Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thirty-four years ago, in 1977, I decided to join the Liberal Party. I did so because of the party's strong commitment to free enterprise, the family, individual liberty and community responsibility. As a mother of five children, at the time aged between 10 and one, living and working on a rural property outside Heywood in western Victoria, these were important values. I knew also that the Liberal Party, with its proud traditions of repre­senting rural electorates throughout Australia and providing equal representation for women at every level of the party organisa­tion, would be a welcoming place for a person with my background and interests. I was also a great admirer of my local member in the electorate of Wannon the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who was at the time Australia's Prime Minister.

I could not have imagined that the Liberal Party would provide me with the opportunity to rise rapidly through its organisational ranks, reaching the posts of state vice-president and chairman of the State Strategy Committee, and then represent Victoria as a Liberal senator for 18 years, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Minchin and also with Senator Ferguson.

I consider myself to be a liberal in all senses of that word: a so-called capital-L Liberal, who has been a proud and committed member of the party for more than three decades, and also what is often described as a small-l liberal—a person who believes strongly in individual freedom and the importance of tolerance, decency and integrity as cornerstone values of our society.

Members of the Liberal parliamentary party, unlike those in some other parties, have always had the right to differ from other members of the party on matters of principle and conscience. This important individual freedom has been enshrined in the Liberal Party and its non-Labor predecessors since the days of Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies and other great prime ministers. I am delighted to recognise today Mr Russell Broadbent and Mrs Judi Moylan, who I know also believe strongly in that tradition, and I am delighted to see the Hon. Warren Truss, my former senior minister in the portfolio of Agriculture.

I have made full use of the opportunity provided to me as a federal parliamentarian and senator to take a stand on certain human rights issues and to help ensure that Australia's treatment of refugees has been respon­sible, compassionate and in accord­ance with the rule of law and our international obligations.

In an earlier era it was a Liberal-National coalition government which was responsible for Australia's generous and compassionate accommodation of Vietnamese refugees arriving in Australia, just as the Menzies government had done for refugees escaping the devastation of Europe in the 1950s.

Today, unfortunately, it seems that every possible barrier is put in the way of asylum seekers and refugees who come to Australia seeking protection from persecution. They also seek the fulfilment of their fundamental human rights and ultimately a better quality of life in a free and democratic society.

As a Liberal senator I have on occasions exercised my right to vote on matters of conscience and principle about which I feel strongly. The right of Liberal MPs must never be taken lightly or abused, but it is a right which must remain firmly entrenched and protected within the party. Australians expect discipline from their parliamen­tarians—disunity is death—but they also want their elected representatives to stand up and be counted when they believe it is right to do so. I consider that I have fulfilled that expectation.

Thirty-four years after becoming a member of the Liberal Party, I know that my decision to join was right. Everything I have experienced during my long and rewarding political career has reinforced my belief that it is only the Liberal Party, with its com­mitment to the values I have mentioned, that pursues policies which meet the needs of every Australian from every background and with every aspiration.

At the same time, my 18 years here have convinced me that Australia is very fortunate to have the hard-working and dedicated members of this parliament who, regardless of their political party or persuasion, are committed to represent their constituencies in the most effective way possible. It is of deep concern that it remains fashionable to deride politics and to deride politicians and for the coverage of political trivia to frequently interest the media more than matters of substance and real importance.

I am particularly fortunate that my time in the Senate has provided me with the opportunity to pursue and further develop my interest in regional and rural affairs, the status of women, and education and training. In 1997 Prime Minister John Howard appointed me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, and then in 1998 and again in 2001 as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I was the first woman appointed to executive office in this portfolio and, apart from a brief stint by Sir William McMahon in the 1950s, the first Liberal appointed to this role, which has traditionally been a National Party appointment.

Working with ministers John Anderson, Mark Vaile and particularly Warren Truss during my seven years as parliamentary secretary was a particularly rewarding and enjoyable part of my parliamentary career as we sought to position Australia at the front of global agricultural development. Australia may no longer ride on the sheep's back, but our wool, grain and horticulture are highly priced and valuable—highly prized, I should say; I wish it was always going to be high prices! They are highly prized and valuable exports and among the best in the world.

After living on a farm in south-west Victoria for many years before becoming a senator, I needed no introduction to agriculture. And during my many trips to rural Australia I came to appreciate even more our farmers' traditional qualities of resilience and true grit and, more importantly, their willingness to adapt to new technologies and to perform to world's best practice.

In addition, I was privileged to work with outstanding secretaries of the department in Mr Ken Matthews and Mr Mike Taylor, both of whom have now retired from the Commonwealth Public Service, and in the deputy secretary's position with Mr Don Banfield and Mr Cliff Samson and with many senior officers of the department, who were outstanding in their application and dedication.

My particular portfolio responsibilities included rural women, horticulture and especially research and development. Up until the late 1990s the governance of the research and development corporations in the horticultural sector was strictly regulated by act of parliament, with the sector divided into two arms: research and development, and marketing. Our aim was to bring these two complementary but separate arms together to form one corporation which was better able to meet the needs of the sector. There are a diverse group of small and large industries in horticulture and there are many and varied products. Each industry naturally wanted to make sure that their interests would always be part of the new plan.

The merger took more than two years to achieve, with daily painstaking attention to detail, but the results have been very worth while. Horticulture Australia Ltd, the new body, is now an industry owned corporation with an annual budget of $101.4 million. Research and development accounts for $71.9 million, with the Australian government matching funds, and marketing absorbs $14.8 million. I sincerely hope that there will be no cutback in Australian government research and development contributions as this part of the industry continually requires new research and development projects to ensure continued excellence in Australian horticulture.

One aspect of the Senate I have most enjoyed is the work of committees. My first experience of this was a complete baptism of fire. I have to say after Senator Forshaw's remarks yesterday about the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that my experience was a total contrast to his. Given I was not a lawyer and I was a new senator, my learning curve was very steep. But, through hard work and helpful coaching by the then secretary of the committee, I did not commit any glaring errors and learnt a lot along the way. I commend the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to any senator who wants to know more about some of the ways in which legislation can be scrutinised. I was reappointed to that committee after the 2007 election and I have thoroughly enjoyed my work on it. I have also been Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and Chair of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee.

Senate committee work is extremely important for the functioning of the parliament as it enables this chamber to scrutinise legislation in detail. Nowhere was this more important than in the run-up to the 2007 election as the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legis­lation Committee scrutinised the govern­ment's Work Choices legislation, a journey I am sure Senator Marshall will never forget. Those laws were groundbreaking in the formation of industrial relations as we now know it and very necessary for productivity gains in the workplace. They were also extremely controversial. As a former teacher, the education and research elements of the committee's work were also of particular interest.

I have also been a member and more recently deputy chair of the oldest committee in the parliament: the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which scrutinises all government expenditure on public works over $15 million. This is a joint committee. We have undertaken committee tours of inspection in almost every state. We have achieved some notable successes, including the redevelopment of the Maribyrnong detention centre in Victoria in 2005-06, and the insistence by successive chairs of the committee that departments brief us thoroughly so we can fulfil our brief of scrutiny of public works.

Committee work has also provided a valuable opportunity to get to know other senators and members outside the confines of the chamber, where our behaviour and words can sometimes lead to a less than flattering assessment of our character. I thank all senators for their work on these committees. I particularly thank all Senate committee secretaries and staff for their heroic efforts in maintaining functional and effective committees at all times.

We live in the best country in the world and, difficult though our personal circumstances may be at times, nothing in Australia, except for some Indigenous living conditions, can compare with the low education rates, the high incidence of maternal and child mortality and exclusion from economic gains suffered by many of our near neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. For this reason I became a member of the cross-party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development and worked with senators and members from other parties to persuade ministers to affect such changes as the AusAID extension of family planning guidelines in the Pacific countries to our north-east and also to provide additional support to hardworking aid agencies.

I was also very pleased to join the cross-party group of Senator Nash, Senator Moore and former Democrat senator Lyn Allison who together brought about change in 2006 with the transfer of approval for the abortion drug RU486 from the minister for health to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I have also worked with Senator Ludlam on bringing in a private member's bill about the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, which I sincerely hope helped prod the government to take some action on this. I see they have appointed such an officer recently. The opportunity for cross-party initiatives will always be limited, but the fact that the RU486 legislation took place as a private member's bill sponsored by four senators from different parties will I hope inspire other senators to undertake similar initiatives in the future. Political philosophies may divide us but surely the opportunity to bring about real change in important policy areas will unite us.

Rural women are the backbone of our rural and regional communities. Thirty-two per cent of women working on farms describe themselves as farm managers and yet some 10 to 12 years ago these women rarely featured in public identifications, such as agriculture advertisements, and very few were members of national or regional boards or involved in commodity boards. During the 1990s the ABC started the Rural Woman of the Year program, which brought state winners to Canberra and the National Woman of the Year was chosen and awarded a prize. Given that rural women were part of our agricultural portfolio I did think that this good program could be made much better. I decided that if rural women were to make their way in the world, and I include in those numbers women living in regional and rural communities, in large and small towns, we needed to revamp this competition.

I was successful in gaining sponsorship from the Australian Women's Weekly, and I will never forget the support provided by Deborah Thomas, the then editor. I was quaking as I walked into her office in Sydney to ask for program support and she could not have been nicer or more forthcoming and has stood by it ever since. That sponsorship has continued to this day.

Under the program that I set up not only did we have the state winners but I persuaded each of the research and development corporations to choose a woman that they felt represented their industry very well, and these women together with the state winners came to Canberra. All of those women from both programs undertook an Australian Institute of Company Directors course and had to pass an exam. Each of them had received a bursary for use in their industry. They would have the cash prize from the bursary and a qualification from the AICD and then would be mentored through their industry for the next 12 months. That has been running for 10 years now and a number of these talented women have served on research and development boards, and some are running their own businesses. I would like to think that that training has assisted them.

I would particularly like to thank the former heads of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Dr Simon Hearn, Dr Peter O'Brien, the present director, Mr Craig Burns, and particularly Edwina Clowes from RIRDC. They have all been instrumental in seeing that the program continues.

There should also of course be much stronger representation of women in parliament. Numerically, we are half the population and yet we still struggle to have women comprise more than 30 per cent of our federal members of parliament. Women may be put off politics as a career by the daily hostilities in question time, but I do ask those who are considering it to have a go. I did, and I regard the last 18 years as some of the most exhilarating, rewarding and exciting times of my life. We need more identification and mentoring of interested women. I have spoken in the past about a quota system, and I still believe the Liberal Party needs some sort of jump-start to achieve a critical mass of women parlia­mentarians. Women need not be in parliament to represent women's views, but the composition of the parliament should reflect the numbers in society, and at present it does not.

I am very proud to have been a senator for Victoria. In my view, Victoria leads the rest of Australia in its liveability, its diversity of manufacturing and industry and its culture. I am delighted with the election of the Baillieu government in Victoria. I am heartened that the government has begun in earnest to deliver on and implement all of its policy commitments given at the election, and I am confident of a prosperous and progressive future for Victoria.

I have been very fortunate with the staff members who have worked for me. From the early days in Broadmeadows at the railway station to the melting pot of St Kilda and then on to the CBD, everyone has contributed to make our office a happy and efficient workplace. To my staff who are with me here today—both past and present—I extend thanks and good wishes. They are Sue, Meri, Mary and Paolo, and I would also like to note the presence of Jennifer, who is Russell Broadbent's staff member and who has always been a particular help to me. Thank you, Jennifer. To my great friend Mr Ian Robertson I owe a great deal for his constant wise counsel and sensible advice. To the staff of the Senate—and I think I can see some of the members of the Public Works Committee sitting up there, thank you very much—other parliamentary staff, and all the Comcar drivers, many thanks for having made my task easier.

Thank you to my family, none of whom could be here today because of family commitments, but I assure them we will have gala celebrations in Melbourne as I finish my Senate term. Thank you to you all: my children, their partners and my grandchildren for tolerating a sometimes obsessed mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother, but the opportunity to be in government for 11½ years and to be in a national parliament has been one of the most satisfying achievements of my life. And so my work in the Senate comes to an end, but not, I hope, my dedication to the causes about which I have spoken.

I would like to end with these words from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

What is Success?

To laugh often and much.

To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children.

To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends.

To appreciate beauty;

To find the best in others.

To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch

or a redeemed social condition.

To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived;

This is to have succeeded.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a privilege serving as a senator for Tasmania since February 2002. Despite the ups and downs of political life I have loved serving and advocating for Tasmania, the Liberal cause and the values that I believe in. I have particularly enjoyed speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, always striving to make a difference with a can-do attitude—not always successful but always striving.

I had a dream as a child to serve in federal parliament and that dream came true. I have lived the dream and I am thankful. I joined the Liberal Party in 1980, 31 years ago. I was underage and in my first year at the University of Tasmania law school. I am a long-term Liberal. I believe in the merits of smaller government, lower taxes and greater individual freedoms. I believe in the centrality of family, the inherent qualities of each individual, the ladder of opportunity and choice. I believe in the basic freedoms of our parliamentary democracy, freedom of thought, worship, speech and association. I believe in a fair go and a safety net for those who need it. I have appreciated providing a voice for small business—the backbone of our economy—and promoting the spirit of enterprise that is so important to our prosperity as a nation. For more than half of my time in this place I was part of a coalition government under the stewardship of John Howard and Peter Costello that delivered economic sunshine, paid off Labor's debt and left this country on a sound financial footing. I am proud to have served as part of that government and to have later contributed to the task of holding the Labor government to account in opposition.

