Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share 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.