Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commence my valedictory, nearly my last speech here, with a phrase I have often used: I thank the Senate. I thank the Senate for allowing my valedictory tonight. I set this date some time back, believing it to be the date that the Senate would do valedictories and because it suited the travel arrangements for my family—and then the Senate changed its dates. So thank you for understanding and accommodating my needs tonight.

I thank the Senate for what it has done for me and for what it has meant to Pam and me—for the opportunities and privileges it has afforded me; and for the friendships, the passion, the laughs, the drama, the great deeds and the humanity of it all. I thank the parliament—its members, senators and ministers, committee chairs and members—for the courtesies and consideration shown to me, my wife and staff. I thank the many very professional, sometimes amazingly insightful, politicians and people. I thank the wonderful Senate and committee staff, the superb Parliamentary Library, security officers, cleaners, caterers and attendants—all the friendly, helpful and able souls everywhere. In particular, I want to recognise the Clerk of the Senate and his deputy: we owe Harry and Rosemary a great deal—and you sit big in our hearts.

I am grateful that we have a free press. The best of you are clever, thorough, insightful, fair, learned and original, and those journalists do Australia proud. I was not one for doorknocking or schmoozing the gallery much, but I did do my share of pestering to be heard. I will try to drop a note to those who found my policy and politics occasionally of interest. I particularly thank those journalists from my state who were interested in my doings.

I thank the Australian Democrats for all they have done for me. I thank the WA members and senators, who have shown me such consideration. I leave of my own volition, but I do leave with regret—not at my decision but because I came to love the place and the people, and I will miss it and them.

It was a slow start for me. I loathed the ugly, intrusive, personal side of politics. I was horrified whenever my privacy was invaded. I never accepted anyone thinking I was now their servant. I could not understand the sneering, carping cynicism directed at those in public life. I was astonished by the haters. Those with good hearts and motives lifted me up, and I tapped into the rich vein of the Australian character. Many do give you credit for doing your best—and a little more credit if you do it well. I was born to a conscience and a conscience vote. Outside politics, by which I mean the business of being a politician, never appealed that much to me. I am not good at gladhanding. I did think of just giving it all away and being a one-termer. In contrast, inside politics appealed vastly—the issues, the negotiations, the bright intensity of the lobbyists and advocates, the quality input from the public sector, the best of the media minds, the best of the political minds, the committee work and helping those who really did need a hand.

I cannot escape the historic nature of this valedictory. This speech of mine is one-quarter of the Senate valedictory for the Australian Democrats themselves. Each of the four Democrat senators is very conscious that we are the last of 26 Australian Democrat senators that have served the Senate continuously over the last three decades. I suspect that history will judge the 26 well and not just for remarkable policy and advocacy consistency and constancy but because, as parliamentarians and legislators, we have left a much bigger mark than is presently believed to be the case on the political history of our Commonwealth—in the conventions and culture of the Senate, in legislation and not least in having so many of our causes eventually accepted as good policy, such as in the accountability, environmental and social justice fields.

Several journalists have asked me, ‘Is this the end of the Democrats?’ and I have answered, ‘I don’t know’—and in the same breath, answering their own question, they have asked, ‘Why did you die?’ There may be other Senate Democrats in the future; who can tell? But in this Senate it is the end for us four. For those who think it cannot or will not happen to them: nothing and no-one is immortal. If you know anything about history, you know that political death will come to the other political parties in Australia sooner or later too, when it is their time.

Political parties are vehicles that may cease running, but the great streams of human aspiration and philosophy within them do not die. The philosophy goes on, even if the party fails. With respect to both the media and the voters—who led who, I have never worked out—we Democrats lost their interest and were no longer valued enough. That is political life. Either you are in or you are out. I will leave it to the political and academic commentariat to do the post-mortem. The Democrats lasted three decades in the Senate because they had substance and some powerful party and political minds and personalities. They were also the carriers of one of the three strongest political philosophies in the Western world: liberalism—the other two being conservatism and socialism.

