Kevin Rudd is a former prime minister who was the driving force behind Australia's successful bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
He spent almost a decade in the diplomatic corps, studied in China, is fluent in Mandarin and served as foreign minister of Australia.
He has now asked the federal government to nominate him for the soon to be vacant post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. 
Rudd is not causing a stir about the process. On Facebook he was more than diplomatic, writing: "I respect the fact that the government has many other priorities at this time, having just been returned to office. This is a matter for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and their colleagues at a time of their choosing." Turnbull responded this week: "This is a matter that we will consider in the cabinet." But what concerns me is the commentary of some of his cabinet ministers.
Take Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, who said of Rudd earlier this year: "Kevin was never happy just running Australia - he believed he was always destined to run the world. Kevin's ego makes Donald Trump's look like a rounding error." I for one cannot quite understand the personal venom that still exists across the chamber for Kevin Rudd.
After his election in 2007 Rudd - unlike many other leaders - never had a night of the long knives. Former Liberal minister Amanda Vanstone was left in her consular posting to Italy, he appointed former Liberal leader Brendan Nelson ambassador to the EU and made former Nationals leader Tim Fischer ambassador to the Vatican.
Nelson said this week Rudd is "made for the job" of UN Secretary-General: "We're Australians first, we're Australians last, before the Labor or Liberal branding. I think we have a responsibility to support him. He has immense -intellect and a deep understanding of international -affairs and diplomacy." Yet, depending on what you read, the government will -endorse Rudd but not commit to a campaign of diplomatic support. Or it will nominate him but stress, as Julie Bishop told her party room, "a nomination is not an endorsement". Confused?
I keep reading that Helen Clark, the supposed favourite, has done a great job by securing the support of the conservative PM of her own country, John Key.
But what is so hard about the decision? Surely we too should be backing our own, -especially if they are more than qualified. When he spoke to his party room this week Turnbull declared: "There has been a lot written about all of us but this election was not about us. It's about 24 million Australians - their future." Surely Australia's future is better served if the Secretary-General of the United Nations is one of us. To give the Liberals credit, their views on the UN have changed since Rudd launched Australia's bid for a temporary seat on the Security Council in 2008. The move was widely lambasted by the opposition as a waste of money and gleefully predicted to fail.
Instead the two-year stint turned out to be so successful that one of Turnbull's first acts was to announce Australia would have another tilt. Surely politics must be put aside for the national interest and Malcolm Turnbull can do that. After all, he knows what it looks like. More than 20 years ago Labor PM Paul Keating -established a republic advisory committee to provide options for a republic of Australia.
In a speech to the House of Representatives in 1995, Keating said: "I take this opportunity to thank them. They consulted widely throughout Australia, carried out their work with dedication and energy and delivered to the government and to posterity a most valuable document â€¦" And the man Keating -appointed as chairman?
Mr Malcolm Turnbull.
Tim Gleason was a senior adviser to Kevin Rudd