He was considered one of the coolest characters on the planet. Yet now it appears that James Bond is about as with it as legwarmers or Teasmades. A man who was the most glamorous of secret agents has gone from 007 to 000. For as we report today, Hugh Jackman, star of such unforgettable epics as, er, X-Men (not a general election special it seems), who enjoyed artistic acclaim for his role in, um, Van Helsing (which turns out to be a movie, not a Dutch dessert), has declined a lucrative opportunity to play Bond, and there are apparently few other takers.

The precise reason for this snub is in dispute. Jackman’s friends insist that he was simply too busy, while others imply that the part has lost its appeal in the United States or even that it has become a role for an “up-and-coming” actor and not an established personality. Yet as Sean Connery can testify, as he was hardly John Wayne when he made Bond his own in the 1960s, this role is a beginning, not an end. There are also suggestions, however, that Jackman feared that if he donned the white tuxedo and black bow-tie, he would be “stereotyped”.

Being Australian, Jackman may be forgiven more worries about stereo-typing than most. The thought of having to be Bond while wearing a wide-brimmed hat, sinking several tinnies, shaken, not stirred, must be disturbing. He can hardly be blamed for declining to expose himself to cruel ridicule. But perhaps this long-cherished caricature of Australians is badly dated and it requires a reassessment. If their cricketers, notably their main batsmen, are any guide, they are dour, flawed and rather unsuccessful. They are certainly not Bond material.