Among other things, we Democrats have held true to a reasoned argument; to individual rights, property rights and natural rights; to the protection of civil liberties; to accountability, responsibility and good governance; to constitutional and parliamentary limitations and restraint; to republican ideals; to the rule of law; to the virtues of a civil society; to free but fair markets; and to public goods and the public interest. I suspect that, if the conservatives and Labor socialists in Australia cover the majority of Australians, a fifth to a third of Australians broadly ascribe to what is known as a liberal or small ‘l’ philosophy. Yet even the great Janine Haines could not get us Democrats higher than 12.6 per cent in the lower house, and our maximum at any one time was nine senators. So the Australian Democrats, the political party, never realised its full potential, if you speak about the small ‘l’ liberal philosophy. We never won all the votes of our natural constituency. Not everyone who voted for us was a small ‘l’ liberal, but most small ‘l’ liberals voted elsewhere anyway.

So what has or is to become of those who did vote for us? They still need a home. Sooner or later one will need to be made for them, because people, Australian people, who hold to the great centuries-old Western liberal tradition are not conservatives, they are not socialists and they are not Greens—even though, like me, they find attractions in all those movements at times; they are liberals.

If a first speech is about where you have been, who you are, why you are here and where you are trying to go, a last speech might include where you want to go next, who you have become and why you no longer want to be here. What next? I honestly do not know. I am not retiring, even though I am old enough to. I have at least another good 10 years in me yet. I am just ending this Canberra stint and will be doing other things from my Perth base. First will be a bit of relaxation and more time with my family, particularly the grandies. I will get bored though. We will see!

Next: who have I become? Self-perception and others’ perception are not the same, and people make their own judgements. When you ask, ‘What was he like?’ the sum of a man can be found in a word, a phrase or a sentence. Of my public self you be the judge. I will say this is a place that gives you experience you would never get elsewhere; it tempers you. You do not leave the same person who came in.

Of my private self: some of you know my work on institutionalised children and my own personal discoveries as a result, and they have changed me forever. The meaning of life is getting to know and understand your inner being. As a result of my Senate and electorate work on children harmed in care, I have been scarred by their stories and uplifted by their humanity but have also, personally, discovered much that makes me as I am. In an almost contrary way, I am therefore more settled than I have ever been.

Why do I think it is time for me to leave the Senate? I never came for a job; I came for a calling. WA Inc. had incensed me; I felt the country was losing its way, so I entered federal politics. Since then I have done what I could, as best I could. It is time for me to do something else and let someone else have a go. It is time for me to be in Perth more, to be at home more, to be with my family more.

When I gave my first speech I spoke of Pam, my wife, but not of my children, Ashleigh and Paul. That was deliberate. I wanted to keep them private. They had not entered politics; I had. They had not walked onto the public stage; I had. I was determined that they should not be, and should not feel that they were, political handbags. But they were always in my mind. Politics is a pressured, opinionated business, and I knew they felt the heat when I did, even if they were standing back a bit. Their support never wavered, they kept the home fires burning, they phoned and emailed often, they kept me in their lives and they made me very proud. Then they married Graham and Kati—two more to love—and the four of them then produced Daniel and Julius, which gladdens my heart. So these are the people who matter to me: Pam, Ashleigh, Paul, my immediate family; Norah and Morgie back home; and my dear friends too—although dear little Bengy is now gone. Then there is a small diaspora of family all over the world, including sisters Rosemary and Jane, brothers John and Bill, and seeming legions of nephews, nieces, great-nephews and great-nieces. That is the other thing about getting older: you get more emotional. It will come to you all.

I have been politically engaged since my early teens but I think I finally came into formal politics, into parliament, at the right age and stage. For me, politics is best with grown children, because you do not have to worry too much about them when you are away as much as I have been, and you can have your wife with you as much as possible. Pam was in Canberra for my first speech and she is in the gallery for my last. Today is our 36th wedding anniversary, so I will dedicate this speech to her. I and many others owe her a great debt. I feel for the pollies from far away—North Queensland, the Northern Territory or Western Australia. Frankly I would not have done this job without Pam being here as much as she has been; I would have given it away.

