After 11 years in power, Howard faced the electorate boasting of a vibrant economy, low unemployment and a list of “reforms” that had “transformed” Australia. He was convinced to the last that he could win. Instead he lost not only his majority government, but also his own seat, only the second prime minister ever to have suffered such a setback. Rarely has a nation turned on its leader in such a humiliating manner.

The media, intimidated by Howard and his ministers for so long, seemed at a loss in the immediate aftermath of the election, to offer the Australian public any feasible explanation. But not everyone. Phillip Adams, a Melbourne columnist and long-time critic of Howard, could not contain his joy. Under the heading, “Spare me the sentimental tosh about John Howard: his departure is a joyous occasion”, Adams set out why Howard deserved to be turfed out of power. He was a long-time opponent of sanctions against apartheid in South Africa. He was the one member of the Malcolm Fraser government who opposed allowing Vietnamese war refugees into Australia.

In 1988, he warned Australia of the dangers of Asian immigration (the outraged response was so great that he lost his job as an Opposition leader a year later). As the Prime Minister, he declared war on multi-culturalism and political correctness, thus encouraging racist graffiti, schoolyard attacks and bigoted radio broadcasting by the so-called “shock jocks” and making Australian racism world news. When a few thousand refugees fled the Taleban and Saddam Hussein in 2001, Howard branded them “queue jumpers and illegals” and his cohorts hinted that they were terrorists. When, the Tampa, a ship laden with refugees sailed into view, Howard masterminded the detention of the asylum seekers in desert concentration camps and Ausralia’s treatment of them there, including women and children, became an international disgrace. But it won Howard another term.

After 9/11, he hurried to sign Australia up for the misconceived war on terror and it became complicit in the disaster that is Iraq. Yet to this day, Howard insists that the Iraq fiasco is a great success and is proud to be called George W Bush’s “deputy sheriff”. On the home front, he rejected reconciliation with the Aboriginal indigenous population, deepening the black/white divide. He did his best to destroy the trade unions and his workplace legislation turned back the clock on many years of progressive social developments.

Adams concludes: “Is Howard a bigot? His support of apartheid in South Africa, his long-term indifference to the issues of Aboriginal Australia, his exploitation of the refugee issue and his on-the-record hostility to Asian immigration would suggest so. Or is he a main-chancer, a cunning manipulator of other people’s fears and racism? If the latter, isn’t that morally worse? That’s why I’m not shedding tears at Howard’s departure.” Me neither.

But what of the new leader, Kevin Rudd? All the signs are good. A former diplomat, he speaks fluent Mandarin and has said he will do everything possible to cement relations with China. He is worried about climate change (which Howard was not) and will move quickly to sign the Kyoto Protocol. He has promised the withdrawal of the small contingent of Australian troops from Iraq, a promise that has not pleased George W Bush. He has an almost-Asian obsession with education and says his aim is a laptop computer for every high school student. He is more interested in Asia than he is in Europe and has already accepted an invitation from Indonesia to visit the country soon. He may not scrap the whole Howard workplace legislation but Australians expect him to repeal its more anti-union clauses. He is a hard worker and the day after his election, a Sunday, he was at his desk at 8 am before going to church. In all, a promising beginning.

It seems to me that Australia had lost its way under Howard and that all the Australian qualities that had made it an admirable place -egalitarianism, the spirit of the “fair go” for everyone, compassion for those less well-off, and a desire for co-operation rather than conflict — had slipped off the front burner. I feel that under Rudd they are now back again, and the country is ready for a new start.

Phillip Knightley is a veteran British journalist and commentator