Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I suspect that what began as a pleasant experience for those senators who are retiring has probably now turned into something of an ordeal, so I will attempt to be as succinct as I possibly can—short of actually sitting down, which I do not propose to do.

To see 115 or so years of corporate memory and experience walk out the door is a tad distressing, but I realise that they all have the right eventually to take that experience and memory somewhere else, and I wish them the best in doing so. I want to thank each of the retiring senators for the example they have set for newer arrivals such as me. Every one of them has left us all a legacy of some sort, a model of the way to behave as a politician—a policy plank which we still use—and the strengthening in some way of the corporate brand that we all rely upon as members of political parties.

Senator Chapman has been a model of stamina and staying power. He has been a consistent and tenacious contributor to the Liberal Party’s mission over nearly 30 years and in two chambers of parliament. Senator Lightfoot has stood firmly for the values in which he believes, one of which, I have to say, is that, however vital the issue or however fierce the battle, one should always deal with others courteously and respectfully. And a dry sense of humour, of which we had a taste this evening from Senator Lightfoot, is another asset in that process. I am particularly grateful to him for having kept me in touch in recent years with the work of the National Capital and External Territories Committee when I was not a member of it. Senator Sandy Macdonald is likewise the model of a gentleman legislator. I thank him particularly for infecting me with enthusiasm about the parliamentary defence program, for which he was surely the most committed-ever parliamentary secretary.

John Watson, likewise, is a model of a thoughtful and reasoned legislator. Senator Watson’s guidance on the issue of indexing the superannuation of retiring or retired public servants and military personnel at the same rate as that of age pensioners in Australia is a particularly important legacy. His view that these two rates of indexation should in fairness be aligned, which he expressed in at least two parliamentary committee reports on superannuation as chair of the committee, was a reminder to me that principle has a more honoured place in politics than pragmatism.

I remain forever indebted to Senator Kemp for the close attention he gave me and my position as the coalition’s sole representative in the ACT. He was forever concerned, helpful and involved in the issues I confronted here, in Canberra. It may distress members of the arts community in Australia to discover that the new home for the National Portrait Gallery was not for them but, in fact, a personal gift from Senator Kemp to me—at least that is what he led me to believe. He was always responsible for a personal epiphany I had as a politician in my first year in this place. I was increasingly concerned and distressed about the plans by the Australian Film Commission to take elements of the National Film and Sound Archive to Sydney. I eventually plucked up the courage to ring the minister of the Crown and tell him about my concerns. Before I could blab out a couple of sentences, he said, ‘Tell me, Senator, what do you think we should do?’ I told him, and he said: ‘Well, you’re our man on the scene. If you think that is the thing to do then that is what we’ll do.’ The decision was duly reversed. He taught me a great deal about how to approach ministers—although, I doubt that any minister would have quite the same receptiveness as he did.

No-one in this place could better exemplify the enthusiastic, committed and involved law maker than Senator Kay Patterson. In parliament, one is constantly confronted by decisions about which balls to let go through to the wicketkeeper and which ones to bat back. It seems to me that in Kay Patterson’s case no ball ever reached the wicketkeeper. She has a ferocious interest in everything and an opinion to match. She is always prepared to share that with her colleagues. That is not to say, of course, that I agree with everything Senator Patterson has had to say. In fact, as Senator Barnett has already suggested, on medico ethical issues she is a dangerous radical—indeed, a ratbag.