It is important to keep proper perspective when you think about your own contribution. There have been 519 senators since 1901, and I am just one of those—equa1 455th with the nine that came in with me on 1 July 2006, 12 years ago, or just one of the 1,534 from both houses who have served in parliament. Politicians, like cricketers, keep score. Our whip’s clerk gave me my performance statistics. I am not going to bore you with those, but what I did want to lead on to was power versus influence.

I think the biggest job a parliamentarian has is to try and influence outcomes—to persuade others. Many would disagree with me, but I find influence more satisfying than power, because it involves the acceptance over time of your position. You have to win votes through argument. You do not exercise raw power—you have to win those votes. I have tried to exert influence, and I thank all those who had to put up with my private and public entreaties, all my suggestions and input into reports and legislation, all the corridor, office and committee advocacy, and all the endless rabbiting around in policy matters.

There were some moments when we had the call. When we Democrats held the balance of Senate power it did mean that, over the years, we—in my portfolios certainly—had the call on policy and money, including tens of consequent billions. It was a big call. I had a couple of accountability wins. One which I enjoyed became known as the Murray motion—the continuing Senate order whereby departments and agencies must publish on the internet lists of their contracts to the value of $100,000 or more. I have had 305 individual and 178 joint amendments pass the Senate in my 12 years, out of over 1,300 moved. Probably some of you will be thinking, ‘Only that few!’ I suppose it is not that many when you are in the balance of power role for so many years. In my defence, I do know hundreds of government amendments were those we negotiated.

You do need endurance here. I remember the Senate punch-bag times, such as the A New Tax System debate, which was the third longest debate in the history of the Senate at nearly 69 hours. I also had carriage for my party of two other bills in the top 10 all-time longest ever debates—the 1996 and 2005 workplace relations legislation debates, at 48 hours and 32 hours respectively.

This world of politics is a hard, competitive world, and for all of us, unless you happen to be a celebrity politician or hold a vital role at a vital time, it is often hard to get heard outside, no matter how hard you work. Even if you are not suited to it, you have to get heard outside because media and getting noticed matter in gathering votes. That is why some of us have to step outside our personalities and act in a way which gathers those votes. It matters less in getting somewhere in policy. Inside parliament it is a different matter. Long, consistent, principled advocacy often does pay off in here, because parliamentarians in the chamber, in committees, in corridors, will absorb repeated messages that have merit.

If you think that is not so, think of all the Democrat causes that were once marginal and are now mainstream—for instance, on the environment and climate change; on women’s, Indigenous and gay rights; and on accountability and good governance.

When journalists ask me what my biggest achievements are, as they do when you are leaving, I answer that it is up to them to judge, but I do tell them what has meant the most to me. That is my work, particularly helped by Marilyn and Pam, on children who were institutionalised last century. I fought for years to get the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s 2001 child migrants and 2004 ‘Forgotten Australians’ inquiries up. The unanimous reports from those inquiries revealed that more than 500,000 Australians were either raised or spent time in institutional or other forms of out-of-home care last century.

Although there is so much more to be done, I have helped bring their cause onto the public stage, and I am very glad to have done so. I want to acknowledge Margaret, Joanna and Leonie among the many warriors in this cause. I want to recognise Leonie Sheedy and a number of the forgotten Australians who are in the gallery. And let me single out for the highest praise my adviser Dr Marilyn Rock, whose work on the child migrants and ‘Forgotten Australians’ issues has been above and beyond the call of duty.

Before I leave this topic, know this. I lay the parliamentary burden of this cause on all those continuing in federal politics, but especially Jason Clare, Richard Marles and Jenny Macklin in the House; and Gary Humphries, Claire Moore, Jan McLucas and Steve Hutchins in the Senate. Do not let me or them down.