As I reflect upon the last 9½ years, there have been some highlights, special memories, sad moments and lessons learned. I will now share some of those. Most colleagues in this place and in my community know of my passion for a healthier, more active Australia. I have held 10 healthy lifestyle forums to help combat childhood obesity and to address other important health issues. I played a key role in the establishment of the Active After-Schools Communities program, imple­menting two hours of PE in schools per week, in fast food and tuckshop reforms and in making obesity a national health priority. I produced and edited the book The Millennium DiseaseResponses To Australia's Obesity Epidemic.

I established, very importantly, the Tasmanian Pollie Pedal, modelled on the national Pollie Pedal, which was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, some 14 years ago. Cyclists in Tony's nine to 10 day Pollie Pedal go further and faster than those in the Tasmanian three-day version. In Tasmania we spend more time taking in beautiful scenery, the wineries, cheese and chocolate factories, and each year we raise funds for people who have diabetes in Tasmania. Some say we end up heavier at the end of it than at the beginning. I do acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition in the chamber today and thank him for his presence.

Obesity already costs this nation an estimated $58 billion per annum and chronic disease, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer, makes up 80 per cent of all health costs in Australia. But you ain't seen nothing yet. The obesity tsunami and its consequences are coming and we must prepare for it now with more healthy active lifestyles, particularly for our children.

I have been privileged to be a founding and executive member of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. I particularly want to recognise the chair of that group in the chamber today, the Hon. Judi Moylan, for her outstanding leadership and also all the executive and other members of this bipartisan group which does such important work.

Last night the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group held a dinner in my honour with over 70 people and at which my good friend and obesity diabetes guru Professor Paul Zimmet was guest speaker. At that dinner, Lewis Kaplan, CEO of Diabetes Australia, who is in the chamber today, announced my appointment as the inaugural Diabetes Australia ambassador. This is indeed a great honour. My thanks to Diabetes Australia for the opportunity to be an advocate while following a passion that I love. The CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Mike Wilson, also gave me 'the boot'. The boot is an award bestowed on only 10 Australians in the last 20 years for services to Australians living with type 1 or juvenile diabetes. I cherish this honour and here it is. It is not always enjoyable to get 'the boot', but last night it was!

In addition, I was recently appointed as a delegate for the western Pacific to the International Diabetes Federation. Indeed, that is a great honour. I note the United Nations Summit on Non-Communicable Diseases in New York in September this year—an important conference where we need high-level representation. I look forward to working with others to make a difference in the diabetes community.

As the only member in the parliament with type 1 diabetes, I am particularly pleased to take up these appointments. Thank you to the senators in this place for your patience when I have needed to do a blood sugar check or to grab a few jellybeans for a sugar hit. I have over 2,000 finger pricks per year and have had more than 30,000 finger pricks since I was diagnosed on my wife's birthday on 15 January 1997. These daily finger pricks are an important feature in the lives of the 140,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes.

As a reminder of healthy, active lifestyles, I will be giving every federal member of parliament in the next few days a pedometer. Parliament has 22 kilometres of corridor, so I hope they are well used. Beyond the walls of parliament, I also believe there is great merit in all MPs and senators being actively involved in some form of sport or recreation both for their own sake and as an example to our community. MPs know I am enthusiastic particularly about tennis, swimming, cycling and squash, but I commend all MPs to have a go, no matter at what level, and I acknow­ledge the great work and encouragement of Andy Turnbull of the Australian Parliamentary Sports Association in this regard.

In my time in the Senate I have also sought to be a voice for volunteers, who remain undervalued and underrecognised in our community. They are Australia's unsung heroes. My first major submission as a senator in 2002 was to the then Prime Minister John Howard on how we can help our volunteers. Working with emergency services and other volunteers during the Beaconsfield mine disaster in 2006 and the Tasmanian east coast bushfires are memories that I will never forget. The annual Thank You to our Volunteers event that I have hosted since 2008 with Volunteering Tasmania and with the support of sponsors like Tasmanian Independent Retailers has been well appreciated. Volunteers deserve support and we can all do more to provide support and encouragement to our volun­teers.

Fighting for and defending family values has always been important to me, as I know it is for many in this place. Helping secure funding for the National Schools Chaplaincy program was a highlight, as was gaining Mr Howard's support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman in legislation in 2004 with bipartisan support. They stand out as highlights, as do receiving the William Wilberforce Award in 2007 and the Australian Christian Values Institute Award just this year.

Marriage is a bedrock institution. It provides an umbrella under which children can grow and be nurtured and loved. In my view, homosexual marriage will deny children any opportunity to know and be loved by both a mother and a father. The debate to date has been too adult centred and, in my view, that is disappointing. If the community hold these same values they need to express them publicly and passionately to their local political representatives as a priority before it is too late.

It has been an honour to work with veterans. It is vital we pay honour and respect to those in our Defence Force both past and present who serve so that we can all enjoy the freedoms that we have today. I also briefly comment on the ongoing challenge of terrorism, of which we must be vigilant. That fateful day on September 11, 2001 changed the world. Australia has a vital role to play in international efforts to fight terrorism both in its traditional forms and in the ever more relevant area of cybercrime and cyber­terrorism. I walked the Kokoda Track in 2008 with Bruce Scott, the Scottsdale RSL President who is in the gallery today, together with Marco Fragiacomo and 15 others. We raised over $150,000 for the juvenile diabetes research—a great effort. Our other objective was to honour the veterans. We did that. On my return I reignited the effort, with others and with the support of the RSL, to officially recognise the service of the PNG nationals, affec­tionately known as 'fuzzy wuzzy angels'. The Rudd government did this and I thank them for it. I acknowledge the PNG High Commissioner in the gallery today, who I know is delighted with this outcome.

Last year I visited Hell Fire Pass and the Thai-Burma railway with four former POWs and Senator John Williams—a special event. My great uncle served as a POW for 3½ years under the Japanese. I have been privileged to visit Gallipoli, the Western Front battlefields in France, the Changi war cemetery in Singapore and the war cemeteries in Jerusalem and Beersheba, Israel. In 2010 the planned national tour of a display regarding Australia's Gallipoli VC winners did not include Tasmania—yes, Tasmania was left off the map! I was pleased to then lead what was a classic grassroots campaign with a petition launch, support from the RSL and a successful Senate motion. In the end, more than 20,000 Tasmanians visited the exhibition.

With the support of the Tasmanian RSL I authored the book Our Heroes: Tasmania's Victoria Cross Recipients. The third edition was recently launched at Australia's oldest RSL in Launceston. Among those recognised in that book is Lieutenant Colonel Harry Murray VC, Australia's most highly decorated soldier whose medals and personal effects are on display in Tasmania right now for the first time ever available to the public. It was my privilege to play a key role in bringing this display to Harry Murray's home state and to see that he was honoured with a life-sized statue in his home town of Evandale in 2006. Harry Murray VC should receive further recognition, including the posthumous awarding of the Distinguished Service Medal from the United States and a memorial in Guedecourt, France, where he earned his VC in February 1917. I have written letters requesting this recognition with the support of the Tasmanian RSL.

The current government is now inquiring into the possible awarding of Victoria Crosses to those who may have been, for one reason or another, overlooked in earlier years. Prior to this, there were efforts for Tasmanian Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean to be posthumously recognised with a VC, and it has been a pleasure for me to have worked with Garry Ivory, nephew of Teddy Sheean, and other members of the Sheean family, on this campaign since last year. There are also emerging efforts to recognise Leading Cook Francis Bassett, or 'Dick' Emms, of Launceston, whose name has been put forward in the course of this inquiry. The courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice of our armed service men and women should never be forgotten. As the good book says, 'Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.' Lest we forget.

Early in my Senate career I recall the perfect political day. The day began with a visit to the Fusion community centre at Poatina in Tasmania, a place where much tremendous work is done. Fusion is an international youth and community organisation which helps socially at-risk young people and which, in particular, has over 250 staff and thousands of volunteers in this country and overseas. Then together with former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, via a CDMA phone, I officially opened the CDMA telecommunications network into the Central Highlands of Tasmania. I can see Senator Colbeck smiling. I think he knows where I am going. After a pleasant chat with locals and a small snack at the Miena hotel, I drove 20 minutes to Arthurs Lake, took off my jacket, took off my tie, pulled on my waders and pulled out the fly rod. I caught a beautiful brown trout and happily drove home to the family in Launceston with the trout for dinner. The perfect political day.

However a memorable and embarrassing moment on a lighter note occurred when, as a trout fishing enthusiast, as you have all gathered, and a fly fisherman, I was invited to award a prize at a trout fishing com­petition. During the speech on a warm summer's day, I swallowed a fly. I swallowed a fly in full view of the audience and, yes, it was the revenge of the fly.

From 2008 until 2010 I also served as the coalition's scrutiny of government waste spokesman, first under our former leader Malcolm Turnbull and then under Tony Abbott. My role was to highlight government waste and mismanagement in the parliament and to the public, and it is fair to say the current Labor government gave me plenty to do! I helped to establish inquiries into the GroceryChoice website, the pink batts fiasco and the Building the Education Revolution. I see Senator Mason in front of me nodding desperately. Well done on all your good work, Senator Mason. I issued monthly flyers and produced annual reports cataloguing Labor's waste, inefficiency and mismanagement, and continued my longstanding practice of hosting a budget breakfast in partnership with KPMG in my home town of Launceston the morning after the federal budget.

This work culminated, however, in the work that I did to help establish a Parliamentary Budget Office in this country. On 24 June last year, the 'night of the long knives', as the nation was informed that it had a new Prime Minister, I introduced legislation on behalf of the coalition to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office. My initiative was initially criticised profusely by a Labor government cabinet minister. However, the government has now confirmed, in the latest budget, funding of $24.9 million over four years to implement this important initiative. At this point I would also like to acknowledge and thank Philip Clayton, my principal adviser, for his excellent work in assisting on these matters.

Governments of all persuasions focus on the short term, but this government has attempted to master the 'quick political fix'. It has not worked and today's polls attest to that. We should focus more on the long term with 10-, 20- and 50-year plans—a lesson former US President Bill Clinton shared at the World Diabetes Summit in 2008 when he said, 'I wished I had spent more time focusing on the trendlines than the headlines.' We should do more visioneering—focusing on what should be rather than what could be.

The media, the fourth estate, has an important role to play as it facilitates debate and discussion within our nation. Its influence is massive. This is indeed a great responsibility. It is easy to criticise, denigrate and belittle those who have chosen the path of public service, but this is not always in the national interest. If we as a nation are to regain the capacity for real reform and to shape our destiny, the media must play their part in recognising effort worthy of praise and the merit of long-term planning, while at the same time holding public office holders to account. My wife, Kate, and I have supported the National Student Leadership Forum every year since 2002 and, in recent years, together with Senator Claire Moore, I have sponsored the forum. It opens the eyes of young people to our democracy and the role of faith and values in leadership. A key theme at those events has been that of servant leadership . But on this score there is no better role model than Jesus Christ, whose life and sacrifice were the ultimate example of servant leadership. I submit that he is indeed a model of leadership relevant to all of us.

At this time I would also acknowledge my good friend Jock Cameron for his work in convening and driving the National Student Leadership Forum since its inception. Jock and his wonderful team have also played a key role in relation to the National Prayer Breakfast. I have very much enjoyed his fellowship on Monday nights, with other MPs—including Scott Morrison, who is in the chamber today; I acknowledge Scott's presence—in this parliament for the duration of my time in the Senate. Jock, thanks very much for your support.

My involvement with the National Student Leadership Forum also provided me with one of the most confronting and saddest moments in my Senate career, when, together with a delegation of students, I visited Docker River, an isolated Indigenous community two to three hours south-west of Uluru. The near Third World conditions were both obvious and a shock, and brought home to me the need for us to do more as a nation to address the challenges facing Indigenous Australians.

The Senate plays a vital role in our democracy. The checks and balances work. The scrutiny of legislation, executive government and the financial affairs of our country remain important functions. The committee system is effective, and the estimates process both illuminating and at times exhausting. In regard to these specific functions of the Senate, I have recently written to the President and others making suggestions for reform, particularly regarding sitting hours and healthy food options.

In recent years I have particularly enjoyed my role as both Chair and Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, along with Labor Senator Trish Crossin. I acknowledge some of our key reports, on donor conception, judging the judges, censorship, terrorism, marriage, euthanasia and other matters. My particular thanks go to the committee secretaries and staff for their professional and wonderful work.

But the Senate is not doing all that it was established to do. The Senate was formed as a states' house but the party political system has largely nullified this role. We perform best when we are able to promote and defend our states and our local communities. The political straitjacket imposed by the party system impedes this approach. The rigidity imposed by the party machine is another reason for the significant growth in the parliamentary friendship groups. Many of the two-thirds of our parliament on the backbench can and do flourish in these forums, and understandably so. I have particularly enjoyed my role as co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of the Millennium Development Goals and as former chair and current vice-chair of the Australia-Denmark Friendship Group. The city of Kingborough is close to securing a sister city relationship with Fredensborg, Denmark, partly because of the good work of this group and my relationship with Mayor Graham Bury.

Likewise it has been an honour to participate in this place on conscience issues. More often than not I have been on the losing side, but the discussion and debate around these issues, and the process of negotiating compromise and amendments, has caused all members of parliament to dig deep and to think hard on a personal level, whether it be on stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia or abortion. In regard to the latter, I remain saddened that second trimester and late-term abortions still occur in this country, in­cluding with taxpayer or Medicare funding. All these issues reflect the values we hold as a community and they have im­portant moral and society-wide implications.

Remaining close to the community is the secret to success for any democracy. A key objective for me has been to work with the community, for the community, on the right issues and for the right reasons. Helping individuals, families, business and com­munity groups be the best they can be was part of the motivation for my writing the book Make a Difference: A Practical Guide to Lobbyingall royalties of which go to juvenile diabetes research. In our democracy, the opportunity for all citizens to make their voices heard is indeed something we should value.

