Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased tonight to participate in this debate to bid farewell to some of our Senate colleagues—colleagues from all sides of the political spectrum. It has sometimes been said that these valedictory speeches do not ring true, that we spend years in this chamber hurling abuse at each other but, when one of our number leaves, we stand up and say the kindest words we can think of. I do not think that is correct. We in this place understand that there is a time for politics and there is also a time for friendship and for respect. I think the important thing that we always remember on these occasions is that over the years we do come to respect our colleagues no matter whether they are on the opposition side, on the government side or on the crossbenches. We also come to make very good friends with many. I think that is important because when you go out into the wider community and you read the media reports—and we are seeing evidence of it at the moment—politicians are fair game. It is important for us to at least recognise the strength of friendship and respect where there are differences over ideology and politics.

To all the departing senators, whether they are departing because they are retiring, whether it is because they were defeated in the recent election or whether it is because they lost preselection, I wish you all the very best in the future. I would like to refer to a number of the senators whom I have had more to do with than others, but I mean no disrespect to those I do not specifically mention.

First, let me refer to those on the government side. Senator John Watson has been here for so many years—I think it is well in excess of 20, but I am sure that has been mentioned before—he has become an institution in this place. As has been said, he is an expert on superannuation matters. His contribution during all those years when he chaired the superannuation select committee was invaluable. The development of universal superannuation for all Australians was a great initiative of the Hawke and Keating governments, but it needed to be constantly promoted and progressed over the ensuing years.

I had a lot to do with Senator Watson when I was chair and then deputy chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. I had many interesting discussions with John. One I recall was when we undertook an inquiry into the roadworks on Gallipoli Peninsula. There was concern about the road construction work that was taking place there, leading up to the Anzac Day celebrations a couple of years ago. The hearing had only been going for about half an hour when Senator Watson interjected to say, ‘Look, I think we are going to have to go to Gallipoli to inspect this road.’ We all agreed with that. Unfortunately, the purse strings of the parliament do not always extend to allowing Senate committees or other parliamentary committees to travel overseas. But John was right on the ball. John, you have given great service over many years. Best wishes for the future to you and your family.

I have one thing in common with Senator Sandy Macdonald—along with Senator Webber—in that we are members of ‘the No. 3 on the Senate ticket’ club. It is a terrible place to be in an election campaign because you sit there knowing your future is really in the hands of the vagaries of the political system. You hope that your colleagues in the party have managed to do the right preference negotiations to get you over the line. It helped me in 1998, and again in 2004. I actually recall in the 2004 election that I managed to get preferences from both the Fred Nile group and the Hemp Party at the same time.

Sandy was not so fortunate in 1998—he lost his position to the Democrats, but it was as a result of the One Nation phenomenon at that time. Fortunately, the One Nation candidate—David Oldfield—did not get elected in New South Wales. He almost got elected, but fortunately did not. It was good to see Sandy come back and become parliamentary secretary, and also make a great contribution in both the Senate and joint foreign affairs and trade and defence committees. Best wishes, Sandy.

Senator Rod Kemp made some very gracious remarks about me last night in his speech, referring to the fact that we both spent a couple of months on a very tough assignment attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York. We were there from September through to November. I came back early, on election day; Rod had to come back early for the Liberal Party leadership ballot. It might be argued that the fact we were both out of the country at the same time contributed to the election victory of the Rudd Labor government.

We had many opportunities to discuss the campaign whilst we were over there, and also—as he said—to try and work out our strategy to save the world at the UN. It is a flippant remark, but it was certainly a rewarding and terrific experience to see how that organisation works. I developed a good friendship with Rod on that trip, but we had always been good mates before that. As Rod mentioned last night, he has been prone over the years to use the parliamentary library, probably more than most—I think he said with the exception of Mark Latham. He has edited a number of collections of works, including famous political speeches. Rod was aware that I was a big Mark Twain fan, and when we visited the West Point military academy he managed to find a book in the bookshop there which was a collection of the speeches that Mark Twain had given when he visited the West Point military academy in the late 19th century. He gave it to me, and I was very touched by that gesture. We also enjoyed many coffees down at Macchiato’s on 44th Street, which I know Senator George Campbell recommended as the best coffee shop in New York. Best wishes for the future, Rod.