My achievements and efforts have had terrific backing from the selfless and self-sacrificing members and supporters of the Australian Democrats, past and present, particularly in WA, who have stood for me and by me. I am not all that easy to know or understand but they have forgiven me my shortcomings and rewarded me with their loyalty and support. I salute them, past and present. In particular I honour the durable, loyal, wise and supportive Jack Evans. I thank him and Margaret for so much.

To the voters of WA, I have done my very best for you and I thank you for giving me the opportunity of this rich and fulfilling parliamentary experience. To my electorate staff and advisers over the 12 years—I have already mentioned Pam, Marilyn and Jack—I want to pick out for special mention smart Emma and Damen and the very talented Jeff; loyal Julie and Mary; the clever Eli and Tim; fabulous Ainslie; and volunteers like Bill and dear Ellen Cook. I will mention just some of my portfolio advisers—the simply amazing John Cherry; clever Kellie; Lee, Victor and Karen—but my sincere thanks go to the others, especially Schuie and long-serving Jene, Sam and Stephen.

To my Democrat colleagues past and present, I salute you—cumulatively and individually people of great talent, ability, humanity, application, hard work and diligence. We have been through a great deal together, and I thank you. I shall say more about you tomorrow.

To the Labor, Liberal, National and Green senators who leave on 30 June, very good luck and thank you for being good company—some of you excellent and naughty company! I have discovered I have many more friends here, in the House and abroad than I realised. Thank you for your recent messages of thanks and respect—they have buoyed me enormously. I will mention only two senators by name tonight, though. Blessings to you, Alan and Lyn.

I will conclude with the wonderful TS Eliot, from The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock. Some of it will remind you of political life. I will just quote the first quarter but, if you like it, you can ask that the rest of it be incorporated at the end because I do have it here. It goes like this:

LET us go then, you and I,

When the evening is spread out against the sky

Like a patient etherised upon a table;

Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,

The muttering retreats

Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels

And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:

Streets that follow like a tedious argument

Of insidious intent

To lead you to an overwhelming question ...

Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”

Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go

Talking of Michelangelo.

The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,

The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes

Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,

Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,

Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,

Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,

And seeing that it was a soft October night,

Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.

And indeed there will be time

For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,

Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;

There will be time, there will be time

To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;

There will be time to murder and create,

And time for all the works and days of hands

That lift and drop a question on your plate,

Time for you and time for me,

And time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.

           …         …         …

I thank the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with Senator Evans in paying tribute to the magnificent career of Senator Andrew Murray, and I endorse and support almost everything that Senator Evans has said. Indeed, it has been a magnificent career. If you think about it, Senator Murray, in his 12 years here, has probably contributed more than many do in twice that time to the work of this chamber and the parliament. I would hazard a guess that there is no other non-coalition senator who commands more respect on our side than Senator Andrew Murray. You have earned that respect by the work that you do. Not only that—you have earned at the same time, and it is not easy to do, the friendship of senators, certainly on our side and I dare say around the chamber. Your obvious intelligence, your incredible capacity for hard work—you mentioned your job of handling the new tax system in this chamber; that would have been extraordinarily onerous for you—and your dedication to your task have been evident to all of us.

The other thing that really marks you is that you have brought to your role here extraordinary life experience. Senator Evans made mention of that, but it does single you out. We like to think that on our side coalition senators bring considerably more life experience than those from the other side, but you really do bring to this place—

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

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not, of course; I am just another party hack like Senator Evans. But you have seen life, and that is evident in the work that you have done in this chamber.

The thing that stands out on our side is that Senator Murray has been, as far as we are concerned, in all our time in this place, the only Democrat who really understands economics and business. We know that the Democrats are a broad church and have a number of issues which mean a lot to them, but it is our experience that Senator Murray really is the only one who fundamentally understands economics and business. Of course that has meant that Senator Murray has had an enormous workload in carrying legislation that deals with the budget taxation expenditures and industrial relations. I want to say that I congratulate the new government on recognising that expertise by honouring Senator Murray with the responsibility of preparing a report for the new government on budget transparency issues. I commend my successor as finance minister, Lindsay Tanner, on asking Senator Murray to conduct that review. I look forward to seeing Senator Murray’s review and I think that it will have a bearing on our policy positions.

