Download Fragment

Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Page: 2932

Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (19:11): I want to be brief because there is not much time and because in some ways these valedictory speeches are like real-time obituaries for the living. I suspect that my colleagues might be happy if it was brought to an end earlier than otherwise.

I want to adopt almost everything that has been said about the three retiring senators, indicate my enormous pleasure at having served with them and the fact that I have learned from all of them, and give them my very best wishes for their futures. With regard to Senator Troeth, I want to record my pride that I was able to co-sponsor with her a couple of years ago the Independent Review of Terrorism Laws Bill—one of those rare pieces of private members' legislation which actually got up in the Senate. It did not pass into law but it has, I think, engendered other legislation to address the issue of reviewing the nature of terrorism laws. The spirit of Senator Troeth's leadership in the Senate on that was very much a legacy to all of us and one that I hope continues beyond her time here.

Members in this debate have commented on Senator Troeth's composure and her sense of being in control all the time, so it is it incumbent upon me to record one very conspicuous occasion in which that composure completely disappeared. It was on an occasion when the Chaser team was loose in the building. Their theme was that Mr Alan Cadman, the then member for Mitchell, should challenge Prime Minister Howard and become the new Prime Minister. Somehow they managed to trap Senator Troeth into an interview and they started with, 'What do you think of your colleague Alan Cadman,' and she dutifully told the camera that she very much admired him and that he was a great member of parliament and so on. They then came with the question, 'So you will be supporting his challenge to the Prime Minister in a few days time?' Senator Troeth dissolved into a great deal of panic on the screen. That was very evident. She lost her composure completely and was terrified by the thought that she might be aiding some kind of challenge to the Prime Minister. For a person who normally exhibits great self-control, it was something of a perverse joy to see her lose that temporarily. I am sure that she will take control of whatever it is that she goes on to do after her time in this place.

Senator Trood is one of those people that my late father would have described as 'a gentleman and a scholar', but in his case there would have been no sense of exaggeration or flattery. Although compari­sons are odious, the fact is that I think Senator Trood, of all the senators we are losing at this time, will be the one most missed, particularly with respect to the work of this chamber as a chamber of legislators-as a chamber of people who thoughtfully and carefully consider the legislation delivered to this place from the point of view of its benefit to the people of Australia. His contribution in so many ways to the work of the Senate, and particularly to the Senate committees, will be his legacy, and the loss of that contribution will be a great loss to the Senate.

Finally, there is my colleague Senator Barnett, who I think needs to be recorded as a man who absolutely saw his role in this place as being about making a difference. He came here with a very strong sense of what he wanted to achieve, and worked from the very first day-and will until the very last day-to make those things happen. Anybody who wants to be successful as a politician needs to look at the example that he sets of determination and conviction in politics.

I think he might be characterised quite readily as a conservative Liberal, but I think it is fair to describe him as a Liberal of principle; a person who believes very strongly in certain principles and pursues those with great vigour. I recall, for example, visiting the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, to argue for some consideration to be given to the plight of one David Hicks. Guy Barnett was, in a sense, not a conservative that day. He simply wanted to defend the rights of an Australian who appeared to be overlooked in his treatment in the US judicial system.

It also, though, does need to be recorded that Senator Barnett was my partner and collaborator in, perhaps, my greatest misadventure in the Senate.

Senator Barnett: I'm very sorry about that!

Senator HUMPHRIES: Yes, I am very sorry about it too, Senator Barnett. In about 2003, Senator Barnett and I were giving a press conference to do with Medicare. I think Senator McLucas will recall that Medicare select committee. We were giving a press conference and the division bells rang, and because Senator Barnett was overly loquacious and had to answer the questions being asked at great length, when we finally got out of the press conference and ran to the chamber-I was faster than Senator Barnett but had to wait for him to catch up with me because he was slower than I was-we missed the division.

It may not have been a matter of great moment in ordinary circumstances, but as it happened this particular division was on the bill for the sale of Telstra. Our omission threatened the government with a $32 billion loss, and although the then Finance Minister, Senator Minchin, was quite forgiving of our tardiness and Senator Barnett's loquacious­ness, the then whip, the late Jeannie Ferris, was much less forgiving. I have never had such a fierce roasting at the hands of another politician as I had in the company of Senator Barnett that day. One day I will lift the curse on you, Senator Barnett, for inflicting the great indignity on me of being roasted by Senator Jeannie Ferris. But I know you will go on to do much greater things in your new role, and I want to finish by saying it has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve with all three of these senators.