The loss of my Senate seat at the last election reflected the dismal results for the Liberals in Tasmania, despite the successful campaign for Tony Abbott and the Liberals nationally. Senators in this place may be interested to know that my replacement has views that differ greatly from my own on most issues, but she is far better looking. A 61-39 two-party preferred outcome in Tasmania is not good and has been a catalyst for Liberal Party reform. I particularly note the work done by Julian Leeser last year to review the party in Tasmania, and with others I share the hope that these reforms will be implemented. Our selection processes should certainly be more democratic, and I know Peter Reith's report and recom­mendations support this. At this point I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, past and present, for their work to advance Tasmania's interests. I have been very proud to have served as a member of this team. Can I also commend our Tasmanian Liberal State President, Richard Chugg, for his ongoing efforts to reform the party in Tasmania.

As someone who has lived in the US, I think it is time to consider the merit of including a primary-style involvement of Liberal voters committed to the party as part of the selection process. In making this suggestion, the key issue is to encourage community engagement in our democracy, which, after all, means government by the people.

Labor's policy bungles and broken promises are seemingly never ending. The civil union between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Greens leader Senator Bob Brown will be more transparent from 1 July with the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate. The Greens support the introduction of death duties, oppose private health insurance and support a free-range drug policy. There is opposition in their ranks to Israel. Australia has been a long and loyal friend of Israel and I hope this Senate chamber makes it clear that this relationship should grow rather than be diminished.

We need a Tony Abbott coalition government now more than ever. I am convinced Tony Abbott will be Australia's next Prime Minister. My home state of Tasmania is in a parlous state under the Labor-Green government, which appears to be in a rolling crisis. Confidence levels are at an all-time low. Tasmanians are doing it tough with cost-of-living pressures. They deserve better. At the state level, there is hope for the future. I believe that Will Hodgman and his Liberal team can deliver more responsible management of public finances, stable government and a strong economy for the people of Tasmania.

At a time such as this, there are of course many people to thank. The effectiveness and professionalism of senators is dependent on many people. The Australian Senate is like a beacon that shines brightly among the parliamentary democracies of the globe. May I place on record my personal thanks to the clerks and other staff of the Senate; the staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services; the Comcar staff and drivers, who have been thoughtful and courteous at all times; the travel and security staff; and the many others who help us in our role. I make special mention of the chaplain of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, Reverend Peter Rose, who is in the chamber today. A special thankyou goes to the staff of the Parliamentary Library for their compre­hensive and timely research service. May I acknowledge and thank those many supporters in the gallery, some of whom were here for my first speech in March 2002, as well as those in Tasmania and elsewhere around the country, for their support and encouragement. It is appreciated. I am particularly thankful for the dedicated, professional and tireless work of my office team, past and present. I would like to acknowledge all of them, including my original team. It is most appreciated. We had a special celebration last Friday night in Launceston, which was well appreciated by all. They have done a fantastic job, and together we have kicked some goals for Tasmania and our country.

I pay a special tribute to my wife, Kate, and children, Nina, Alice and Ben, who are here in the gallery today, supported by my mother Sallie, Lady Ferrall. I love you. I thank you for your patience and perseverance, your loyalty and seemingly unconditional love over the past 9½ years. By far my greatest achievement of my time in the Senate is maintaining a close and loving relationship with my wife and my family, by God's grace. This was an objective I set out in my first speech and I am immensely thankful.

In conclusion, as we face the future early in the 21st century I recount the words of King George V at the beginning of the Second World War when he said:

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, 'Give me a light that I might tread safely into the unknown,' and he replied, 'Go into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way'.

On a personal level, I am excited about the challenges and opportunities ahead, mixed with just a little trepidation as the plans roll out. Whatever the future holds, I know who holds the future. In July I look forward to cycling in the Tour de France. I will be participating in the final week of the three-week tour, pretending very hard to be a champion. After this adventure, apart from my role as ambassador for Diabetes Australia, I will continue to pursue my passions while remaining within striking distance of federal and state politics.

Thank you to the senators in this place for the tremendous amount of goodwill and camaraderie despite their many disparate views. It is a testament to the character of this chamber. May I take this opportunity to wish all retiring senators every good wish, whatever lies ahead. Thank you for your service to the Senate and the nation. Also, best wishes to continuing and new senators in this place for the challenges ahead. Since Federation there have been 534 senators who have served our nation, with 76 of them representing Tasmania. I am indeed grateful to have been one of them for the past 9½ years. I thank the people of Australia, and particularly the people of Tasmania.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you will be aware that the members of the Senate of Canada are appointed to their positions. There are no doubt good reasons for this, but as much as I admire a great deal that is Canadian, its appointed Senate has never been something of which I entirely approve—that is, until now! Being now in a position where I am required to exit this place as a result of having lost my seat at the most recent federal election, I can suddenly see the many virtues of the Canadian way. The idea that one cannot be removed from a legislature by the electorate, and from which one is allowed to retire in a leisurely manner on reaching the estimable age of 70, is one that, with some persuasion, I believe I could embrace. But whether I like it or not, we are here in Australia and we are a democracy, and a very robust one at that. The contrarian second President of the United States, John Adams, a man whose dogged determination and vision for his new country I greatly admire, may have been somewhat over­stating the point when he remarked that with the end of elections there can be only slavery, but the sentiment is surely correct. Elections are the lifeblood of any and every stable democracy, and I of course accept the judgment of the Queensland people as they rendered that judgment last year.

The six years I have been here have passed extraordinary quickly and, at times, tumultuously. When I arrived, the Howard government had just been elected for a fourth term. As the sixth senator elected, and the fourth from the coalition in Queensland, I am very conscious it was the winning of my seat that gave the coalition the numbers it needed to gain a majority in the Senate—the first of any party since 1977. Contrary to common wisdom, the Howard government did not, as a matter of general practice, abuse that majority. Some landmark reforms of national significance were made in the areas of Indigenous affairs, aged care, superan­nuation, taxation and telecommunications, among much else, and Australia and Australians were all the better for it.

Then of course there was Work Choices. We did not lose the 2007 election because of Work Choices, but it did not help. I well remember the day in 2006 when the Senate resolved to pass the enabling bill. Senators who were here may recall that it was late in the afternoon and a storm was brewing outside the building as a third reading debate was getting underway. With the public galleries of the chamber replete with protesting members of the trade union movement, Senator Brandis gave a stentorian third reading speech in which he told the bill's opponents that they were, among other things, on the wrong side of history. I think it is fair to say that this was a prescient observation in more ways than one.

Just as the final vote was about to be taken, there was an intense flash of lightning and a very heavy, resonating clap of thunder. To this day I still believe that momentarily the lights of the chamber went off, to return perceptively duller than before. At that point, I recall turning to Senator Fifield on the bench to my left—a rather unusual position for Senator Fifield since on most other occasions he is almost always to my right—and I remarked: 'This could be a sign. Perhaps we should rethink this bill?' We did not, of course. The bill was passed and the rest, as they say, is history.

In my view, the coalition overreached parts of Work Choices, but only parts of it. In doing so, it fell into one of the great age-old traps of success: the tendency towards hubris. Perhaps not surprisingly, it suffered the unravelling of reputation that ineluctably followed from it. To the extent that Work Choices struck down some of the long established fundamental industrial rights of Australians, it went too far. But many of its reforms were innovatory and entirely appropriate for a modern 21st-century economy. The Rudd-Gillard government has now reversed many of these changes and in doing so taken Australia's system of industrial relations back to the era of pre Hawke-Keating government reforms. Not only has much of this been bad for the Australian economy but it has disempowered Australian workers, killed competition and undercut the foundations of small business. A policy correction is required so that a constituency in need of a voice can be heard. So at some point I anticipate the coalition will have to revisit its reluctance to engage with this area of public policy.

Work Choices aside, I am very proud that, as a very active member of several Senate committees, I was able to make useful contributions to improving some of the legislation that came before us. In my view, the committee system is unquestionably one of the great strengths of the Senate. Indeed, one of my first letters to an editor of any kind was penned as a rather callow youth and in praise of Senate committees. The committees are not places where politics is left aside and nor should they be. They are often, however, places where reason, judgment and compromise can triumph over prejudice in the search for solutions to national problems. I trust this will continue to be their role and, when accommodation is not possible, I hope that we will all at least be left with civility of difference.

As a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee I was a party to strengthening the civil liberties protections in some of the anti-terror legislation, which was, I believe, a valuable role. On some issues, such as immigration, I was grateful to have been fortified by the courage of some of my Liberal colleagues. They provided me with the strength of purpose to assist in seeking humane and sensible reforms to our government's sometimes austere refugee policy.

To have served as the chair and deputy chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is for me an enormous honour. I am convinced the work the committee did on military justice under the leadership of Senator Payne will be recognised as being of profound importance in helping the Australian Defence Force to address a deeply troubling aspect of its culture, one that serves neither its members nor the nation.

I am especially proud of the committee's inquiries into peacekeeping, public diplomacy and the Torres Strait region—the last two of which I was fortunate to lead. As the continuing public debate over these matters testifies, they focus on issues of long-term significance to the nation and serve as a welcome reminder that the work we do on committees in this place is amongst the most valuable we undertake.

Finally, in relation to committee work, I take the opportunity to highlight my time as the chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation. I anticipate that the committee's report will be tabled by the end of this month. It will, I hope, draw renewed attention to an aspect of Australian public policy that has been woefully neglected—namely, federal-state relations. Australia's system of government was conceived as a federation. That, indeed, was the form of governance that my own great-grandfather helped to create during the federation movement at the end of the 19th century. But over 100 years the federal compact between the states and the federal government has been severely eroded. Centralising governments in Canberra, with complicity of the High Court, have recast the constitutional distribution of powers which was once carefully balanced. Financial distortions have not only impoverished state and territory treasuries, they have grievously undermined the states' political authority, making responsible government increasingly remote from every Australian.

The parties of the coalition cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for this parlous state of affairs. The drift of political power and fiscal responsibility to Canberra has been visible on our watch as with Labor, yet we are supposedly the party of federation. Neither Deakin nor Menzies, however, would now recognise it in this way. Regrettably, in recent years my party has had few serious considered thoughts on restoring the health of the federation. As the natural custodians of the federal ideal, we should feel more than a little guilty at this neglect. But, more than this, we should be urgently committed to responding to the challenge it poses. The Liberal Party needs to rediscover its federalist values and develop the program of reform which will restore them to their principal place in our system of government.

Away from the parliamentary domain, I have tried to be always conscious of my responsibilities to pay close attention to the needs of my constituents—the people of the great state of Queensland. Engaging actively, often and, hopefully, effectively with the men and women of the rural and regional parts of the state has been enormously satisfying. As a former educator, my involvement with schools, colleges and universities has also been an important facet of my work. In part this has been a dimension of a personal quest to try and expand public knowledge and understanding about our parliament and more particularly the role of the Senate in our system of government. More than this, education offers Australians the promise of a secure and prosperous future. We do not fill that promise by wasting millions of dollars on ill-conceived education revolutions. We need to invest in knowledge, innovation, languages and best teaching practice. When we think we have done enough, there will always be more to do.

It has been rewarding to assist community groups to take up ignored causes and issues such as international adoption; to assist constituency and personal distress; and to help promote environmentally sound ideas, such as opposition to the entirely ill-conceived Traveston Crossing dam.

It is fair to say that when I took office I had little comprehension of how varied and, indeed, busy a senator's life could be, but the richness of my work among the people of Queensland has proved one of the most rewarding parts of my term. In my first speech I spent some time decanting my views on international relations and, more especially, the challenges to Australian foreign and defence policy. I urged the Senate's attention to several matters, not least the need to engage more fully with East Asia and the demands posed by a rising China. I return to these and other foreign policy themes with a mix of reassurance and pessimism. On the reassuring side, I am delighted that the Rudd government saw fit to adopt, at least partially, several of the policy proposals outlined in my 2008 Lowy monograph on the emerging global order. In my view the comprehensive national security strategy, of which we have so far seen only a glimpse, is still a worthwhile objective. I welcome the establishment of the Office of the National Security Adviser, although I am anxious that it should not overreach what should be its limited responsibilities.

On defence more directly, I wait with high anticipation for the moment when we are all able to face up to the reality that the capability program in the 2009 Defence White Paper is well beyond the nation's ability to achieve. Only when we face up to this manifestly obvious point will we begin to have a credible defence posture for the 21st century.

For all its many detractors, the Howard government left office in November 2007 with a distinguished record of achievement in East Asia. By contrast, the policies of the Rudd and Gillard governments have been far less assured, being often poorly formulated and ineptly implemented. In 3½ years the steady trajectory of a deepening engagement with Asia has faltered as our relationships with China, Japan, India, Fiji, Papua and New Guinea, Indonesia and others have all been shaken by problems. We might reasonably hope that eventually these relationships will be put back on track. But as I said in my first speech, engagement with Asia–or indeed the Pacific–cannot be a part-time affair. Nor can we be indifferent to the changes taking place in the wider Indo-Pacific region.

This is our neighbourhood, and just coincidentally it has become the central dynamic arena of the 21st century global strategic order. We dare to ignore that reality at our political and economic peril. And yet, as Australians, we seem so little interested. As Michael Wesley has said in his new book, There Goes the Neighbourhood, we remain complacent, incurious and unprepared to think about how the world is changing, how this might affect us and what we will need to do to prosper and to remain secure in the new era. This is a national delinquency of the highest order, and requires urgent attention if we are to have any hope of surviving the international challenges ahead.