As finance minister, of course, I had to juggle a Prime Minister and Treasurer who were not necessarily all that enthusiastic about undue transparency and, no doubt, Mr Tanner might find that his Prime Minister and Treasurer in the reality of government are not quite as enthusiastic as they might have been in opposition. But I am sure your report will be very instructive and well thought through.

Certainly my own former department of finance had enormous respect for Senator Murray. I used to have estimates briefings with my department before every series of estimates and there would always be a session dedicated to: what is Senator Andrew Murray going to pursue at this Senate estimates; are we prepared for the series of questions which he will no doubt bring to bear? So the respect that Senator Murray earned not only exists in this chamber but I think is widespread, certainly in the financial departments of the government.

The coalition of course extends its enormous gratitude to Senator Murray and his Democrat fellows who supported the new tax system. I will say something more about this tomorrow night. I guess it was the most difficult issue the Democrats have had to deal with in their 30-year existence. Senator Murray’s dedication to good policy outcomes and to ensuring that good policy outcomes outweighed the politics of issues meant that in the end he did support what he, I and I think the nation now know was a very important change to our tax system. It is now almost unimaginable to think of having retained the old tax system in 2008. We would not have had it but for the courage of Senator Murray and a few of his Democrat colleagues who in the end supported the new tax system. I acknowledge his courage and commitment to that cause and the difficulty that it no doubt would have caused him in his party.

I was interested in Senator Evans saying that Senator Murray seems to have convinced those on our side that he is really a Liberal and those on the Labor side that he really supports Labor. I think that the truth is that his Liberal tendencies are pretty strong, and I guess in the true sense of the word they would be small ‘l’ liberal tendencies, but we on our side like to think that we are the custodians of the two great British liberal traditions: conservatism—which I guess I am a disciple of—and small ‘l’ liberalism. Many of my esteemed colleagues of course are dedicated exponents of the virtues of small ‘l’ liberalism, and I think Senator Murray is one of the great exponents of the virtues of that great British tradition of small ‘l’ liberalism.

Indeed, on that score I think he would have graced our party. I am sorry we were never able to persuade him to see the light and join the Liberal Party. I think he would have graced our side of politics and that it would have given him the opportunity to serve as a minister and be part of executive government. As Senator Evans properly said, one of the problems of being in a minor party in this place is that you are denied the opportunity of being part of the executive, but he has more than made up for that by being one of the great legislators this parliament has seen—an absolutely outstanding legislator. But, as I said, I am sorry that he has not had the opportunity to be part of an executive.

Senator Evans also made the point that, when we look to that corner, we notice that Senator Murray is the only one to have not been the leader of his party. I do not mean any offence to his three esteemed colleagues, but I certainly want to say that I think he would have been an outstanding leader of his party. I think his party failed in not giving him that opportunity.

The other thing that really stands out about Senator Murray is just how personable a human being he is. Senator Murray is one of the most personable, pleasant and agreeable people to deal with, in my experience. Those are not necessarily common attributes in this place. Senator Murray is one of the most determined negotiators that you could encounter. He certainly knows what he wants in a negotiation but does it with courtesy and grace, which is, as I said, very rare in this business.

Tonight we also saw that Senator Murray is quite a philosophical fellow. It reminds me of when I was 20 and first went to the temple at Delphi and learnt about the inscriptions at each end of that temple which gave rise to the notion of the Delphic oracle. At one end the inscription is ‘Know thyself’ and at the other end the inscription is ‘Moderation in all things’. While I might aspire to achieve both of those things, I have failed miserably so far, but it can truly be said of Senator Andrew Murray that he has achieved those great attributes which the Greek philosophers thought we should all aspire to. He can leave this place knowing that he has achieved that level of fulfilment.

