But I do feel their service should be celebrated and rewarded more than it has. Books should be written about their extraordinary experiment in pragmatic democracy and a new twist on a democratic model that has otherwise - but for them - seen its most shameful hour in the last three years. While everyone talked about a new model for politics in September 2010 - these two gentlemen meant it. And they delivered on it. Amid all the miserable mud slinging that has characterised this parliament, they have always emerged as a quiet, subtle, diligent civilising element; ever restoring my faith in the process while others - most particularly the Opposition - have aggressively eroded it.
As human beings too, it has always been interesting to study. It has been a fascinating, isolated Senior-Junior partnership. A micro-party in fact. They have managed, I think, to rise above the murky melee but their commentary on it was always informative, intelligent and enlightening. They have been extremely transparent in their workings - if only this was more common! They have been very public about their deliberations on policy issues, and been up front about their decisions. This was the case from the outset, the Seventeen minute speech perhaps an extreme version!
That speech notwithstanding, the Oakeshott-Windsor duo has been a marvellous chapter in the Democratic story - globally as well as locally, and one that Classical Political Philosophers in the tradition of Plato and Socrates would delight in I feel. They were individuals representing their electorate in the truest sense. Typically, the only time an MP thinks of his or her constituents seems to be when that electorate becomes marginal (a brutal reality suddenly real and present for upwards of 30 Labor MPs).
Most backbenchers chart their course through a parliament based on the discipline of the party whip or Machiavellian tactics to suit their personal career objectives. These two essentially Centrist, pragmatic policy wonks instead navigated their way through the 43rd parliament based on an apparently strong moral compass and an old fashioned sense of public service. To some extent of course they operated based on what was good for their constituency - in the mould of a US Senator - but generally they seem to have kept their eye on the policy win for the general public.
This zeal wouldn't survive in a majority House or Senate, it would be drowned out by partisan political machinations where the policy is only a football in a wider, cynical battle for power. As the vultures once again gather around their leader, at once professing loyalty while sharpening daggers, this bizarre Shakespearean drama reaches its denouement. It occurs to me that while Mark Anthony spoke of Brutus and Cassius ironically as "Honourable Men"; were Oakeshott and Windsor Roman Senators in the day he could have held them up by way of contrast.
Their kind won't be seen again - Parliament and Australia will be poorer for their departure. Kudos gentlemen, Valedico!