When we are struggling to pay serious attention to our region of primary strategic importance, it is perhaps fanciful to encourage a focus on horizons even further afield. If for no other reason, however, than that the Indian Ocean rim is of fast growing importance to our national interest we should begin to look anew at Africa. I acknowledge that this has been, and is, a policy priority of the recent Labor governments. To my colleagues in the coalition: I urge that we no longer continue to look at Africa through the prism of Labor's goal to secure a non-permanent seat on the Security Council and its aid policy there. In my view, the Security Council is in the national interest, and should be embraced for a multitude of reasons. But I emphasise: not at any cost, and I fear that this is where we are heading.

With that to one side, Australia's interests in Africa should be judged on their merits. They are neither wide nor deep at this point in time, but they are growing. Africa itself is changing rapidly in ways that will mean it is a place of mounting significance in global affairs. We can ignore this if we wish; alternatively, a relatively modest strategic investment now in Africa's political, econ­omic and educational future is likely to pay considerable dividends into the future.

Finally, I cannot leave the topic of foreign affairs without mentioning the long-ignored need to better resource the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recent evidence to the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and in Senate estimates, has once again underscored the parlous state of DFAT's finances. The failure to confront this issue is not just a neglect of this government: my party must accept some of the responsibility. But the situation has deteriorated over the last few years because of Labor's very ambitious foreign policy, which has been underfunded. Diplomatic, representational, consular, public diplomacy, policy analysis and long-term policy planning within the portfolio are all under intense pressure. In a globalised world Australia's diplomatic footprint is both narrow and shallow in key regions of importance to our security and prosperity, and is far less than comparable countries. This is no longer sustainable as it is undercutting the protection and advancement of Australia's national interests.

The answer is not just to find the resources to reflate the DFAT budget. The way Australia is represented abroad will have to change and DFAT's habits of doing business at home will need reform. That said, the department needs more resources and the simplest, least painful way to secure them is to look at AusAID The planned growth in its rapidly expanding budget over the next few years responds to our generous instincts. But in the context of DFAT's plight, it is ill-advised. It should be slowed and the savings directed to DFAT as a matter of high priority.

In closing I take the opportunity to thank the servants of the Senate, the former Clerk, Harry Evans, current Clerk, Rosemary Laing, and their dedicated staff. I also extend my gratitude to the staff of the committees, most especially, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and its distinguished secretary, Dr Dermody, who have helped to make my work so fulfilling. My staff have been wonderful. Without the thoroughly professional and dedicated service of Fraser Stephen, Honor Lawler, Lynn Mitchell, Kate Grayson, Marty Kennedy and Julie Crouch, I would have accomplished very little.

I have been fortunate in being able to develop some lasting friendships among my colleagues on this side of the chamber, and I trust that they will continue. And among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle I have found, rather unexpectedly I have to say, a degree of much appreciated collegiality. In the interest of not blighting any careers anywhere in the chamber, I will mention no names!

In the absence of the love, understanding and support I have received from my wife, Dale, and our family, my life here would have been simply impossible. I am very conscious that, as I took my seat in this chamber just six years ago, I was exceptionally fortunate to have been given an opportunity to sit as a senator in our nation's federal parliament. Many years ago, I had a dream that one day this might be possible. Over six years, that dream has come true. I thank my party for giving me the chance to stand for office. It has been an absolute honour and an enormous privilege to serve the people of Queensland, and I thank them most sincerely. I thank the Senate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for this courtesy. Tonight the coalition salutes the service of three outstanding colleagues. All senators have made substantial personal sacrifices to serve their communities and nation—more so, their families. We, the senators get involved in the issues of the day. We are passionate. We are committed. The family and those around us are often the conscripts. To the conscripts I say: thanks for lending us your senator. We in the coalition have no doubt that you will recognise the full contributions they have been able to make as being as worthwhile as we do.

I turn to Senator Troeth. When I first joined this place my office was next to that of a senator of whom I had not previously heard. I assume Senator Troeth had not previously heard of me either. Nevertheless, she was the first senator into my office and schooled me and acclimatised me to the Senate, for which I am grateful. Those first few weeks, in helping me to orient me, she was most gracious and kind, and it was very beneficial to me. At the time, I was struck by Senator Troeth's personable-yet-no-nonsense style—traits that made her the effective senator we have come to respect.

Her 18 years of service will be remembered for many things, including her passion for the rural community and her very distinguished service as a parliamentary secretary in the agriculture portfolio. Her knowledge and detailed understanding of the levies for various horticultural sectors was phenomenal, her advocacy and capacity beyond question. Her commitment to innovation was greatly valued by the sectors. And, of course, those qualities are what gained her her endorsement in the first place some 18 years ago—an endorsement which was solely based on merit.

In entering the Senate she immediately spoke of the importance of the Senate, rejecting the unfortunate references to this place by the then Prime Minister. She spoke of her passion for the rural sector. She spoke of her commitment to serving the people of Broadmeadows, willingly going out to Labor heartland to serve the people whom Labor had disenfranchised. She spoke of government intervention in the rural economy doing more harm than good and then quoted a certain person in support of that view. That certain person happens to have been one Ross Garnaut, who has now re-emerged in the political spectrum.

Senator Troeth is a principled person. She lived by her first speech when she said:

… we must never lose sight of the fact that political morality means more than just winning, political compassion means more than just clever speeches and ministerial responsibility means more than membership of the right faction.

Senator Troeth has lived by those principles. She crossed the floor and she spoke out, but she has done so with dignity and courage. I trust that when I crossed the floor I did it with half the poise, decency and principle with which Senator Troeth did. Once the issue was over, it was over.

Senator Troeth, whilst being independently minded, was nevertheless a team player and a solid contributor to the fight. In her first speech Senator Troeth quoted GK Chesterton:

In the end, it will not matter to us whether we fought with flails or with reeds. It will matter to us greatly on what side we fought.

I know on what side I am fighting, and there is a great deal for which to fight—

Senator Troeth told the Senate. There is no doubt that Senator Troeth knew which side she was on, and fight she did. And, unlike her beloved Hawks last Saturday night—sorry; I could not not mention that, being a Geelong supporter—she usually did win.

Senator Troeth leaves of her own volition and can be well satisfied that she did herself, the Liberal Party, her state of Victoria and the people of Australia proud. Senator Troeth, to refer to the last bit of your valedictory speech, you have succeeded. On behalf of the coalition, we all wish you very well for the future. I turn to my Tasmanian colleague Senator Guy Barnett. Politics is a rollercoaster ride and people make their judgments on us as individuals and, in this place, more importantly on our parties on a particular day. There is no doubt that if that particular day were today Senator Barnett would have been re-elected. Regrettably, it was not to be in August last year.

Senator Barnett styled himself as the can-do senator in his very first speech. And that he was. It was a big call, but he lived up to it. His electorate work and his committee work were both exemplary and he showed a committed work ethic. I think Senator Ian Macdonald might just beat you on the number of speeches on government docu­ments, but you ran a very close second. But I might call it for Senator Barnett on adjournment speeches. They covered all manner of issues and, to his great credit, no issue was too small or, indeed, too big.

I think of some of the projects for which Senator Barnett was responsible in our home state of Tasmania: from the skate park in Queenstown to the aquatic centre in Launceston he helped develop that much-needed and lasting infrastructure which will bear testament to Senator Barnett's com­mitment to active lifestyles. He championed local causes: as he mentioned, to get the VC medals to Tasmania, digital radio, helping the locals after the east coast fires, the medical services in Ouse and Rosebery—and the list goes on. He also championed national issues: NetAlert, the definition of marriage, the volunteer sector, health issues, our cultural history and the importance of the Bible and the chaplaincy service. As Chair of the Waste Watch Committee, Senator Barnett excelled.

Being senators for Tasmania, we know our only strength is by hunting in a pack to get the best outcomes for our state. Senator Barnett was an integral part of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team. He will be missed by his team mates and the Tasmanian people. I am not so sure that the media will miss him. His incessant media releases, whilst always considered, got a fair share of hits and coverage. Up to the very last, Senator Barnett has been active in the party room, in the electorate, in the committees of this place and in this place itself. Given our pending reduced numbers, the coalition will have difficulty in filling all roles. Losing such a prodigious worker will make it all the more difficult.

In his first speech, Senator Barnett courageously tried to pre-empt his political epitaph. He said:

I would hope that at the conclusion of my political life the people who stand in judgment will say that Guy Barnett had a can-do attitude; he encouraged others to achieve their dreams; he was effective and a pioneer; he cared and had compassion; he had a passion for life and a vision for his state and his country; and, finally, more than his work, he loved his wife and family.

Senator Barnett, all those things about you are true, but they will not appear on an epitaph just yet. I have a funny feeling that it is a little bit too early for that and a few other bits and pieces might be added in another chapter which will be written later in your life. But epitaphs aside, all of the descriptions, which Sir Humphrey-like you courageously set yourself, you have lived up to. You can feel well satisfied that you lived up to the high benchmarks that you set yourself. But, more than self-satisfaction, the Liberal Party members and the people of Tasmania you represented share that sense of satisfaction with you, as was so overwhelmingly displayed at your testi­monial dinner on 4 June. All the best and, as you get on your bike literally for the Tour de France, take a well-deserved break and ensure that you do employ all those talents you have in the future for the betterment of our community and society. I am sure you will. On behalf of the coalition, we wish you every success for the future.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Last but definitely not least, I turn to Senator Trood. If I might opine, like a Queensland predecessor, former senator John Herron, Senator Trood looks like you would imagine a senator should look—distinguished. Not only does he look distinguished but he has distinguished himself. His election victory in 2004 gave the coalition the fourth seat from Queensland in the Senate—an amazing result. For us on this side of politics to get a university type is a big thing these days. To get them to run and then get elected seems nearly unbelievable.

It is no surprise, given Senator Trood's background, that he expressed in his first speech great insights into Australia's educational needs. Whilst being from the tertiary sector, he nevertheless had a broad view of educational needs generally, noting the need for enhanced technical and further education. But it was Senator Trood's expertise in foreign affairs where he most distinguished himself. Never having served on the committee, I understand it is a committee well sought after by many colleagues as a must-get committee, if one can get on to it. So I did wonder how it was that a relatively new senator was able to get onto that committee and chair it. When you realise that there are 50 pieces of work that have been authored by Dr Trood in the area of foreign affairs and that he was a member of the Australia Indonesia Institute and a whole lot of other organisations, you understand that he was the most qualified person in this parliament to be sitting on that committee. The expertise that you, Senator Trood, provided to us in that area was very beneficial not only for our side of politics but for the Australian parliament generally. Indeed, your concern about our relationship with Indonesia is very important as we currently consider the boats going backwards and forwards—or that are not or should not be going backwards and forwards—between our two countries in relation to the cattle trade and also in relation to illegal entrants.

So Senator Trood's expertise, style and demeanour—if I might say so, especially on one occasion as Acting Deputy President that he may recall—will be missed by us on this side. Senator Trood, we wish you well. You have a clear body of expertise that we trust will not be lost to the Australian community and that you will be able to put to good use. We wish you all the very best for the future as well.

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

I want to address a few remarks on behalf of the government in response to the speeches by three retiring senators. I offered Senator Abetz the courtesy of allowing him to go first because we were addressing the careers of three Liberal senators tonight, but, having seen him steal most of my material, I can say that that will not be happening again. They say great minds and fools think alike, but people make their own judgment about that.

But I do have much pleasure tonight in speaking on the farewells to the three senators. Senator Troeth and I were of the class of '93, along with Senator Minchin. It is a bit worrying; I think I might be the last of them left. No doubt my colleagues will sort that out soon. But I have always had a great deal of respect for Senator Troeth; she is well liked and well respected on our side of politics, although she is known also as steely, I think, for her grit and determination. I saw that during her time as a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government. She put in, I think, seven years of very hard graft in difficult portfolios and carried a big load in the Senate as well; she did that with great aplomb. Obviously she has committed herself to committee service as well and has a fine record in committee service in this parliament. Like Senator Abetz, I remarked on re-reading her first speech that she made a strong commitment to the issues of rural women and representing rural women and also representing and advocating for the role of women in politics. It is interesting to see that Senator Troeth is one of those who actually delivered on her first speech and pursued the issues she raised then. I thought she came full circle tonight and was still advocating the causes that she advocated in her first speech, which I think is a great credit to her.

I wanted to remark on her stand on refugee issues and her crossing of the floor in pursuit of her beliefs on those issues—not to take any delight from an opposition party point of view at all but to make a broader point. I think one of the best speeches given in this parliament was her speech in 2009—not because I agreed with much of it but for its power and its principle. It was a great speech. In that speech Senator Troeth implored the Liberal Party to 'grasp a new opportunity to understand the difference between sending the wrong message to those who truly wish us harm and sending the right message to those who need our help'. It is an enduring message for us all. As I say, I think it was one of the best speeches delivered in this place for many a day. It reflected, I think, the great strength of Senator Judith Troeth, and it was to her great credit. I make the point not, as I say, to highlight the differences there might have been in the Liberal Party at the time but to highlight Senator Troeth's commitment and strength of character, and also to make the point that she will better remembered as a committed, lifelong liberal. I judge her on her career. As Senator Abetz referred to, in her first speech she famously referred to this quote by Chesterton:

I know on what side I am fighting, and there is a great deal for which to fight.

I say this as a very positive thing. She is remembered by us as a very strong liberal, and I am sure she would like to be remembered as a very strong liberal. In quoting Waldo regarding success, I can assure her that she goes with the respect of her political opponents.

