Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I would like to make a few remarks on the retirement of Senator Andrew Murray from the Senate. His contribution again highlighted what a remarkable place the Senate is. We go from question time and the hurling of insults—a gladiatorial contest—to having a senator read us a poem on his retirement. You have just got to go with the flow in this place. To Andrew and Pam, who I know has been very much a part of the effort, and to the Murray clan, it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Labor Party, to acknowledge Andrew Murray’s contribution to the Senate and public life in this country.

I was not expecting to give this speech until tomorrow, but it is not hard to think of a few things to say about Andrew. His personal history is remarkable; it is like one of those old Boy’s Own Annual stories in terms of his life experiences. His is another great Australian migrant story; first, as an Englishman, he migrated to Africa and then he migrated to Australia and gained Australian citizenship. I am very pleased that Andrew’s career ended by his own hand rather than by that of an angry dog owner, which looked for a while to be his fate. It is a good reason to never own a dog, Andrew; it might end your political career!

Andrew has made a tremendous mark as a parliamentarian. Kim Beazley always remarks to me how he wished he had been in the Senate because that is where real parliamentarians and real legislators operated, and that capacity was not really available in the House of Representatives because one party had the majority and forced through its legislation. I think it is fair to say that in recent years some of the most expert parliamentarians or legislators have been from the minor parties. It is partly a function of where they have been in terms of having to hold the balance of power or having to contribute to legislation as an individual much more than those of us in a larger party have to. Parliamentarians from larger parties tend to have areas of speciality and handle certain sections of bills, but those parliamentarians from independent or small parties have to get across a much wider range of legislation, and, as a result of that, in many ways, they become better legislators and parliamentarians. I think it is true to say that Andrew has become one of the best. I think Senator Brian Harradine was probably still the best in my time, but Andrew Murray has certainly been a very effective parliamentarian as well. I think Senator Harradine is a bit more wily than you, Senator Murray. He was a master at it. Senator Murray, you are a bit too up front!

The thing that has marked Senator Murray’s career is that he has been a person of substance. He has been very committed to his role and has always worked hard at being a member of the Senate and of the Australian parliament. He has put an enormous effort into committee work. One downside of being from a minor party is that one does not get the chance necessarily to move to a ministerial office. The upside is that people from minor parties with careers in the parliament get to concentrate on some of the committee work and their contribution to committees. Senator Murray has made a huge contribution to that work of the Senate. As he mentioned, his work, along with other Senate colleagues, with the forgotten Australians is a tremendous compliment to him. It is also a compliment to the Senate that we are capable of doing that sort of work, putting issues on the agenda and using what is often a bipartisan approach to promote issues that governments have to confront—issues which might otherwise have been ignored. I think that is when the Senate is at its best. Andrew’s work with the forgotten Australians is one area that will not slip off the agenda.

The government clearly recognises the capabilities that Senator Murray has brought to this place. Minister Tanner is very keen to use him in his post-parliamentary life in the review of government budget and finance reporting. Andrew had an interest in those things for many years. Personally, I do not understand it. We have never discussed it because the things that excite him, quite frankly, do not do anything for me at all. But, Senator Murray, it is important that somebody cares. I know that you and Senator Wong, and a few others, get off on it, and I am glad for you. It is important work, but I cannot provide any commentary on your contribution in that area other than that you have been persistent and consistent in your interest. It is important that we have senators who have a range of interests which they pursue doggedly. I know that your interest in those matters and, more broadly, the accountability function of the parliament has been very important. Your contribution in that area will be long recognised.

In terms of your party experience, you have been through some very difficult times. Those of us in political parties all go through those times, particularly in opposition, as I hope Senator Minchin is finding out. Obviously, in small parties those problems are sometimes accentuated. I know that there have been some real difficulties within the Democrats and it is often harder to manage those internal conflicts in a party of small numbers. One advantage of a larger party is that, while sometimes the conflict is as severe, the breadth of the organisation and numbers means that it is not necessarily quite as personal, or at least people are able to continue to operate in that organisation. I know the Democrats had difficult times in that regard. Obviously, when one is losing political support, that adds particular pressures. I will leave others to write the history of the Democrats; there has been a lot of analysis of that. I might have a bit more to say to that tomorrow night.

Senator Murray, I note that at one stage you were the only one who had not been the leader of the Democrats and, as I recall, the only one not running to be leader. At one stage I thought you would probably get the job because you were the only one who was not running for it. But I understand that at that stage you needed a second vote to win and you could not get one. Mind you, neither could the others. I guess you must have been the swinging voter; you were the only noncandidate. I think a lot of people thought that perhaps you should have had a leadership role in the Democrats because of your capabilities and reputation in this place. I think you suffered from the fact that, like me, you just looked like another ageing, grey politician. One of the advantages in marketing the Democrats was that they had a series of women as leaders, which provided a point of differentiation from the major parties.

The other thing that is probably true is that you were seen by many as being a bit right-wing for the Democrats; anyone who is interested in financial regulation matters must be right-wing by definition—that is the view most people took. In my experience, you are far more complex than that and are seen as very progressive on a whole range of issues and always very much focused on the rights of the individual and the right to equality of access and opportunity. That is to your great credit.

As I say, you probably provided a set of skills and interests that the Democrats did not have in their other senators. The other senators brought other interests and skills, and you provided a strength for the Democrats in areas that had not traditionally been seen as their strength. Although you have always assured me that you have all the small business support, I have never quite believed it, but I have heard the argument and respected it.

On a personal note, Andrew, you have been very well regarded and respected around the parliament because of the way you handle yourself. The fact that you have been strong on issues without being personal with your opponents has always been a great strength. It has allowed you to maintain strong relationships around the chamber so that the Liberals think you are a Liberal and we think you are a Labor bloke, and you have been quite successful in managing relations with all of us. I think that shows your professionalism, and the way that you have conducted yourself is a credit to you. You are always polite and considerate but determined and persistent. As someone who has been through a number of committee stages of bills with you, I know you are nothing if not persistent. As you say, that persistence has borne some fruit not only in terms of amendments but also in putting issues on the agenda and getting governments to take seriously issues that you have advanced.

On a personal level, I will miss your conversations about a much more important matter than corporate regulation—that of rugby union. Senator Murray and I are members of the ageing props club and each year we are remembered as being much better at the game than we were the previous year. I think we both now consider we are unlucky not to be internationals! I would have played tighthead and you could have played loosehead, and it would have been a very good combination. I have enjoyed the personal contact with you and I pay tribute to you by taking over your office—and thank you for facilitating that; I still have not been inside it. I understand you have got the best office in Perth, so I hope to take that over.

Seriously, on behalf of the Labor senators, I indicate that we have enjoyed your contribution to the parliament. We respect the contribution you have made. You are held in very high regard here as being a very professional and effective parliamentarian. Whatever you do in the future, we wish you the best of luck and hope you continue to contribute to public policy in this country.