better if it were party stewards, rather than policemen, prosecuting the way the movement's vehicles have been driven over recent years.

Turnbull might well think that he can win on this issue either way. If Labor does nothing, as can be expected while Shorten is around, it is open to swingeing and merciless attack, before a public with ample reason to mistrust Labor. An unreformed Labor is inhibited in its capacity to fight back, other than with claims that it is unfair and unsporting to pick on Labor corruption and mismanagement. But even if Labor does do something, in the process ultimately becoming a more modern, efficient and effective party, Turnbull has time, because such change cannot occur overnight, or, most probably, without some very public bloodletting.

That Turnbull does not have urgent political problems accentuates the opportunity to use the end of the political year, as well as the possibilities given by the departure of an array of departmental secretaries, to get to work on serious policy development, and in creation of the circumstances which make that possible.

As Laura Tingle has amply demonstrated in her Quarterly Essay, Political amnesia, the public service is in poor shape, particularly in relation to its capacity to develop good policy. Public service leaders have let their agencies lose corporate memory and experience; policy has been de-emphasised compared with managerial skills, and government has been using consultants or ministerial officers to initiate, develop and review policy. And, all too often, over the past decade, key aspects of the process have been dominated by ideology rather than facts, and spin rather than substance.

The problem goes right to the top. Only a handful of secretaries could be said to be specialists in policy, let alone in the policy administered within their own departments. They might run a smooth department, but they are not themselves seasoned advisers on policy. They have fared badly in making the agencies academies of good ideas, and in competing with other sources of advice, whether in ministerial offices, the lobbies or the consultancies.

The crisis they have helped create is accentuated by the fact that a good many public servants have never experienced good, steady and regular government; instead lurching, along with the public, with constant changes of mood, focus and direction (and, as often as not minister) in the middle of government panic or confusion, or attempts to create its own realities. It's all been aggravated, of course, by relentless cost-cutting, particularly by blunt instruments such as efficiency dividends, and denigration of the very idea or ideal of public service. For that Labor has been as much responsible as the Coalition.

Turnbull has long been a thoughtful observer of public administration. If he favours market solutions and competition, he understands the importance of independent advice. He also knows history, and the importance of symbolism. He can hardly be unconscious of the effect of the idea that the public service has become tame, cowed, and politicised.

Abbott's dismissal of Martin Parkinson as treasury secretary, presumably because Parkinson had been involved in climate change policy, was a very bad look for his government's vision of public service, just as was a continuing innuendo that all public service, except possibly by tamed soldiers and cops, was a drag on the economy. Abbott and his office punished public servants they identified as being aligned to the policies of the previous government, and repeatedly showed, in appointment policies, that patronage and privilege was as much a matter of punishment as of rewarding its people.

In this sense the restoration of Parkinson, to an even more powerful position as secretary of the prime minister's office and head of the public service, sends a powerful message about undoing some of the efforts to make public administration a mere megaphone of government. Effective government means thinking government, not merely one dedicated to slavish and unthinking obedience to the whim of the moment.

Turnbull is associated with an array of ideas or directions, not least in relation to a republic, to action on climate change, and to policies promoting a culture of innovation, and a general tolerance on social issues. He is, to a degree, constrained by promises he made to his own side while he was waiting for Abbott to trip himself, but he also has flexibility and time; has ample opportunity to frame policies which go beyond that to sketching out the form of an Australia in, say, 2025. Here are a few fields worth tilling:

Recognise it and participate positively in international forums, including the one in the week ahead in Paris. If not having Australia impossibly ahead of the field in climate change action, have the nation recognised as a leader of research and discussion about local, regional and global responses to climate change, including work on impacts on agriculture, economics and technology. This includes helping friends and neighbours, particularly in the Pacific.

The dislocations of war and terrorism, environmental change and persecution seem unlikely to abate. Australia should return to international forums with a constructive and positive approach, not least to addressing some of the sources of the problem, rather than with a recalcitrant pretence that we can repel all boarders, other than those who suit us, and that this is of greater importance to us than neighbourliness or good international citizenship. More generally, Australia needs a more positive and independent role in fostering peace and social and economic development, even as we honour and develop our long term relationships. We have particular responsibilities to Pacific nations.

Indigenous policy is still a complete mess, the more so by yet again being distracted from effective consultation, service and program delivery by pipe dreams about constitutional recognition, and failing close-the-gap programs, and ineffective and largely unaccountable intergovernmental arrangements. Neither leadership, including by Abbott, nor bureaucratic leadership from inside PM&C has improved anything. A starting point for Turnbull might be doing something no government has done for more than 20 years – actually asking Aboriginal people, as opposed to cronies and self-appointed leaders, what they want.

Integrating research, industry and innovation goals and allying them to particular economic, infrastructure and regional goals to make sure that Australia is actually a clever country pursuing a prosperous future. But, just to make sure, having pure research, and research into the humanities and social sciences just as well supported and integrated into the community. The purpose is to have our options open, rather than closed, our leaders, investors, scholars and innovators poised to take a wide choice of paths to the future.

It's no mere matter of a republic, nor of an Australian as head of state. Nor is it about national flags, or historic links to other countries. Australian federation, democracy and structure of government is in generally sound shape (in spite of the damage done by some politicians). But as recent federation and other discussion papers have agreed, the efficiency and effectiveness of the economy is inhibited by arrangements now 120 years old, and some refurbishment is desirable, not least to recognise changing forms of nationhood. This is a field in which Turnbull could seize the initiative and the ultimate credit; Labor has made no contribution to any constitutional reform debate since Paul Keating in 1995.