Senator Guy Barnett from Tasmania came in in 2002, and he has certainly been active and committed. I had the opportunity to travel to an Anzac Day ceremony at Gallipoli—I think in about 2005—with him and his wife, Kate, and it was a fantastic trip. Senator Bishop was on the trip as well, and I certainly recognise his interest in history and the role of our service personnel. I know he took great joy out of it, as did I. It was a tremendous experience.

I think Senator Barnett will be best remembered in this place as an example of how an individual senator can use their position—and I mean this in a positive way—to advocate and promote causes of public importance. We have huge oppor­tunities here. People use them in different ways, but Guy Barnett has certainly used his to provide a platform, through his activity as a senator, to promote awareness of diabetes and the need to do more to combat diabetes and also child obesity. I am very thrilled for him that he has been made an ambassador for Diabetes Australia; it is a great recognition of his work. For new senators thinking about how they can use the great opportunity and privilege of being a senator, his example in pursuing those causes is a good one. People use their opportunities in different ways. To Senator Guy Barnett I say: you have certainly made good use of the opportunity in promoting those causes. You have also been very active on the question of moral issues. I do not think you and I have agreed on any of them, but I do respect that your views are honestly held and you have been very active and committed on those.

In terms of your offer of the pedometer, I welcome that. I also want someone to use it for me so that I can rack up the figures, because I know last time I had one they were not all that impressive. Senator Faulkner used to quote me how many kilometres he had racked up—and I have since stopped discussing that with him. But I do look forward to it; it might be a spur for me to find more time again for exercise. We wish you all the best too.

Senator Russell Trood only had one term here. In many ways that is a shame because I think he had a lot to contribute and did not get the opportunity to continue to do so in a way that would have been good for the parliament and for the Liberal Party. I know he was famously the third Liberal senator and fourth coalition senator elected in 2004 from Queensland and that gave the Howard government their majority. I have a slightly different slant on that. I reckon it was the seed of the destruction of the Howard government, so I actually regard it in a very positive way. I thought it encouraged the Howard government to overreach—and you referred to Work Choices, which I think is the classic example. So I have a silver lining to that particular cloud at the time, Senator. I think it is a good lesson in politics, the majority that the Howard government achieved, and perhaps it is a broader lesson for us all. That is my take on it.

I think it was good for the Liberal Party and for the Senate that you were elected. I liked Senator Abetz's reference: you do actually look like a senator. You also behave much more like people's image of a traditional senator.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He shames us!

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

Yes, he shames us. Rather than being a grubby party politician, he brings free thought, an interest in ideas and a style that reflects that sort of approach. I say that very genuinely. I think the parliament and the Senate have benefited from his academic background and expertise—unlike Senator Mason, he's a proper academic!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not very fair!

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

He knows what I mean. Seriously, Russell Trood has brought that experience to the parliament and applied it to foreign affairs and international relations issues in this parliament to great effect. In a parliament where sometimes we are not known for our interest in ideas, Senator Trood's contribution has been notable for that. In his first speech he said:

Ideas and education matter, not just for the prosperity they promise but because free and open societies depend on them.

That was a commendable thought in his first speech, one that he sought to give effect to in his contribution to the parliament and one that, as the current tertiary education minister, I wholeheartedly endorse. I think it is an important reflection on the value of ideas and education in our society.

He referred to the fact that he has been quite an effective senator for raising constituent issues in this place and pursuing them persistently to good effect. I should not say this in front of the other senators but I have actually found him more effective in estimates than many of you because he has used a more reasonable and less aggressive and inquisitorial style that actually puts you under a bit more pressure than perhaps some of the more frontal assaults some of you are known for. I probably should not say that in case you take heed of what is not meant to be good advice! Certainly from the government's point of view Senator Trood is well-respected. We thought he was an interesting and valuable addition to the Senate and he has made a contribution that I think the Senate will miss. He will be a loss to the Liberal Party in this place.

But there is life after politics, particularly for a well-credentialled academic with a master's degree from the University of Wales. Given the current Prime Minister and the current education minister are of Welsh descent, we regard him as a highly credentialled man, and I am sure there will be life after politics. But, seriously, Russell Trood has made a good contribution to the Senate and one that will be missed.

I think all three senators have records they can be proud of and have brought different contributions to the Senate. Unlike many of my colleagues, I said that before you gave your final speeches, I have said it on the occasion of your final speeches and I will say it after your final speeches as well. I think there is too much in this parliament of remembering people fondly once they have gone and not treating them with respect while they are here. Each of you have made an important contribution to the parliament, and the government acknowledges that. All the best to all three of you.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I join with the remarks of my leader, Senator Abetz, and also take the opportunity to thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, for the generosity of his remarks. This is, of course, a very bittersweet occasion for us opposition senators because we are celebrating and, with regret, anticipating the departure on 30 June of three senators who have been very good colleagues and very good friends. We will all miss each of them.

In particular, it is sad to lose two of those colleagues, Senator Guy Barnett and Senator Russell Trood, to electoral defeat. But that is, as Senator Trood pointed out, the way of democracy. Senator Judith Troeth did not suffer that fate and retires graciously.

The word 'gracious' is, I think, a word that springs readily to mind about Senator Judith Troeth because she is a gracious person in everything she does. One of the joys of my life in the Senate is to have befriended Judith Troeth, and that is a friendship I cherish very much. Early in my time in the Senate, shortly after Judith Troeth retired from the frontbench, we sat together in the middle seats at the end of the chamber. For more than two years we shared that bench and we had a very good time. I discovered that Senator Judith Troeth, among her many virtues, has a wicked sense of humour. Our friendship I think was deepened and strengthened in the many conversations we had. I regret to tell you, Madam Deputy President, that there was the occasional quiet reflection upon the shortcomings of others in the course of those many conversations.

Judith Troeth is to me a person who is very close to the heart of what the Liberal Party should be and is very close to the heart of what the Liberal Party was created to be. She is a Liberal in the tradition of Menzies. She knows what it means to be a Liberal. She knows that the purpose for which our party was created was to expand the horizons of individual freedom, opportunity and choice. Everything she has ever done in this chamber in the time in which it has been my privilege to be her colleague has been dedicated to those values.

As Senator Evans pointed out in his remarks, Senator Judith Troeth, although of course a very gracious person, is also a very strong person. She is one of the strongest people I know in politics. She adhered to her convictions and her principles at times when they were unpopular in the Liberal party room, especially during the Howard government. Her moral courage and strength were a beacon for all of us and in my judgment she has been an exemplar of what a courageous politician ought to be. Judith, thank you for being a friend, a great Liberal and a great parliamentarian.

I turn to Senator Guy Barnett. Guy and I have had a lot to do with each other, particularly in his role as chairman and deputy chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Through the association on that committee and the coalition's backbench committee we have had to negotiate our way around a number of very difficult issues, issues where different members of the coalition parties had quite different perspectives across the spectrum of opinion, which we are proud to say exists within the Liberal Party. Senator Barnett has been one of the most articulate and influential exponents of a morally conservative view on a range of issues. There have been other members of that committee, including Senator Trood, to whom I will come in a moment of course, who have identified with a much more liberal approach to issues. On that committee the conflict or the difference of emphasis between the more socially and morally conservative people in my party and the more socially liberal people in my party came to the fore.

What I particularly appreciate about Senator Guy Barnett was he was always, especially in his role as chairman or deputy chairman, willing to see the other point of view and to accommodate the other point of view. Throughout a number of inquiries into thorny issues, including discrimination law, the bill of rights and family law, through Guy Barnett's decency, spirit of cooperation and willingness to simply be a good colleague all points of view were able to be accommodated so there was never a split in all those years between the most socially liberal and the most morally conservative coalition members on the committee. That was largely because of Senator Barnett's spirit of cooperation, decency and wisdom. It also reflects the fact that, as is so often the case in politics, many of these differences on closer scrutiny are more apparent than real. I want to thank Guy Barnett in particular for that.

As we heard in his valedictory speech, there is a very impressive litany of causes he has championed and has scored significant accomplishment in bringing to public policy outcomes. Whether it be in relation to health, veterans' affairs, school chaplaincy or the Parliamentary Budget Office, Guy Barnett in the nine or so years he has been here has actually achieved measurable, specific beneficial outcomes which but for him would not have been achieved. We all aspire to do that. All three senators to whom we pay tribute today have in their own way done that, but Guy Barnett I must say across an extraordinary range of interests in public policy has certainly achieved that. I do not think anyone on either side of the chamber would gainsay it. Guy, I have enjoyed our friendship and I have enjoyed our association both professional and personal. You leave the Senate at a very young age. I am confident in saying that this may be regarded not as the end of Guy Barnett's political career but as an interruption to that career. Whether that career resumes as a further term in the Senate in years to come, or whether it takes the shape of a career in Tasmanian politics—whatever beckons—we know that Guy Barnett is someone who has given his life to pursuing the causes which his Senate career has embodied and he will continue to do that for many, many years to come. So we do not say goodbye, Guy; we say au revoir.

Let me now turn to Russell Trood. This is a very difficult speech for me to give because Russell and I are very close friends and we go back a very long way. We first ran into each other in the Ryan branches of the Liberal Party in Brisbane in the mid-1990s and, on every occasion I can think of, Russell was a very strong supporter of mine. In securing majorities in the Ryan branches of the Liberal Party in the early 1990s, in my preselection as a Senator in 2000 and in my election as deputy leader of my party in the Senate last year I have always had the most steadfast of supporters in Russell Trood.

Tony Abbott is fond of saying that politics is a test of character—and it is for all of us. I cannot immediately think of anyone I know who has shown such character as Russell Trood over the years. People speak of Russell's scholarship and learning and intelligence—that is all true—but the thing I most appreciate about my friend Russell Trood is his character. Let me share three anecdotes with you. When former senator Warwick Parer resigned from the Senate in February 2000, Russell and I were both interested in being the Liberal Party's candidate for that vacancy and, as friends should when there is a possibility of conflict, we had a long, long talk about it. In the end, Russell agreed to stand aside and support me—for various reasons—for which I am eternally grateful.

I think Russell would have been entitled to feel a little disappointed that the vacancy among our mutual friends in the party was likely to be won by me, but he supported my preselection campaign not in a token or formal way, or in anyway begrudgingly, but with real enthusiasm and commitment. And I thought that that attested to tremendous character. It exemplified Edmund Burke's remark that 'in politics magnanimity is not seldom the truest wisdom'. I was determined to ensure that Russell Trood's dream of becoming a senator, of which he spoke today, would be fulfilled, and I would do everything I could to bring that to pass. So when former senator John Herron resigned from the Senate in 2002 there was another preselection, in which I very strongly supported Russell and which, sadly, he lost. It is a great shame that he lost that preselec­tion to former senator Santo Santoro; Russell was not preselected on that occasion as well.

In 2004, however, Russell was the No. 3 person on the Liberal Senate ticket, and I must say that the 2004 election campaign in Queensland for the Senate was a glorious affair. It was a ticket led by Senator Mason, with me in the middle and Russell at No. 3. We travelled countless thousands of kilometres around Queensland, with the help and support of Senator Ian Macdonald, who was not a candidate at that particular election. We spent endless days in each other's company, against the background of Senator Mason's rather idiosyncratic choice of music—and the less said about that the better—and very, very arcane conversations about the minutiae of Senate preference strategies. We spent a very enjoyable period in one another's company. Brett and I were determined that every last vote that could be found to get Russell Trood over the line was found. We did not really expect—and, Senator Joyce, I say this without any disrespect to you—that we would get four senators over the line. We thought it was probably going to be a race between Russell Trood and Barnaby Joyce for the third spot. But our efforts were rewarded with such success that both Senator Trood and Senator Joyce were elected. It was the 10th and, I am sad to say, last occasion on which the Queensland Liberal Party ran a separate Senate ticket. It was the best primary vote we ever achieved by a mile—38.3 per cent—and Russell got over the line.

The second episode I want to share with the Senate which reflects on Russell's tremendous strength of character came about during the very difficult time when the parties amalgamated in Queensland and there were issues about the Senate ticket. The people who made these decisions, the people who negotiated this amalgamation, decided to observe the seniority convention and Russell was given the fourth spot. That was a very difficult spot to win; in fact, there was never a realistic prospect of winning the fourth spot in the political circumstances of the time. Arithmetically, it was effectively impossible to win four seats from a single ticket. Yet Russell dealt with that peril to his political future with extraordinary dignity and grace. It was Ernest Hemingway who said that the definition of courage is grace under pressure. You cannot put a politician under more pressure than giving him an unwinnable seat. Russell dealt with that occasion with the most extraordinary grace that it is possible to imagine and was an exemplar of Hemingway's remark. And then more recently in the difficult times of the Liberal Party at the end of 2009, when nobody's interests would have been better served by Russell Trood than for there to be a double dissolution election, which would have revived his chances of being re-elected—he probably would have been re-elected because he would have been in a winnable position on the ticket—Russell conducted himself by adopting a position based on his true beliefs, directly at variance from his own self-interest. There are very few clearer ways to test integrity in politics than to find a politician who acts directly at variance from his own self-interest in order to do something merely because he thinks it is the right thing to do. But that is the way Russell Trood conducted himself on that occasion and nobody was surprised, because that is the character of the man he is.

We lose, with the departure of Russell Trood, one of the most considerable minds ever to have served in this place. Not only has he borne himself, as Senator Evans pointed out, with the dignity and bearing that everybody would imagine in a senator but also he has brought a specialist knowledge in his own chosen field of international relations rarely seen in this parliament. So we are all the poorer for his departure. It is, on an occasion like this, so sad to realise that that will be lost from us. But the friendships will continue. I just want to say, Russell, for all of those years in which you have been an exemplary colleague and a great personal friend and supporter how grateful I am to you and how much I have appreciated your friendship.