I turn to the Democrats—I wish them all the best, but I think I particularly have to single out Senator Andrew Murray. I have spent a lot of time with Senator Murray. I have been here 14 years, so I have spent a lot of time with all these senators, observing them and working with them—but particularly with Senator Murray on the finance and public administration committee. He always provided wise counsel and a detailed, thorough and intelligent analysis of the issues. I have to say he was a pacifying force on that committee when discussions became rather heated. That was quite common in that committee—particularly in estimates when examining issues to do with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or the Department of Finance and Deregulation. I think the contribution of Senator Murray was universally acknowledged as that of one of the finest parliamentarians this Senate has ever seen. I wish Senator Murray and all his Democrat colleagues all the best.

I turn now to my own colleagues—firstly to Senator Ruth Webber. I have to say, Ruth, you really have a lot more to contribute to the political world, and it is a shame to see you leaving. You were in that terrible No. 3 position—called the ‘death seat’, and unfortunately the numbers did not come up for you in this election. I have certainly appreciated your strong interest and support on the mental health inquiry. Like all of us—but in particular the members of that committee—you had a really strong desire to do something to promote better mental health and more support for people who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses. That was a very trying and difficult inquiry at times, but your sterling efforts in that regard are to be lauded—and also your work as deputy whip.

Senator Kirk and I have been sitting together for just a short period of time up here on the back bench. Senator Kirk, it is a real shame you are not continuing in the Senate. Senator Webber mentioned the incisive speeches you have made. Someone once said to me—I did a lot of advocacy in the Industrial Relations Commission—that there are advocates who can sound good and there are those that read well. What is said, and therefore taken down and read, is ultimately more important—particularly when it comes to the tribunals, the judges, making the decisions—than the rhetorical flourish that might be given to it during the speech. You have exemplified that extremely well, because, as Senator Webber said, your speeches are incisive, thoughtful, intelligent, and well constructed and put together to advance an argument. I think senators in the years to come will read your speeches, as they should, whether they are on refugee policy, on the republic issue, or on getting justice for the victims of child sexual abuse. That is a great legacy that you leave for future senators. I am certainly going to miss your company and your contribution. I know that the work that you have done in this chamber is going to be of great use to you and will certainly contribute to you making a mark in your future career.

I finally turn to my good mate George Campbell. I use the term ‘mate’ in the truest sense of the word. I could probably use it in the sense that the New South Wales Right use it as well, but on this occasion it is said with affection and I mean it. George and I have known each other for many years, going back to our union days. I was the General Secretary of the Australian Workers Union and George was the National Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. We had a bit to do with each other. It was generally always pleasant because I was spending most of my time fighting demarcation disputes with the Building Workers Industry Union, the CFMEU, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union or some other union. The metalworkers used to leave us alone.

I got to know George very well. We spent a lot of time, I recall, on the ACTU wages negotiating committee. We used to come to Canberra, firstly to the old building and then to this building, and meet with the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, the Treasurer, Paul Keating, and the ministers for industrial relations, to negotiate the accord. I always recall that the unions would meet beforehand. We would have half-a-dozen economists and a few lawyers in our group and we would work out our strategy. It was always: ‘We’re not going to let that’—expletive deleted—‘Treasurer Keating put it over us again. We’re going in there and we’re going to get full wage indexation,’ or whatever the claim was. After about five hours—and they would usually starve us; they would not even feed us—we would come out of the meeting and say, ‘Keating’s got us again,’ because we had signed up to another accord.

But of course the changes that occurred in those times and the contribution that the union made to the restructuring of the Australian economy, to the opening up of the industrial relations system, to more collective bargaining and to the development of productivity superannuation—rather than simply pushing for wage increases—are really the great legacies of the Hawke and Keating governments, and things that the Howard government was able to trade on over many years.

People have mentioned George’s strong work in industrial relations in the committees in this parliament, particularly against the Work Choices legislation. I also want to mention what is probably the greatest passion of his that I have noticed over the years, and that is industry policy. George Campbell was talking about industry policy, the need for training, the need for skills development and the need for investment in manufacturing capacity in this country long before most other people, either in the union movement or in the parliament, had even thought about them. And, George, you were also a first-class whip. You have a bit of a whip when it comes to that golf swing of yours as well. I know you look forward to lowering that handicap.

I finish by wishing all of the senators all the best. I go back to my earlier comment about Mark Twain. Mark Twain has a quotation for everything. The one I am reminded of tonight is when speaking about age and retirement: ‘Age is just an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.’