Tonight we also saw on display Senator Murray’s emotion. I am not old enough of course to know whether he is right about getting more emotional as you get older—I say that tongue in cheek! I recall that one of the last questions I answered in this place as a minister was from Senator Murray and it was on the subject to which he has dedicated much of his parliamentary life: the welfare of children. I recall in answering that question that I became emotional in a fashion which is rare for me in this place, but it really did strike me as a father of three children, knowing Senator Murray’s dedication to the cause and knowing the great work that remains to be done in that area. I certainly hope that those with whom he has charged that task undertake it and carry it out. I place on the record my enormous commendation to Senator Murray for his dedication to that cause.

I close by congratulating Andrew and his wife Pam on their 36th wedding anniversary today. Make it a great night! I wish Senator Murray many, many years of happiness ahead.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I certainly endorse the comments made by Senator Minchin in relation to Senator Murray. I take this opportunity to wish Senator Murray and his lovely wife, Pam, every success in the future. Due to the constraints of time, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my remarks.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Mr President, in this final week of winter sittings, we farewell Democrat Senators from the Senate. One of them from Western Australia, my home state, is Senator Murray who was first elected at the 1996 election, winning the Democrats’ first West Australian Senate position since the 1987 election. Not only is Senator Murray one of the longest serving Democrat Senators, he is the longest serving non- ALP and non-Liberal Senator for Western Australia.

Andrew had extensive experience before entering the Senate. Born in the UK, Andrew was raised in Rhodesia as a child migrant at Fairbridge and subsequently studying at the University in South Africa and becoming a Rhodes Scholar. Indeed he was subsequently deported from that country for resisting apartheid. As well as this, Andrew also managed to have extensive experience in small business. This extensive experience enabled him to bring a good deal of integrity and common sense to the many debates in which he has participated in the Senate. In particular, he has made an outstanding contribution to the Senate Committee process, and in particular has been a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee since 1996. I think during that time he has only missed one meeting of that Committee!

As well as this, a subject close to his heart has been the Senate Inquiry into child migration and of course he has always championed the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe.

Senator Murray, with the support of his charming wife Pam, can be proud of his time in the Senate. We shall miss the company of them both, and I wish them every success in the future.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Murray, I was able to express some words at a function we had for retiring senators only last week but I have had time to reflect on many of the things that have been said tonight and I cannot help but think what an amazing life’s journey you have had to this stage: a childhood as a Fairbridge boy, at four years of age going to Rhodesia; becoming a Rhodes scholar; being successful in business; running a pub in Bournemouth so you could get to Australia; and then after five or six years becoming a senator in this place.

I first met Andrew Murray in about July 1996 at a Senate committee hearing into a package of industrial relations laws. I thought: ‘Well, here’s this bloke who hasn’t even been sworn in yet. What’s he going to know about this new piece of legislation that is going to be difficult enough for us to handle at committee stage anyway?’ How mistaken was I? Andrew knew the legislation backwards—better than I did—and he had not even been sworn into the parliament. That was typical of the man.

If I can say one thing in particular, Andrew Murray is a most admired legislator in this place. People come here for different reasons. Some like to make their mark in a variety of ways; some like to do good committee reports; some relish the other positions that are available in the parliament. But Andrew, like a couple of his colleagues in the Democrats, has excelled as a legislator. When you come in to take a bill through the committee stage in this place, it requires an understanding of the legislation that is before you. It is all very well for somebody on either side to go backwards and forwards to an adviser wondering what questions should be asked and then, when they get the answer, to go back and find out what the next question should be. But Andrew and some of the other colleagues I have mentioned were able to do that standing in their seat because they knew the legislation backwards, they knew what they wanted to do and they knew what they wanted to achieve. Those of us who have never been in a minor party will never understand how much work it took to cross so many portfolios and to understand every piece of legislation that came in. So Andrew impressed me right from the first minute.