All three of the senators who will retire on 30 June—Judith Troeth, Guy Barnett and Russell Trood—can say to themselves, 'What we set out to do when we first entered this chamber we have accomplished.' In the case of Guy Barnett and Russell Trood, there is more that they would wish to have done had they been re-elected. But what they have done in the time available to them, just as what Judith Troeth did in the three full terms during which she served, has left this chamber and our country a much, much better place by dint of their efforts.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to pay my respects and acknowledgement to all the retiring senators of this Senate, but this evening we are here to talk about our experiences with Senator Barnett, Senator Trood and Senator Troeth. Senator Trood: as a Queenslander, thank you. I was not thrilled on the night of your election but, from the experience we have had since, I particularly acknowledge your work with young people and in education. Many people have spoken about your work in foreign affairs. I have seen that in Senate estimates committees, including in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and when we had the opportunity to travel to Africa together. I am aware of the professional knowledge and experience you have as well as your acute assessment and strategic knowledge in that area.

Russell and I have had the chance to talk with young people in Queensland through the Constitutional Convention process and also to work with some schools that were particularly interested in how the Constitution operates and the respect, knowledge and dedication of those who work in this place. Russell, you have been truly inspirational. The young people can sense that. They know the role senators have, the responsibilities they have and the way that they can be dedicated to effective policy and make sure that they make a difference. Senators, despite their political differences, can work effectively together when talking about something that they treasure. Russell, the work you have done through the education process in Queensland will be remembered.

I note that one of the worst places to be is between you and your coffee. On a number of occasions, when arriving at places and getting ready to talk, we have had to wait just a little because Senator Trood has been in search of good coffee. I will not mention the regional centre in Queensland which Russell has damned because strong coffee was not available for him in the mornings before we started our presentations! In the time I have known Russell I have never seen him quite so discomfited. To his credit, he immediately went into a discussion with young people on the intricacies of the wild rivers legislation, bringing to it great preparation and consideration of the range of issues. That is one of the strongest skills that a senator can have. So thank you, Russell.

Senator Barnett, Guy: we know there are very many issues on which we disagree, but throughout some quite significant debates and interactions there has always been goodwill and respect. I value that. As part of the group that was with you last evening, I know the genuine respect, affection and loyalty that so many people in the diabetes area have for you, and that has been reflected in your new appointment. You have energy, commitment and true joy in seeing results. Having shared many adjournment sessions with you, I put on record my appreciation for the many times you have been flexible and helped us out when we have been trying to balance chair duty—and Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin would know this—and speaking duties. We could always do it. That will always be a special memory. I think that I have got to know at least half the Tasmanian population, because you have mentioned them in adjournment speeches in this place over the last years. I would sit in awe as we would find out about people who were members of various organisations across the country, and occasionally I would recognise repeated names. We knew that the work you were doing in Tasmania meant so much to you and that you were here to represent and to be part of the true Tasmanian spirit. So congratulations. It has been a pleasure working with you on the things on which we do agree, particularly in the areas of the student leadership program, health and making sure that our young people know that they have futures. No-one will forget the work you did on the Kids in the House program.

I particularly want to put on record some words about Senator Judith Troeth. Senator Troeth, you are a true inspiration. I have seen that from the time I first came into this place. You were particularly generous in sharing with me your knowledge on a number of committees when I was very new, and I respect the way you would perform the role of chair with grace and dignity, making sure that there was appropriate behaviour at all times in the committee. That is not an easy task and I do respect the way you did it. I have read your first speech, as many people have. It is one of those things about first speeches: they do come back, don't they? This evening with the three senators we have heard comparisons drawn with their first speeches and their final contributions in this place. I read your speech, Senator Troeth, and I wish I had made it—except for those few things about the Liberal Party; nonetheless, you brought forward issues around the role of women in our community and the need for having more women involved in our participatory parliamentary process. So many of us value and respect and are actually challenged by you. In terms of the work you have done for rural women in particular, and the story about the rural women of the year, we can celebrate those occasions and see the joy of the achievements of other women, and we are all made stronger by it.

During the process around the private member's bill—we have Senator Nash with us in the chamber, and I know that Senator Lyn Allison sends her very best wishes to you—there was a special solidarity, and no-one can forget that there was a spirit of joy. I really want to reiterate the term 'joy' in the way that that process was done. It does not matter whether you were someone who felt differently about the principle; we acknowledged that and, through the whole process, we acknowledged that we were supporting a case other people found difficult. The four of us and many supporters, staff and women across the community—across the world, in fact—were engaged in the process and wanted to be part of that and to provide support. Senator Troeth, that would not have happened without you. There is no way. Your seniority, your professionalism and the fact that you were respected by so many people in both chambers of this place made the process more effective and led to important public policy in this country

I can still remember sitting beside you in the House of Representatives—when we were finally allowed in, which was quite difficult, but we got into the green chamber. There was so much emotion and tension around, and we were all being extraordinarily well behaved, because it was important that we were. We watched the proceedings and they went on for so many minutes. People tell me what happened, but I think I was in a bit of a daze for a lot of it; we were waiting to see what happened. At the end, when we saw that the policy that we were supporting had been successful, Judith Troeth—who had remained so professional and so calm and ensured that we were all behaving well, as I said—leapt to her feet and let out a shout of joy. It was something that I had not seen leading up to that moment. In that one moment, Senator Troeth, you actually expressed for me, and for so many other people, the way that you can make a difference when you work together, and you can express your feelings when it happens. I have told you before, but I wanted to put on record in this place how important your role was. We all know that, and we are made better by it.

For the commitment that you have shown to your constituents and the people across your state but most particularly—and you have never forgotten—the commitment you have shown to women and the need for them to be respected, to have representation and to know that they are valued and have a role in public policy, I want to say thank you. I want to say 'thank you for the challenge' and I want to wish you good luck for any future challenges.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly about my three departing colleagues. Senator Barnett might not remember this, but we first met in about 1988 or 1989 on a spiritual retreat which had been organised by our mutual good friend Ross Cameron, who was in the gallery earlier today. At the time I was a callow youth, just a young party member, and Guy was a very senior member of the Tasmanian division. I was very impressed with Guy's wisdom and with the integrity that he had and maintains. It was a real delight in the years ahead when I got to work with Guy as a Howard government staffer and then as a colleague.

Senator Barnett has been a good and faithful servant of his state, his party and the nation. I have particularly valued and appreciated his passion and commitment from a portfolio perspective in the voluntary sector. He has had a lot of great policy ideas and I look forward to trying to execute some of those in the years ahead. He has been a thorough, diligent and effective colleague, as Senator Brandis has so eloquently said, and I will certainly miss his contribution in this place. But, Guy, we will certainly stay in touch.

I turn now to Senator Troeth, who has faithfully served my state of Victoria. Senator Troeth is one of two colleagues in this place around whom I always feel that I have to enunciate correctly. Around Senator Troeth and Senator Payne I am always very aware that I should make sure that my elocution is correct. Senator Troeth is the sort of person who is always proper. Senator Troeth has, as they say, a great backstory. She has always been a robust contributor in this place. With her, I took particular delight in the election of Russell Broadbent; we both made a particular contribution in that vein, and that was a great time.

As has been commented on already, Senator Troeth is independent of mind. She has done something which I also have done in this place, and that is to move to the other side of the chamber, or 'cross the floor', as it is put. I might not have agreed with Senator Troeth in the exercise of that right, and she would not have agreed with my exercise of it in relation to the ETS debate; nevertheless, I always respected her right to do so. It is a right which our party jealously guards, and I think that is an important distinction between this side of the chamber and the other. I certainly wish Judith well in the years ahead.

I do particularly, however, want to make comment on Senator Professor Dr Russell Trood. I do not think that is the longest title that anyone in this place has ever had; I think that honour goes to Senator the Hon. Dr Kay Patterson. But both are indeed distinguished. Senator Trood and I were bench buddies for many years. In fact, when I first came into this place, shortly before Senator Trood, I was sitting on my own. Russell was my first bench buddy. You do tend to move around this chamber from time to time, but whenever there was a need to change seating arrangements in this place, Russell Trood and I said that we were happy to sit anywhere in the chamber as long as we were sitting next to each other—that is no reflection on our colleagues, but it certainly served us well. Those years that I had the privilege of sharing the bench with Russell I will remember very fondly.

Russell is the very model of a senator. He is the senator from central casting. He is thoughtful, deliberative and widely read. He has a passion for good policy. He is curious, inquiring and independent of mind. Senator Trood is—and I think this is the highest tribute that I can pay to a colleague—one of the substantial figures of the Australian Senate. It is my hope that Russell's absence from this place will, in line with his academic heritage, prove to be a mere sabbatical. Senator Trood—Russell—we will see you soon, my friend.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always sad to hear a valedictory speech, but it is even sadder if you do not, because it probably means you died in the job! Just quickly: I note that my good friend and colleague Senator Nash will have more words to say about Judith Troeth, and, for brevity, I will concentrate on two. But, just at the start, I will say: Judith, you have always held your office with complete dignity. I, too, was always in a quandary as to whether you were scolding me or you talked like that all the time. In the appropriateness of how you have conducted yourself, you have some great fans—including my mother, amongst others. What I do admire about Judith and Guy—and I think they are a good juxtaposition—is that they were both absol­utely foremost in the debates on some of the heavier issues in this chamber. And both conducted themselves in the appropriate manner, noting how strongly people felt on either side of those debates. It is somewhat of a concern to see two people who were foremost on the harder issues leaving at the same time. Maybe it is a balance that they both are leaving, but also it is tinged with sadness.

To move to Guy: in a different manner, I always saw Guy as a fellow traveller on the right-to-life issues, and I want, at the start, to congratulate Guy for the work he has done on that matter. I thank him for his diligence and for his capacity to focus on the cause and his capacity to accept that, generally, we were on the losing side of those debates and yet to never give up heart and to soldier on for what one believes is right. It is a great sadness, Guy, to see you go. I know at times I would get phone calls from you, generally when you were not happy with me or something I had done. But I just want to thank you for all the effort you have put in and note that your resoluteness in that cause will continue on, and I want to say that I appreciate that.

Guy, I also want to thank you for your work on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. You took that committee to a level where it was independent, professional and diligent. That is also a reflection of your capabilities both as a person coming from the legal profession and as a person who always had, from what I could see, extremely good time management skills, given your capacity to get through a quantity of work, to do it without fuss or bother and to get to a result. Your time management skills around this place, when we look at the things you have done, have been exceptional. If a book was written about how to be an effective senator and everybody contributed their part, I think there would be a chapter by you about how to participate in the Senate in such a way as to have the greatest and most effective involvement and about how to utilise the best part of your day. Your chapter would cover your playing tennis in the morning—which I know you are very keen on—your work with diabetes, your work in causes such as right to life, your work in the Senate committees and your writing of articles and books. The way you have conducted yourself is quite incredible.

As a conservative, as I have to call myself, I have always appreciated your work as a conservative. This chamber may be divided between different parties, but I think people have a general idea of where people stand, and your role as a conservative has been much appreciated. School chaplaincy is another area on which I can remember you working. Your work in this area has effect to this day, and I hope that you get a sense of joy every time you go past a school and see that it has a chaplaincy service. You can reflect on your time this place and what you have contributed to our nation, in this case the way you have reinforced and promoted the idea that schools should have a support mechanism for kids at school during some of the tougher times they go through. At the start people were very cynical about it, but now, if you tried to remove school chaplaincy, there would be a riot. State schools around me really appreciate the work that school chaplaincy does.

There is a strong connection, in a funny way, between Guy Barnett and Russell Trood. I think we should reflect on the fact that Russell was elected to the Senate by reason of our capacity to harvest votes in myriad ways. Russell has lost his job because we have lost our capacity to harvest those jobs, and in a funny way so has Guy. In the Senate—though not so much in the other place—we have to be aware of and in tune with the realities of the political marketplace: that votes are harvested in myriad ways, that sometimes people will go shopping with their vote in the Senate and that, if we narrow our net, we will not catch more fish. We have to make sure that we keep our minds open to how we maintain our numbers in this place. I hope that the people of Tasmania will reflect on the question of whether another person with the attributes of Guy Barnett can get across the line, because there is no point in having two Tasmanian senators here in each cycle when we could have three. I think we need to be aware of that.

Finally, Guy, I do not know whether you made more speeches in the adjournment debate than did Santo Santoro, but I reckon you would be up there, mate! Every night was another chapter in the life and times of Guy Barnett.

Russell, in speaking about you I have to reflect on the start. At the start there was a time when both Russell and I had the improbable task of being up against a sitting Democrat, when the Greens were in the ascendancy and when Pauline Hanson—who was almost an iconic figure—was a sitting One Nation member. Then there were two other people: Russell, who would have had the main billing, and I, whom they had not thought of and were not even considering. It was an extremely torrid time and really put under stress the relationships in the coalition as a whole, because it was a fight to the death. Russell and I fought so well that we both got in, which was a good outcome, and it reflected what you can achieve when you work hard for a vote. We got four senators elected then. Competition is a great thing, and it sometimes breeds the best and the best outcomes.

It is a mark of the character of Russell that there was never any malice in his conduct; I never saw any malice in the way that he conducted things. I do apologise somewhat because after our election to the Senate there was an intense focus on my role, when I was not in fact the last senator elected; Russell was. I think that Russell was cursed by the better side of his nature in that he is a taciturn and considered person and did not want to participate in the limelight—and in that respect he is like me. For me it was self-preservation, but Russell had the dignity to maintain his poise, and I have always respected him for that.

