David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The days of being a teenage idol! I thought I had my life all worked out, and I thought my mid-40s would probably be a good time to go into television. Then we had the advent of the Whitlam government and I was a bit upset about some of the things that were happening. I joined the Liberal Party and somehow found myself as a candidate in 1974. And that was the end of it, because I had the bug, I had the calling, and I came to this place in 1975.

A media background is one of the best bits of training you could possibly have for this place. I always acknowledge what I learned at that time and the things that I could apply to my work in here, in areas such as committees. Journalists should have inquiring minds and a process of getting information out. I am not sure of the attitude to some of the committee work that I have done, but I hope that that process has been in there to a great extent, because it was good training.

I have probably made only one really major mistake in my committee work over the years, when I was on the committee that examined broadcasting procedure. We went through the process in the early 1980s, when we knew we were coming to this House, as to whether or not the proceedings of this House should be telecast. We saw tapes from around the world. The Canadian parliament had seen a vast improvement in the behaviour of its members since it started telecasting. We saw tapes from the United States and that seemed to work very well. Britain had just started, I think, and that was a little bit of a mess. The decision was made, unanimously, I think, to proceed with the telecasting of parliament. When I say it was a mistake, I think people should have access to everything that happens in this place, but the reality is that the quality of the coverage and the journalism that come out of this place have suffered severely. There are two inputs into the coverage of this place, apart from the handout press releases—and you do get lazy journalists who will just run a release as it is written. There is the side door in the morning, where everybody gets bailed up and that gives them their news until midday; then you have question time and then you never see another journalist in the gallery again. That is, I think, one of the great pities of it. Some of the great debates and some of the great discussions that happen in this place do not receive the coverage these days that they probably deserve. And AAP sit up there, as they have for years and years, and faithfully report every word.

I do think it is a pity that we do not have some of the great reporting that we had 30 years ago when I first came into this place. I am not sure what you do about it, because the whole nature of the coverage of political events in Australia is changing so fast. You wonder just how many people under 30 bother about reading newspapers these days. A lot of them do not even get their news from television sources. Whereas if you go back 20 years about 92 per cent of the population got their primary news coverage from the six o’clock news and they did read newspapers. That is gone, and I think that is one of the tragedies of this place.

There are a couple of other things that we have seen over the years. I know I have mentioned this publicly before: I loved the old house. It had the most magnificent debating chamber, and our lives in some respects were better in the old house. While we did not have space to move and we seemed to be thrown in on top of each other, there was much more interaction between the members. If I can be critical at this late stage, could I say that the design mistake in this place was putting in a separate ministerial wing. If you want to go and see a minister you have got to pack a cut lunch and a thermos of Milo, and probably make an appointment to go around there to see them. Whereas in the old house there was likely to be a ministerial office next door to your office. If you could not get to see the minister in those days, you would probably run into him in the gents toilets anyway, and you could bail him up on great issues of the day. I also think that the camaraderie that existed between both sides of the House, because we were mixed up and so close, was much closer in those days.

As I look back over the years, I note some of my good mates in this place came from both sides of the House—and they still do. Some very close friendships developed in that old house because we were thrust in together. But I would never knock the facilities in this place. The equipment that we have to work with now is absolutely marvellous and we should make the most of that, but it is a different parliament from the one that was there before. One of the great privileges of serving in this place is the fact that we have access to what must be one of the best parliamentary libraries in the world. I pay great tribute to the people who provide that service for us. They certainly do a magnificent job and have helped me so much over the years.