Before long, we became firm friends, as we were on the same committee for so many years. I have to say that, in the time since, Andrew has become one of two or three of the best mates that I have ever had in this place. I had written down some notes about the qualities of Andrew Murray, the qualities that we all admire. I looked down and I saw ‘integrity’, ‘loyalty to his beliefs’ and ‘fundamentally honest with himself and to all those things he believed in’, and Andrew has stuck by that through his entire career in this place. Andrew and I also shared a love—which is not one not many people know about, of course—and that is the love of a good single malt, treated in moderation of course. Our paths have meant that we have had the odd chance to share a single malt—usually in his office, sometimes in mine—with Pam there keeping an eye on us to make sure that we only had one.

Andrew’s journey through this place has left a mark that he can be extremely proud of and that Pam can be extremely proud of because, as he said right at the start of his speech, he did not need to come to the Senate; he came here because he wanted to and because he wanted to contribute. That was evident in everything that he has ever done in this place. I think the best tribute that can probably be paid to Andrew is to say: you will long be remembered by those that you have served with in this place.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I came to know Senator Murray extremely well through our shared experience on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Senate Legislation Committee on Economics. I referred briefly to that in my own valedictory remarks last Thursday and again in the tabling of the final report, which both Andrew and I were involved in, of the joint committee earlier today. I simply want to extend those remarks a little with some comments about Senator Andrew Murray.

In my experience, he demonstrated high intellect, high integrity, as the President mentioned, diligence and thoughtfulness in the contributions that he made to both of those committees. They were applied when we were discussing the committee’s issues for investigation, and often Andrew came up with the issues that needed inquiry and investigation by those committees. It was again evident in the way he questioned witnesses and also evident in the work of those committees in finalising their reports and drafting the recommendations. I think that intellect, diligence and thoughtfulness were clearly evident in his valedictory speech tonight.

As I say, I came to know him extremely well through work on both of those committees but I valued very greatly his contribution to the work of the statutory Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which we were both on for the 12 years that I was chairman of that committee. Apart from those qualities I have already mentioned, he was generally cooperative in the work of the committee and, while remaining firm to his own principles—and that has already been referred to tonight—always tried to find common ground when the committee was finalising its reports and drafting its recommendations. I certainly owe him a debt of gratitude for that and for the contribution he made in all of the work of this committee, which, as he said last week, has been very beneficial to the Australian business community over the last 12 years. Without a doubt, his contribution to those committees and to the Senate itself will be sorely missed in the years ahead. I certainly look forward, as we both leave on Monday, to keeping in touch with him over the years ahead. I wish him all the best.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—It is not often that I get up in this place but, Andrew, I could not let this night go by without some recognition of living proof that it does not matter where you come from or what the circumstance are that you have come from; every individual can make a difference to their community and, in your case, to the great nation of Australia.

I am unaware of what everybody else has said but I just want to put on the record part of your journey, and you can tell me which bits are wrong. Andrew was born in the UK in 1947 and at the age of four—this is my information—was sent from England to Zimbabwe and then southern Rhodesia as a child migrant. I would have thought that was a statement in itself. He then attended numerous schools in South Africa before going to university. His academic talents were recognised when he was awarded the prestigious Rhodes scholarship, going on to earn a BA from Oxford University. I am a wool classer and a welder, mate, so there is a bit of a mixture in this place!

In 1968 Andrew was deported from South Africa for opposing the apartheid policies of the National Party of South Africa. The deportation order was removed some nine years ago. Andrew served in the Rhodesian Air Force from 1969 to 1977. He went on to become a businessman, managing and owning his own businesses across a number of industries. He is also a published author.

This is a little kid that was sent from England as a four-year-old into no-man’s-land. You certainly have been tireless, Andrew. There has been a lot said about the trust that everyone has in you as a parliamentary person and as a committee member in parliament. We could trust Andrew. I have to say that any political party would have been proud to have had you as a member. I can certainly say that for the Liberal Party. I am damned if I know how the Democrats got you, but we would have loved to have got you.

