KEY POINTS:
Everyone said it would be a landslide - the polls, the political commentators and the interested bystanders. And so it was.
John Howard's Liberal Party loss to Labor's Kevin Rudd is significant for a number of reasons.
It is only the second time that an Australian prime minister has lost his seat in an election (Conservative leader Stanley Bruce suffered a similar fate in 1929).
The 6 per cent swing Labor received in this election was larger than Howard's swing when he demolished Labor in the 1996 election.
And this win for Kevin Rudd is bigger than Bob Hawke's win for Labor in 1983.
Election losses like this one are a little like funerals. No one really wants to speak ill of the dead. The eulogies for Howard have been gracious and much has been made of his legacy.
The media cite his role in building economic prosperity, banning gun ownership after the tragic Port Arthur massacre despite party resistance, getting tough on terrorism and asylum seekers and dragging Australian Labor from the left to the centre.
But there is a darker side to the Howard legacy that must be remembered.
Over 11 years the Howard government effectively silenced opposition and critical dissent in ways that began to undermine the liberal value of tolerance of difference.
The silencing began with Howard's claim to represent the "mainstream" - no longer would minority voices be given "special" representation in the making of policy. Instead of condemning the populist (racist) policies espoused by the One Nation Party, Howard undertook his own version of me-tooism.
Specialised services for indigenous Australians were abolished, grants to advocacy groups were cut, and so-called elites (read academics, left-leaning think tanks and activists - or in Fran O'Sullivan's words, the "chattering classes") were demonised and their policy perspectives dismissed.
Multiculturalism, reconciliation and cosmopolitanism were portrayed as concepts that would divide Australia.
The bureaucracy's mandate to deliver frank and fearless advice was also undermined.
As Prime Minister, Howard sacked a substantial number of department heads, and others were forced to retract public comments.
This form of silencing was compounded by the increase in, and changing roles of, partisan ministerial staff. Originally introduced to offer governments alternative and critical advice, under Howard these advisers were encouraged to "drive, sieve and skew" bureaucratic advice, most notably in the "children overboard" affair.
Finally, there has been a silencing within ranks of the Liberal Party. Many moderate Liberals languishing on the backbenches became increasingly concerned at their government's policy direction.
Several spoke out, around such issues as sex discrimination and mandatory detention, but were demoted or isolated as a result. So the outcome of this election not only provides Australian Labor with the opportunity to renew policy debate in Australia. It also gives Liberal Party moderates the chance to redefine and rediscover Liberal politics. Perhaps this will become Howard's legacy.
* Dr Jennifer Curtin is a senior lecturer (public policy) in the department of political studies, University of Auckland. j.curtin@auckland.ac.nz