John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Hansard source

Australia’s democracy has many great institutions, and after 20 years in this place I might be permitted a little bias when I say that the Senate, with its powers of scrutiny and review, is a particularly significant one. Harry Evans, of course, has always been a defender of the Senate and its watchdog role in our democracy. Harry’s stalwart commitment to the rights and powers of the parliament, as distinct to those of the executive, of course has been a constant feature, as his fearless defence of those powers has been.

He has made many memorable contributions to the deliberations of this chamber. One that I will forever remember occurred during the debate on the so-called ‘deficit reduction’ bills back in October 1993. Then, as now, the crossbenchers held the balance of power. We were anticipating a number of tied votes during the debate. There was a lot of discussion about how the tied votes might be interpreted, particularly in the case of negatived motions such as ‘the amendments not be insisted on’. To give you some idea—if anyone is interested in this, apart from me and Harry—of the procedural complexity of these issues, I refer you to Harry’s sage advice which you can find in Odgers 12th edition on pages 258, 306, 307, 308 and 399. A former President of the Senate who was in the chair very late at night had considerable trouble in mastering the complexity of Harry’s wisdom and found it necessary to frequently lean over the President’s desk and seek Harry’s guidance. He also had a lot of trouble turning his microphone off, and consequently the chamber echoed with his plaintive cries. I will never forget them, late at night: ‘Harry! Harry!’ The whole world heard it. I am sure that such plaintive cries will also echo around the chamber for quite a while after you have left us, Harry.

I have had the great privilege of working with Harry Evans in a number of different roles, not that his job has changed; mine certainly has. As a backbench senator, as a minister, as Manager of Government Business in a previous government and as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for far, far too many years, there were many occasions on which I needed to seek—and I did seek and I did benefit from—Harry’s advice. Most often, but not always, I agreed with that advice. Most often, but not always, I followed that advice.

Harry has a reputation of being a thorn in the side of government—any government. Harry is not on the side of one party or another. He is on the side of the parliament, and I would say passionately and eruditely so. He is on the side of accountability. I am pleased about that. He is on the side of government transparency. I like that too. He is on the side of good parliamentary process and scrutiny, and I endorse that. He has often been described as fiercely independent, and he is certainly that. He has always given a clear and straight answer to any question, whether asked by a government senator, a member of the opposition, a crossbencher or a journalist. The thing I want to stress today is that he is encyclopedically informed on Senate procedure and process and is not only—and this is really important—keenly insightful when it comes to the implications of Senate action but wisely cautious about any consequences of changes to Senate procedure.

Harry, after the time you have had in this place you certainly deserve a break. I hear that you have declared an intention to continue to give us the benefit of your wisdom and experience on the parliament and the Senate in particular. I expect that from time to time some of us might find that discomforting. It might be discomforting; it will always be impartial. Harry, finally, I sincerely hope that I will enjoy reading your memoirs. My personal request is: please be generous.