So after 12 years it has come to this. As I said to Kay Patterson, don’t think you’ve peaked, mate; you haven’t peaked yet. I am looking forward to your after-parliamentary life and your contribution to keeping Australia the great country that it is. In his first speech Andrew quoted—and this is very unlike me but very like him—William Butler Yeats, in The Second Coming, saying, ‘Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.’ To me, that was Andrew’s way of saying that, if the lives of enough individuals begin to fall apart, the great society to which they belong will fall apart too. Mate, you have been a great protector of our society, particularly in your commitment to those kids—which, as you know, is a passion I share with you. Every child should have an unconditional safe passage through their years of innocence—and I am quite happy to get myself into a lot of trouble in that cause.

Mate, it is not often that you can say, ‘I can trust you with everything I’ve got,’ but with you I would. I am just bloody sorry that the Liberals did not get you and that the Democrats did. But good luck to the Democrats. Everyone in this chamber and in this parliament who has got to know you and the integrity that you absolutely exude and the responsibility to tasks that you took on is mightily privileged to have known you and to have worked with you. And you have not peaked, mate, because we want to work with you in the future. My best wishes to your family, and your children and grandchildren. You have got a good one.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Before getting to this red chamber, I, like many Australians, probably saw the Democrats through Don Chipp, and I had the privilege of getting to know him. But, until I got here, Andrew, I really did not understand how much work goes into getting work done around here. From what I have seen, you have served here extremely well, and the Senate should be thankful to you, the parliament should be thankful to you and all Australians should be thankful for the work that you have done tirelessly here.

You were probably thrilled, and I was thrilled for you, to see that an amendment that you had put up so many times in this place—an amendment on merits based appointments—yesterday, historically, got through. You got one through! The coalition supported you, and I am hoping that that was because, out of their graciousness, they really wanted to make sure that you went out seeing that achieved on at least one piece of legislation. Credit to you for sticking to it and consistently putting that amendment forward. I think that speaks of the tenacity that you have had in tirelessly continuing to believe in what you are on about. It was a credit to you to see that win yesterday.

As I as saying before, the Senate is grateful, the parliament is definitely grateful and Australia is grateful for your work. I wish you and your family very well in your next endeavours.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—It has been a great privilege to work alongside Andrew Murray. Whilst I have not been as privileged to be as close to him as many, I would consider him a friend. I would certainly describe him as a very serious man. He takes his work in this place extremely seriously, but that does not completely describe a very complex character, with a great sense of humour and such a willing and adopting attitude to listen to everybody, to give everybody a hearing.

On a personal note, I have been very lucky as he has always been very generous with his advice to me. On one particular occasion I travelled to Perth to seek some advice from him, and, as noted in many of the very important amendments to this piece of Northern Territory legislation, his advice was reflected in them. I share Senator Evans’s views on taxation—it is not really my bag—but it is tremendous to see someone like Senator Murray with such dedication. I think you only become a great legislator if you focus specifically on one issue, and I think that will probably be a trend. The great legislators who come to this place cannot afford to tinker with everything; you have to be somebody who is absolutely fair dinkum and make an incredible contribution in one area—and Andrew has certainly done that. That is certainly reflected in his successes in that area.

The work that he has done with institutionalised children will indeed, as Bill so articulately put it, be a real legacy in this place. I am quite sure that the work that he started and the great work that he has accomplished will be seen as a beacon to others who come to this place, and the issues that he fought so bravely, courageously and determinedly to thwart will not be part of the future and we will forever see them as in the past.

Those in this place who have already spoken have spoken about the great respect that Senator Murray is afforded by all sides of the Senate. We in the National Party know that the Libs and Labor are both wrong: he belongs firmly on the side of the Nationals! Mate, I have really appreciated all the time that you have spent with me in this place. You have made a fantastic and unique contribution to public life and the wider Australian community. Thank you.