Russell is also incredibly erudite. His work has always been of the highest quality. Even the speech that he gave tonight was a reflection of that quality and of the acumen that goes into his statements—how considered they are, even the word craft of them. He does not accept second best. All his words are put together in such a way that it is a joy to listen to him, even though at times it can attain such a level that you start to lose sight of the true complexities of what he is saying. That is the nature of Russell Trood. He is a person who has put the utmost work into his profession as a senator. Everybody has been making the same generic comment that he is the model of what a senator should be and how they should conduct themselves. In the chapter of that book about what you should be if you are a senator, if Guy was writing the chapter on time management, Russell would write his chapter on the quality of work and how you can deliver outcomes of quality.

Russell always has been, in the proper sense of the word, a gentleman. Sometimes people find that statement mundane, but I do not think you would find a person around here, on either side of the chamber, who has a bad word to say about him. Once more, it is a credit to him that he has always treated people with respect. He has conducted his work in this place in a completely and utterly professional way. I suppose that is why he leaves here respected by all.

We get to the inevitable end—the fourth person from the conservative side of politics, if that is the way to say it. I do not know how else you would say it. There were two teams or two parties fighting it out; now we have one. Obviously the writing was on the wall.

At that point in time, the pressures on Russell would no doubt have been immense, yet there is nothing—nothing that people can go to, any media piece or anything that was said—that showed any bitterness or any opprobrium. He saw his fate and was completely as he was all the way through, completely dignified to the end. I hope it is not an epitaph and I hope there continues to be an engagement by Russell.

As part of this valete speech amongst all senators, I can say that in the country areas at first people did not know Russell, but once they knew him they respected him immensely. Everywhere he went he touched people. He was known for his quiet nature, his absolute diligence, his academic capacity and the dignity with which he dealt with every person he came across.

So, Russell, to Queensland and to this Senate you are a great loss.

To Guy and Russell, I am sure, as Senator Brandis said, that it is 'au revoir', not 'adieu'.

Judith, you have also done the very best and you have been an adornment in the way you have conducted yourself in this chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to briefly assoc­iate myself with the remarks made by my colleagues to our three retiring senators. The brevity of my remarks is in no way an indication of the expansive regard in which I hold all three retiring senators. This is an occasion when you can absolutely trust and agree with as truthful all of the words said by all of the previous speakers, even including those from the other side of the chamber. Most of the praiseworthy things have been said. I just want to associate myself with those very fine words, because I am aware that a lot of my colleagues want to speak tonight and time is short.

We lose three very fine senators, each of whom, in their own way, has made a very substantial contribution to this Senate, to the parliament, to the nation, to his or her state and, indeed, in these three cases, to the Liberal Party, of which they are all members. I know, as everyone else has also said, that each will have a future in public life in one way or another.

I must briefly mention Judith Troeth, whom I was delighted to see come to the Senate all those years ago. She joined me as one of the few senators from our state who actually lived in the country and had roots in the country, and we were both Liberals. This does not mean much to me these days because now in Queensland we are all one big happy family, but in those days it was very important to me that Judith as a rural woman had come into the parliament as a Liberal.

I well remember the way Judith fought for rural issues in particular in those early days. I shared some time with Judith in the ministry in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry portfolio. I was very conscious of the work that Judith did in research and development in the organisations there and in many other ways—the way she promoted women in rural industries and in many things that occurred in that area.

I also thank Judith for the guidance she gave me on the RU486 debate. I always thought I agreed with them; I did not quite understand why. Sorry, Guy, but it was Judith who was able to confirm to me that what I was doing was correct. I particularly appreciated that.

I will not go on with my remarks on all three or any of the three because all of the things have been said. I just say ever so briefly of Guy that he is a very passionate exponent of Tasmania. It is good that you are passionate, because some would say there is not much to be passionate about in Tasmania. I know that is wrong. I was spending a lot of time in Tasmania when Guy first entered the Senate. I had a lot to do with him; both of us were trying to help forestry and fisheries in particular in Tasmania in those days. I have known Guy's passion for Tasmania and everything that happens there and all the other causes that have been mentioned.

Guy, I am certain that you will have a future in public life. I know the government in Victoria is just waiting for Judith Troeth to be available to do good things. I have no inside information; I just know that the sort of person that Judith is will always find some sort of role in public life. Similarly with Guy, I was sort of having a wager with him on whether it would be federal parliament, state parliament, local government or perhaps something international but I am sure that Guy will not be lost from public service, and that will be to the benefit of Tasmania and indeed Australia.

Russell is a Queenslander, of course. Russell is a person who really did, as a Queensland senator, change the world, with a remarkable election six years ago. Russell actually changed the dynamics of politics in Australia for those first three or four years. Russell's expertise and indeed the expertise of all of my colleagues who are leaving is demonstrated in the speeches that they have given tonight. Again, I know that Russell will continue in public service, be it political, academic or perhaps international. I said that any government who did not take advantage of Russell's expertise and experience would be seriously failing in their duty to Australia. In that comment I particularly join with—as I rarely do—the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who made a similar reference.

All three, as I say, have made a very significant contribution. I wish all three publicly, as I have done and will do privately, all the very best in the future for them and their families and in their future roles. I am sure it will just be a brief departure from public life and I am sure we will see them around somewhere in the future. All the very best to you all.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo the remarks that have been made this evening about the three departing colleagues, whom we are going to miss. I also echo Senator Macdonald in saying that the brevity of my remarks in no way reflects on the expansive comments I would like to make, but I am very conscious that there are many colleagues who still want to make a contribution. Certainly, Senator Barnett, I have always been incredibly impressed by your dedication and your tenacity regarding the issues that are important to you. I think that is a view that, as we have seen tonight, has been held by many of us for a very long time, and I wish you all the very best.

To Senator Trood, with whom I have had most interesting conversations and who has tried to sculpt my path into foreign affairs, with some success, It has been a delight to work with you and I must echo Senator Joyce's comments about your word craft. There is no doubt that to me, as a student of English and a grammar pedant, you are an artist who paints with the English word. It is a trait that is not always found in this place and one that has been very well recognised. All the best to you too.

I want to make some comments about my very good friend and colleague Senator Troeth. In this place it is not often you hear the words 'poise' and 'steely' used in relation to the same person. There are not too many women in the National Party room—we have peaked at three so far and at the moment it is just me. It has been a real joy to have a woman in the Senate on this side of parliament to whom I have been able to look for advice and support. She has given me that support and advice with great grace as necessary.

Senator Troeth probably does not remember but I actually met her around 10 years ago when I was a staffer for the Hon. Larry Anthony. Very briefly, he had an issue he was trying to change the then parliamentary secretary's mind about so off we went to see the parliamentary secretary. We came out a very short time later and I thought, 'Minister: one; Larry Anthony: nil'. There was no way in the world that Larry Anthony was going to change Senator Troeth's mind, and I was very impressed by the way this woman who I had not met before handled that meeting.

When Senator Troeth was chairing the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee and we were doing the legislation for Work Choices, all I can say is that I truly came to understand the phrase, 'Brook no argument'. As the chair of the committee it was an extraordinary time. Senator Troeth did a job steering that committee through that period that I think no other senator could have done.

There was a time in this chamber when Senator Troeth gave a speech on her view of the emissions trading scheme. I do not think I have heard a better speech given in this place than the speech that Senator Troeth gave that day. I completely disagreed with what she was saying, but that speech was so well crafted and so brilliantly given that for a moment there I almost found myself agreeing with her—but I pulled myself back from the brink and thought, 'No, don't go to the side of the darkness.' I just wanted to commend her on that. In spite of the fact that I did not agree with what she was saying, it was a most extraordinary speech and one of the best speeches that had been given in this place for quite some time.

There has been some commentary made about what we did with Senator Moore and Senator Allison with respect to the administrative changes to RU486. I have to say, Senator Troeth, that, when asked, you did not flinch in giving advice about, and support and strength to, that particular piece of legislation. Regardless of the fact that there were very different views about that piece of legislation—it was indeed a very torrid time—there are two things that occur to me about that whole process, neither of which are related to the issue itself. One is the ability for women from all parties to come together and work on a common issue, which to my knowledge had not happened before that time, and it will probably be some time until we see it again. That was something that I will always value. The other was associated with that but, again, is not to do with the issue. We all in this place work hard and hope to be appreciated, and we hope that what we do is appreciated by the community out there. We walked out of this chamber after the successful conclusion to the legislation and Senator Troeth's son was walking towards her. He just looked at her and said, 'Mum!' and gave her a big hug. The reason I say that is that there is probably no greater accolade in this place than our children being proud of us for what we do, and I think that was a most extraordinary moment. Senator Troeth, you probably have more strength than any man I know. You probably have more intelligence and more class than any woman I know. There will be a real void in this place when you leave. There will be many senators yet to come but, no matter how many come, I suspect that void will never quite be filled.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some brief remarks also about my departing colleagues, firstly, about Judith Troeth. Judith has made an outstanding contribution to the Senate in her time in many ways, including, as Senator Nash has just said, in her role as a parliamentary secretary responsible for the interests of the rural sector. She was greatly respected for her very firm views about issues and about how things should be done and carried out that job with a great deal of success. She was widely admired for it.

The fact that Judith Troeth was a person who held to her convictions has been mentioned already by a number of speakers. It is not always easy in this place to do this. It sometimes takes great courage and forbearance to adhere to your convictions, sometimes in the face of disagreement from members of your own party. But Judith has shown that courage and forbearance and she has thereby earned the respect of all members of the Senate for having done so.

On a lighter note, Judith and I have shared an enjoyment of films and, after breaks from the Senate, have shared with each other our views on the various films we saw during that break. While we did not always agree on the value, the quality and the worthwhileness of the films we saw, at other times we certainly tipped each other off on some very enjoyable and entertaining films. I thank you very much, Judith, for your interest in films. You will be sadly missed in this place.

I turn now to Guy Barnett. Guy, in his period in the Senate, has made a great contribution in two particular areas, which I will mention. Firstly, Guy was renowned as a driver of the need for increased recognition of the problems faced by those who have diabetes. He has made an outstanding contribution to the cause of more research and a greater understanding of the pathology of diabetes and the treatment of it and has taken this concern about diabetes into the public arena. The Australian community, Guy, owes you a great debt for what you have done in promoting the understanding of diabetes and the need for there to be better treatment facilities, particularly for children. Children find diabetes very difficult to cope with, particularly small children who have type 1 diabetes and who have to inject themselves, as we heard only yesterday at the event which was held in the Mural Hall. I thank you for what you have done in that area.

Another issue for which Guy Barnett earned my great respect was his opposition to the Victorian legislation permitting mid-term abortions for babies with even the most minor congenital abnormalities, as was detailed in evidence provided a few years ago to a Senate committee inquiry into the provision of Medicare rebates for these procedures.

Sadly, the impression left by the evidence given at that inquiry was that Australia, at least Victoria, was moving down a pathway where eugenics were becoming a consider­ation as to whether or not a baby should be allowed to live. The comparisons which some people drew between the implications of the Victorian mid-term abortion legislation and its practice and the notorious T4 Program, which existed in Hitler's Germany, was not in my opinion misplaced. The theme in both cases was the same, that only perfect human beings should be allowed to live. As a person who quite obviously has a short-limb condition which would, under Victorian legislation, be an unequivocal ground for termination of a pregnancy—as was stated by the then President of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at those hearings—but who, like many others with congenital conditions, has lived a successful life and had a successful career, I very greatly respect Guy Barnett for his moral courage in taking a stand against what I regard as pernicious Victorian legislation, which so devalues human life and the potential of human beings to not let themselves be disadvantaged by not being physically perfect.

Lastly, I would like to turn to my esteemed colleague Russell Trood. As has been said by many others, Russell Trood is a universally respected figure in the Senate, both for his innate dignity and his great knowledge of international affairs. International affairs is a matter which I too have a great interest in, and in fact I hold a degree from Murdoch University which focused on East Asian politics and Australia's role in the region. I have to say that I have always greatly respected Russell's understanding of the importance of Australia's need to engage with the nations in our region as being the key to the long-term future of Australia and its role in this part of the world.

All three senators have been great colleagues and have made great and substantial contributions to the Senate and I wish all three of them all the best for their future endeavours. I am sure that all will continue to contribute to public affairs and leave their marks in whatever they do in the future.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to associate myself with earlier comments paying tribute to esteemed colleagues whose times will shortly expire and who will be leaving this place shortly, namely, Senators Troeth, Barnett and Trood. I know that a lot of colleagues want to speak so I will be jumping around a little bit to try to capture the essence of what I want to say about each of these colleagues. All of these senators have graced this chamber with their presence and by the considerable contri­butions each has made, albeit in different fields and areas of expertise and interest.

I find it so challenging to try to capture the essence of a colleague's parliamentary career, which typically is diverse and broad in scope. As the speeches go on and the degrees of fabulousness get greater, it is ever more difficult to be able to properly capture rather than diminish the high regard in which they are held. For that reason, rather than attempt to catalogue the myriad public achievements of the three of them, I will just give a few personal reflections and observations.

Senator Troeth represents and embodies a very important Victorian Liberal tradition, that of having a woman continually representing the state of Victoria since 1949 in this chamber. Judith has continued the tradition and has been a wonderful example of women selected on merit who have forged their careers in a not always accommodating environment. Judith has been a strong representative for women and particularly for rural women across Australia, as others have said. Having that great credential of being from a farming background, as a wife and mother of five children I also come from a rural background, and when someone the other day referred to me as 'Sydney Helen', I did not really know whether to be insulted or not. But Judith of course has got absolutely impeccable credentials to represent her rural constituency.