It is a funny place. My mind goes back to matters of great moment and great tensions in this House. I mentioned in my comments on the passing of Sir Jim Killen that the first speech I heard in this place was on Tuesday, 17 February 1976, just after the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Then opposition leader Gough Whitlam got up and gave an amazing speech and, about halfway through, Prime Minister Fraser beckoned to Jim Killen to come over. It was obvious that while Mr Fraser was listed as being the next speaker, he would ask Killen to do that speech. Without a note, Killen got up and did a devastating rebuttal of the arguments of Mr Whitlam. At the end of that time, Mr Whitlam walked out one side door with smoke coming out his ears; Killen walked out the other side with smoke coming out his ears. Legend has it that Mr Killen went around to the bar, ordered a bottle of champagne, got two glasses, scribbled a note and asked the attendant to take it around to Gough’s office—‘Gough, can we still be mates?’—and they sat there and had a very pleasant evening together.

There were great dramas like that. Things that people probably do not realise we have to wrestle with are some of the great moral issues. It is not easy to deal with things like abortion and everybody takes full responsibility for themselves on those issues. One of the most difficult issues that I ever had to face was the first Iraq war during the period of the Hawke government. It was the first time that I had to make a decision agreeing to commit Australians to war. While from memory I think it was a unanimous vote, it was not easy and one got that sense of responsibility.

I have been privileged to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for more than 20 years. I never cease to be amazed at the quality of the work that is done by the Australian defence forces. With a number of other members in this place, I have seen them operate in places like Bougainville, which had a civil war for 10 years. Something like 16,000 people were massacred in that civil war. We went up there as a peacekeeping operation. Our young men and women were there without an armament—they were unarmed. I remember the members of the committee speaking at the end of the tour. We spoke to the women, who really ran the place, and they commented to us that they were very appreciative of all that Australia had done. They were very appreciative because we had included women within our forces and they found it much easier to speak and negotiate with women. We spoke to the men and they were also very appreciative, and one reason they were appreciative was that we had been there and had not raped their women. The work that was done was quite tremendous. The other place we visited was East Timor. A joint foreign affairs and defence delegation went there in the December after the problems and after we had settled them down. We saw the respect the people held for the Australian troops and heard the thanks from the locals for settling a dreadful situation. It was similar in the Solomon Islands.

One of the great privileges I had was four or five years ago when members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade flew to Kuwait. My good mate Steve Gibbons, the member for Bendigo, was with us. We were on HMAS Melbourne watching them patrol the Gulf. We flew up to Kyrgyzstan and saw the refuelling work that was being done by the RAAF and we heard from the French and others that they really preferred to be refuelled by the RAAF, rather than by some of the others, because our people were so professional. We then went to Bagram Air Base—what a godforsaken place it was. It was 46 degrees and blowing a gale. It was as hot as Hades and there was dust everywhere. The place was surrounded by landmines and there in the middle of it were the Australian troops—the SAS. I am not sure if I am supposed to speak about this, but those fellows had earned themselves a most tremendous reputation. They were wonderful folk. They very proudly took us around to their accommodation, which was in an old hangar. The beds were all lined up—I do not know how many there were—and in the middle of them was a bed with a clothes line above it. Hanging from the clothes line was a black bra and black G-string. I thought that sense of humour could only happen with the Australians. It was one of the things that will always stick in my mind: here in the middle of this godforsaken place was this washing hanging on the line. But it says a lot, and the contribution of our troops has been fantastic.

When Clyde Cameron retired from this House, Mr Speaker Snedden granted him unlimited time. He spoke for about 48 minutes in one of the best speeches I have ever heard. I am not going to ask for an extension. I just say in conclusion that the time I have spent working on committees here has been most satisfying. I have had a marvellous career. I am going to miss the place. There are aspects of the work that I am not going to miss, but some aspects of the work here are going to be hard to replace with other things. I thank everyone for the support that they have given me. I also commend the Clerk and thank him and his team for the support they have given us over the years. I congratulate them for the work they do in developing other parliaments. That is terribly important. You can see what is happening around the Pacific. It is marvellous work that they are doing. There are too many people to thank—the car drivers and the caterers. We are looked after so well in this place and it has been a great privilege for me to be able to serve in this parliament for more than 30 years.

See this speech in context