Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I join the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Oxley and the member for Riverina in extending my condolences to the family of Sir David Amess, so tragically killed in going about his work—our work, too—as the member for Southend West in the House of Commons. I'm thinking, as I'm sure all of us are here, of his staff, his family, his friends, his colleagues and his constituents, who are no doubt in mourning and in shock.

I think it is important that we recognise his life of public service. For, I think, almost all of us here, to think of 38 years in parliament is something that almost defies comprehension, and, for many of us, too, the quality of the tributes paid to Sir David by his colleagues on both sides of politics are not things that we could expect. His service, I suspect, was unique—informed by values, informed by faith and informed by a sense of duty that has so clearly been conveyed in these tributes; a life, indeed, of public service; a life in politics characterised by values, not the pursuit of high office; a life ended in public service, when he was brutally stabbed to death at a constituency surgery days ago.

On that, I think it is important that we think about the wider context in which this has taken place—a context of a coarsening of politics, a cheapening of political discourse and debate, which has led, in the UK, to a debate in particular around the reform of social media, which is a debate that I will follow with great interest. I noted also the comments of Brendan Cox in respect of this. He called for a reflection on 'the day-to-day brutality with which our political debate is conducted, from increasingly regular death threats to online abuse'. And, tragically, Brendan Cox would know, because his wife, Jo Cox, the former Labour MP, was murdered in strikingly similar circumstances five years ago. At that time, this House supported a motion acknowledging that and paying tribute to her service and the manner in which she went about it, and I'm pleased that we are doing likewise now. In that debate, I recognised the many similarities between my life and my political outlook with Jo Cox's. I can't say the same of Sir David—he would be very pleased to hear, I'm sure—but the manner in which he went about his work is something that we should recognise, as well as the circumstances which ended his work.

I was pleased also that some of these issues about how we go about our work and how we respond to these threats were raised sensitively by Rob Harris in the Nine papers today. I'm sure it's a piece that many of us have reflected upon. I think it is important that we continue this wider debate, because, as we go about our work and think about how Sir David did his, I think we need to recognise the personal tragedy and respect that, and first, in our thoughts, be thinking of those closest to him. But it is also an attack on democracy as we understand it, and we can't ignore that, because it is not an isolated attack, as indeed the tragic murder also of Jo Cox demonstrated. We can't be cowed by these threats. We must strive to continue to go about our work in ways which engage our constituents with the work that we do and which connect our roles and our responsibilities to their lives. I take great pride, in attending citizenship ceremonies, at the surprise that new citizens have of the close contact they can enjoy with members of parliament in this country. It's something that we can't take for granted, and it's something that is so important—this direct, unmediated contact between representatives and the people for whom we are privileged to work. We can't be cowed by these threats as we seek to respond to them.

And I think we can also be better. People have touched on the very generous words of the family of Sir David. The member for Oxley referred to a remark of extraordinary generosity that I was also struck by when they said that we should let some good come from this tragedy. I think it's incumbent on those of us here to lead in making sure that happens. I say this knowing that I have on many occasions fallen short of the standard that I am arguing for here, but I hope this is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on how we conduct ourselves and how we can shape public debate, not so that we should always agree—that's not practical—but to think about how we can express our disagreements more respectfully and civilly. That is something we can all do to pay tribute to the fine words of Sir David's family and to the manner in which he conducted a fine life in public service. Vale.

See this speech in context