She has been an indefatigable worker. I am currently chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and I think that she was also chair and a very effective parliamentary secretary, as others have said, to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, and the minister for agriculture. On top of all that, her hard work on various Senate committees is topped only by the list of foreign countries she visited during the years she served in the Senate. But these were not the normal places. Our Judith has been to Ethiopia and Tanzania and Mongolia and East Timor, which just shows the interest she has in the far-flung places around the globe.

Finally, if anyone in this chamber has an impression of a mild-mannered senator, let me remind you, as other colleagues have, that Judith is a woman of passion and conviction, prepared to exercise her absolute right to take on unpopular positions particularly in her own party—never an easy thing to do—and to stand her ground even, if necessary, crossing the floor if she thought that was warranted. So there are two things I will always associate with Judith Troeth: her passion and her commitment to causes that she felt strongly about. But most of all, I will always value her friendship.

The second senator that I wish to quickly mention is Guy Barnett. Guy joined us after appointment by the Governor in 2002, replacing our great friend and colleague Senator the Hon. Brian Gibson. He had a stellar career as the youngest senior adviser to a state premier at the age of 25, and then of course as a successful owner and manager of his own government affairs and public relations business prior to his entry to the Senate. These are all things that will serve him well now. He was well qualified to contribute to the long line of very distinguished Tasmanian senators that we have in this place.

From a party point of view, long before being appointed to the Senate, he was a member of the Liberal Party State Executive and Policy Committee, and Chair of its Constitution Review Committee from 1994 to 2001, no doubt ably calling on his legal background. So he is a passionate advocate for truth and transparency. We have all heard about these wonderful attributes of Guy.

My very clear memory of Guy will always be associated with him working closely, even passionately, with me when I was the minister for communications on measures to protect Australian families online, and he always had valuable perspectives. He also had an almost equally passionate denuncia­tion of government waste, although I hasten to say that was not in my capacity as minister for communications. So, Guy, the people of Tasmania should be very proud of you, as we are, and I know that you will be able to use the many talents that you have innately and those you have developed.

And as for last of the three amigos—I always like to use that word, drawing on my background as minister for communi­cations—I wish to talk about the stereotype of the diplomat rather than the senator. Senator Trood has performed superbly as a senator. A great friend from Queensland since his election, he came to the chamber as a fully-fledged lawyer and university lecturer. He served on various boards, either as president or board member, such as the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the Australia Indonesia Institute and the Foreign Affairs Council—all before he entered politics. As others have said, he served our party not surprisingly in a most distinguished role as Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, a member of the state executive and as Vice-Chair of the Liberal Party Development Committee.

As I have heard it said of Senator Trood, when Senate estimates come around, as indeed Senator Evans confirmed, even the most senior bureaucrats are concerned that there is a senator who knows as much, if not more, than they do about their department and its work. But all of this has been very carefully camouflaged behind that urbane, civilised and cultured manner. When I was appointed shadow foreign minister by Malcolm Turnbull I called on Senator Trood several times to represent both me and the coalition at various state functions, totally confident in the knowledge that he would always enhance our position. He never let me down and he has never let us down. He has a deserved reputation for his calm, thoughtful and strong contributions, always listened to, always worth listening to. He is a rare talent, assisted and perfected by his university lecturing over many years, and more recently his visiting fellowship at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

I know that others want to talk about the three of you. As I said when I started, the briefness of my contribution is in no way meant to diminish the great regard in which I hold all of you. You will be very much missed in the chamber. We are losing three very valuable senators on our side who have made a significant contribution not just to us but to the body politic of this great Senate and to the national debate, both individually and jointly. You will be missed. I salute you and thank you and ask that you not be strangers to us in future.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues across the chamber in relation to the three retiring Liberal senators. Senator Troeth has always been a very warm and friendly colleague. I did get to know her during my time in the organisation before I came to this place. It was some time after I realised a little of how this place worked that I understood the impact of some of the conversations I might have had with her before I came into the place. It has always been a very warm and friendly association.

The strength of Judith's work was demonstrated at the Rural Woman of the Year awards a couple of weeks ago. She did mention this in her speech earlier tonight: she was specifically recognised for the work that she had done in relation to the development of that award and the raising of its stature and its profile. Having had an association myself with that award, as her successor in the portfolio, I know how valuable it is and how much her work was valued in that area. Her legacy is more than well established through the agricultural sector and the portfolio. She very kindly left me alone and allowed me to make my mistakes and stumble through my early days in the portfolio, however difficult it might have been for her, having gone through that change process. I very much appreciate the fact that she was prepared to do that, although I did notice her smiling knowingly during some of the occasions when I was dealing with my colleagues in relation to some of the industry fees and levies. I know that she had her moments. I certainly had my own, as well—the knowing smile remains. Judith, all the very best for the future. It really has been great working with you and I appreciate the collegiate and friendly nature of our interactions. I wish you all the very best into the future.

I have not had a huge interaction with Senator Russell Trood during my time here. Because of the nature of this place and the committees we work on, we are often in different places at different times. But I have had the great pleasure of Russell's company a number of times at social events and dinners where we have had the opportunity to sit down. Like all the others who have spoken here before me, I do recognise what Russell has brought to this place. He has always been held in high respect across this chamber for his knowledge and his wealth of research. I certainly hope he remains a friend into the future.

This valedictory process that we are undertaking in this couple of weeks actually demonstrates the strength and the value that the diversity of members of this chamber brings to the chamber's work—the ideas, the expertise and the experience that members bring to this chamber, to the parliament generally and more broadly to what we do. Some of the things that have been said about colleagues tonight and particularly Russell demonstrate the real value of all of those things that come to this place. None of us are the holder of all wisdom, and the strength of this place is being able to work together, as we do in the committees that we are all part of, on so many occasions. Sometimes it can be combative but more often than not, particularly within the committees and the work that we do there, we are genuinely looking to make things better and to find solutions. If we are prepared to work with and consider the ideas of everybody else that sits around the table then more often than not we will come up with a better result. Quite obviously, from what has been said here tonight, Russell's contribution really signifies the value of that.

Finally, I turn to my Tasmanian colleague Senator Guy Barnett. Guy and I go back quite a long way within the Liberal Party organisation in Tasmania. I have not been a member for as long as Guy has—I was not underage when I joined. I had been doing a few other things before I was invited to join the party. But we worked very closely together on a range of things within the organisation. Guy has served the Liberal Party in Tasmania extensively on its constitutional review committee.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just cannot keep a good guy down, I suppose, Guy. When I was state president we worked quite closely together on a range of things including reform of elements of the party. As Guy mentioned in his speech, that process continues. It is a long relationship. It goes back 20-odd years now. We were competitors in and around the preselection process. In fact, we had some pretty friendly conversations about who was who in the zoo at particular times, but we walked away quite content that we would compete with each other on our merits. One thing I will say about my interactions with Guy—and this is, unfortunately, something which does not happen within preselection processes—is that we were prepared to compete with each other on our merits rather than trying to drag each other down. I certainly appreciated that process, Guy. When we finally got to the stage of starting our parliamentary careers, we started here within a month of each other. It is through the cruel vagaries of the political process that, unfortunately, Guy is leaving us. He still has a lot to offer in public life. He has hinted at that during his speech here tonight, and I think that is appropriate. One thing that I think Guy's nine years in this chamber has done is provide him with the tools and skills to set himself up with a large number of options. I was delighted to hear that he is taking up some representative work for something that he has become synonymous with—that is, diabetes. It is highly appropriate that Guy takes that up because we all know the strength of passion that he has for that cause. Obviously he has a personal reason for doing that, but it is not necessary, from Guy's perspective, to have a personal reason to be involved with an issue. One thing about Guy: if you have him on your side on an issue, you know that there is somebody who is just not going to let go. As much as people might like him to let go on occasions, once he is set on a path that is it; he will fight alongside you right through the process.

I reflected at his valedictory dinner a week or so ago, which again demonstrated how well regarded he is in our home state of Tasmania, that he was prepared to take up the really tough issues and to go into places where it was difficult to go. I recall in the lead-up to the election the state government had made some decisions to close hospitals at Rosebery and Ouse. Rosebery, being a mining town, is what you would call dead red Labor; she is a pretty tough place for us conservatives. I can recall campaigning down there for a day at the senior citizens and thinking I was doing a wonderful job. At the end of it they said: 'Well it's been great to meet you. We think you're a lovely bloke, but Dick Adams is good fella too.' That is the nature of the place; they are very set in their ways. But the campaign that Guy waged down there brought close to a 25 per cent swing in that seat. It was Guy's strength of advocacy that really provided the impetus for people to change their vote—which is not an easy thing to get people to do.

It is that strength of advocacy and those skills that Guy has built up over the past nine years in this place that will provide him with an enormous range of options. I am sure that we will see him working into the future. I wish Guy and his family all the best, as I do my other colleagues, and I look forward to working with him not only for the Liberal cause but for the community into the future.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call on the next speaker, I remind senators that this session concludes at 7.20 and there are still a reasonable number of senators who have indicated that they wish to speak.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I will be very brief. I did get the opportunity last night in my own valedictory to extend best wishes to Senators Troeth, Barnett and Trood. The brevity of my remarks tonight is in no way an indication of the respect I have for each of them and the best wishes that I wish to extend to them. I apologise that I was not here to hear their valedictories. I was doing what all of us are often doing; I was attending a committee meeting, working on a report on Australia's relations with Africa. I will read the speeches.

With regard to Senator Guy Barnett, he is somebody who I have known all of the time he has been here, but I have not worked on that many occasions with him on committees, except most recently on the territories bill, which was an interesting experience. My association with him has been through his work with the friends of diabetes—that does not mean we like diabetes; it is the group that does such great work. Senator Barnett has been at the forefront of that group's work. And may he continue to ride that bike, too. We shared a plane to Coffs Harbour recently. I arrived and got in a cab and went to the hotel and Guy got in a bigger van and then took his bike with him to ride up the mountain, which I thought was pretty crazy! But congratulations to Guy on all of the great work he has done for that wonderful cause, and best wishes.

I am not going to be here, but the Senate is certainly going to miss Senator Trood because of his excellent work on foreign affairs. I have already referred to that. He, like each of the senators, including me, has been in that terrible spot on the Senate ticket where your future hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, from his perspective and his party's perspective, he was not re-elected. His talent and expertise in foreign affairs will be missed.

Finally I go to Senator Troeth, whom I have known for many years and worked with on a number of committees—including rural and regional in particular and, most importantly for both of us, the Public Works Committee. She has been the deputy chair of that committee for a long time. That is a terrific committee. It does a lot of great work. It is not always written up in lights, but Senator Troeth has been a superb participant. There is also her work for the IPU. We enjoyed a very hardworking trip to Geneva and Paris last year. Best wishes to you all, and I hope to catch up with you all in our respective retirements.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago, at a primary school in Brisbane, a grade 5 student asked me the question, 'Do you have to be good at stuff to be a politician?' My first reaction was to say, 'No'. I had to think about it for a minute. I said: 'You need to be good at reading. And you wouldn't want to be frightened of speaking in public, or your job would be a nightmare.' Then I got into the groove and went on to say the diversity of gender, age, experience and background is what makes parliament a good place and means that we make great laws. I would like to look at our three retiring senators from this side tonight and see it as a great celebration of the Liberal Party and the way it promotes diversity—the different paths and the different backgrounds of our three senators. I also will be very brief because there are others who want to say something. I would initially like to recognise the great and very principled contribution—not always contributions I have agreed with—that Senator Guy Barnett has made to this place. It may not be well known, but Senator Guy Barnett and I share the fact that a close relative of each of us has died of motor neurone disease. His advocacy in this area has been just as passionate and just as long-term and loyal as it has been in the area of diabetes. I am honoured that he has asked me if I would take on some of the advocacy for motor neurone disease in this place. They are big shoes to fill, but thank you for asking.

Senator Trood and I have spent time on the hustings—I think since 2001 we have shared Senate tickets and the like. It certainly is a way to get to know someone. I must associate myself with the remarks that Senator Joyce made about how initially in country areas sometimes people would wonder at the erudite Senator Trood. But the minute he started to speak to them, the minute he understood their issues, the minute they realised that he could reflect back to them their needs, the views changed. I remember one night in the Roma shire council rooms meeting the council came up with what I found a slightly out-of-the-square solution to their lack of population: the idea of taking in boilermaker apprentices from China for a short course. This struck me as really outside the square, but Senator Trood immediately picked up on the fact that education services are one of our great exports, saw the benefits and expounded them in a way that made them far more understandable to me. That certainly is a role he has played throughout his time here. Senator Trood, we will miss you and I certainly hope that we will see you back here in the near future.

Senator the Hon. Judith Troeth was the person I sat next to when I first came to the Senate. I filled a casual vacancy so I did not get to do the training courses that a lot of other people do. Thank you, Senator Troeth, for the 'get up now', 'sit down now', 'jump now', 'try and stretch that out a bit more' hints that you gave me. Thank you for your mentoring and for your advice around committees.

It has been pretty obvious from what has been said here today that Senator Troeth has paid a far, far greater role in women's issues and assisting and promoting rural women and rural women's leadership—the RU486 debate, which is still talked about wherever women get together and discuss behaving in a bipartisan way in politics, and her comments regarding the disproportionate underrepresentation of women in parliament. I would like to quote from something that she said in a paper that she wrote on this topic in June 2010. She said:

The residual disproportion of women in Parliament should not be seen as a women’s issue alone. It should be viewed as a challenge concerning every Australian as it goes to the heart of representative and responsible governance of this nation.

Certainly the existing mechanism for getting more Liberal women into parliament is not working. Clearly this is something we need to address.

Senator Troeth mentioned the need to jump-start the representation of women. I would support that view wholly and I would hope that the three retiring senators jump-start their future careers. Thank you.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very sorry about that!

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.