Australians have voted for change, and by a striking margin. This does not mean that they have rejected everything which John Howard achieved while he was their Prime Minister. Mr Howard presided over a robust economy and a more confident country, for which he deserves considerable credit, but he made the classic mistake of staying in office for longer than his electorate found acceptable. In replacing him with Kevin Rudd, Australia has opted not for a revolutionary shift in policy but for a softer and more rounded version of the status quo. There will be some in the Labor Party who do not share this assessment. If Mr Rudd listens to that faction, then he will doom himself and his fledgeling Goverment. He needs to be an antipodean version of Tony Blair, smoothing off the rough edges of a long-serving predecessor, not reversing political course entirely.

In domestic policy, therefore, he should largely stick with what he has inherited. When confronted with demands to allow the trade unions more authority, he should ignore that counsel and turn to his own wife, a highly effective entrepreneur, for advice about how best to strike the balance in labour relations. The poor, in particular, would not benefit from a new settlement in which it became harder to replace employees but less enticing to hire them in the first place. Where Mr Rudd can really add value here is by focusing his energy on education, an area which Mr Howard failed to make the priority it should have been. Mr Rudd could do much better.

In international affairs, Mr Rudd should take another look at his election promises. The pledge to make a “phased withdrawal” of Australian troops from Iraq was made when the situation there was not anything like as encouraging as to-day. To cut and run would be profoundly irrational and deeply divisive in terms of Australia’s relations with the United States, and would rightly be regarded with contempt by Iraqis. There are many in his party who would urge Mr Rudd to distance himself from the present Washington Administration. Yet this would be damaging not simply between now and January 2009 but with the next President, Republican or Democratic.

It would also be ironic as Mr Rudd, a former diplomat, should see foreign policy as his strong suit. He understands that Australia is an Asian nation and not a large part of Europe mysteriously mislocated in the Southern Hemisphere. Partly because of his generation, Mr Howard never fully appreciated this truth and did not convince his neighbours that he was comfortable with them. Mr Rudd, by contrast, will, as he has pledged, reach out to China, India and Indone-sia. There will be difficulties in his dealings with all these countries, but Australia should have a presence with them. In the spirit of looking to Asia, the country also has to look again at its constitutional arrangements and ask whether they make sense in the context of the coming century.

If Mr Rudd is smart, he will realise that many in the Labor Party maintain only a semidetached relationship with the real world. He has a substantial personal mandate and should exploit it to advance his own agenda and not become merely the frontman for an unattractive party machine. The Asian model is the one which should appeal to him. It is also the only one that will keep him in power.