Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 17 October, I moved a motion paying tribute to Mrs Jo Cox, the former member of the House of Commons in the UK, which was seconded by my good friend the member for Griffith. Having spoken on that occasion, I will not detain the House at length today. But I wish to make a couple of points as the debate resumes on this most important matter for all of us in this place. Firstly, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business, and the member for Sturt, the Leader of the House, for enabling this procedure to go forward so that more members can make a contribution to the debate on this most important issue and also so that Australia's parliament can effectively and appropriately pay tribute to a life lived in the service of others, to a person who demonstrated the finest qualities of public life, qualities that I think all of us here aspire to demonstrate and to hold. And we can convey our sympathy, solidarity and respect to the House of Commons in a formal manner. So I pay tribute to the member for Sturt and the member for Watson in that respect.

I would also say this in addition to my remarks those weeks ago: I stand here determined to remember what Jo Cox did, what she stood for and how she went about her political life and her activism—how she lived her life, not the manner in which it ended. I stand here in solidarity with her husband, Brendan, her children, her colleagues and her friends to say that, in this place, we remember her for what she did and we will strive to live up to her example. We will strive to continue her great sense of optimism—a sense of optimism that her incredibly brave husband expressed in writing in TheNew York Timesto continue to think that we can work together for a better world. In doing so we should always call out the forces of division, maintain our confidence in hope over fear and strive for a kinder politics. I commend the motion to the House.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to also speak on the motion moved by the member for Scullin. The motion reads:

That this House:

(1) condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;

(2) express its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues, and to all who knew her;

(3) pay tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life; and

(4) convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

I agree.

This woman, Helen Joanne Cox, who I did not know, was born in 1974. She had two young children, who were left behind, and her husband, Brendan. She was elected to represent Batley and Spen, the parliamentary seat, in the 2015 general election, and she had spent several years working for the charity Oxfam. She was murdered doing her job. This is the point. For politicians, for members of parliament and senators in this place, it brings home the reality of what happened to this poor woman. She was two years younger than me. She was only a fairly new politician, and she was out doing what all politicians should do, and that is listening to their constituents. She was on her way to a library, from what I understand, to meet her constituents when this man murdered her—stabbed and shot her. It is absolutely appalling.

I am very thankful that justice has been served in some way, that this man has received a life sentence and that the judge recommended that he not be let out. But I note that her husband said:

She—

Jo—

would have wanted two things above all else to happen now: one, that our precious children are bathed in love; and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her.

That is a great statement from her husband. There was no hate in his statement. It was very much remembering what his wife had done and wanting to look after their children and to put the hate aside and move on.

I stand here as a member of parliament in Australia saying to politicians in the UK and to the family of Jo that we are very sorry for what happened to Jo, and we understand. We understand that she was serving her constituency and her country in a very honourable way and that this man murdered her out of the blue. It is a terrible indictment. It makes us think. I often do mobile offices. I am out and about in the community. You want to do that. It is a very important part of our job. What happened to this woman is absolutely tragic, and we remember her deeply.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start today by thanking the member for Scullin for initiating this debate and by thanking the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House for enabling MPs to continue to speak on this motion here today. I know that all MPs in this place have thought quite a lot about Jo Cox and her family over the past year. As I am a member of parliament with two young children, like Jo Cox, this incident was particularly affecting for me. For all the cynicism that besets us, I know that, almost without exception, most members of parliament take our democratic liberties extremely seriously. As any of our family members will attest, we, the members of this chamber, have in a very real sense given our lives over to those democratic ideals. There is no clock-off time. There is no off switch to being an elected representative in our community.

I tell all of my staff and all of my campaign volunteers that they will inevitably encounter people who are dissatisfied, people who are angry, in the course of our work. That is part of being in the community and part of being an elected representative. But I tell my staff and my campaign volunteers that, anytime anyone in our community criticises us or even abuses us, this should give them a warm inner glow. They should take this as a reminder of the great blessing that we enjoy, living in a democratic society where people feel free to speak out, to dissent, to criticise members of the government, without fear of being jailed, being tortured or having family members disappeared.

In this way, the murder of Jo Cox is not only a great personal calamity that feels all too close to home for members of this chamber but also a shock to something bigger that we all hold dear: the idea that we can pursue political ends without violence, that you can engage in political debate without fear for your personal safety and that our elected representatives can work as equal members of the community, not separated from them.

In this respect I want to take issue with the comments of the Leader of the House upon the referral of this motion to the Federation Chamber. I do not take issue with his intent or good faith in the slightest, and I do not say this in a sense of conflict, but it is in all of our interests to be clear about what has occurred here. When referring this motion to the chamber, the Leader of the House described this incident as a tragedy and a random act. It was not. It was a deliberate targeted atrocity. It was a planned political assassination. It was a terrorist act by a neo-Nazi. The killer had been a member of neo-Nazi, fascist and white supremacist political organisations for more than 20 years. This act was premeditated and researched. While committing this obscenity, Jo Cox's murderer shouted: 'Britain first', 'This is for Britain' and 'Keep Britain independent'. When arrested, he stated: 'It's me. I'm a political activist.' The police described this as a targeted attack. At his trial, the murderer refused to give his name. Instead, he stated: 'My name is death to traitors. Freedom for Britain.' He was assessed as being mentally competent to stand trial and responsible for his actions. His trial was managed under the terrorism case management list in the British courts.

This was not a tragedy, it was a terrorist act. After conviction, the sentencing judge stated he had no doubt that the killer murdered Jo Cox for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause, namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism, which is most often associated with Nazism in its modern forms. This was a terrorist act by a member of an ideology that is growing in prominence across western democracies. Indeed, research by academics from Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University has recorded that more than 25,000 individuals tweeted in celebration of Jo Cox's murder. Neo-Nazis are becoming increasingly emboldened in the US as well. And groups of this kind are active in Australia, including in my own region in Melbourne's west, and have attracted the attention of our counter-terrorism officials.

Jo Cox's family, and particularly her husband, have shown enormous dignity towards her murderer. Jo Cox's husband said: 'I feel nothing but pity for the terrorist who murdered my wife, the true patriot.' But he also made it clear he believed that Jo Cox would have wanted people to unite to fight against the hatred that killed her. Hate does not have a creed race or religion; it is poisonous. As elected representatives we owe it to each other to see her murder as part of something bigger that is occurring across western democracies today. In this respect, I was thinking about Hilary Benn's extraordinary speech in the House of Commons around this time last year. Speaking on the conflict in Syria, he said:

We are faced by fascists—not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy … in contempt.

What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. It is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists, trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It is why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice.

This is also why we must stand up against the rise of modern neo-Nazism. It is right that we stand up against the kind of fascism pursued by ISIS, but we must also stand up against the re-emergence of neo-Nazi fascism in western democracies. The greatest tribute that we can pay to Jo Cox's memory will be to defend and reinvigorate the democratic institutions and values that she believed in, and to which she dedicated her life, and show that we can reshape the world and build a better world through collective action, through debate, through argument and through democratic institutions without resorting to violence or force. This is the spirit in which we gather in this building every sitting. This is the spirit in which we undertake our work in our communities every day of the week. This is the spirit that we must defend in the face of the rise of neo-Nazism across western democracies.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to join with other members of the House in supporting this motion concerning the murder of Jo Cox. She was, as we are all aware, a very dedicated and hard-working woman, and she had committed her life, as members of parliament do, to the service of others. We know she spent time working on humanitarian issues. From Oxfam through to her role as a member of parliament, she sought to address some of the most pressing international challenges of our time, particularly Syria. Jo Cox was absolutely committed to making the world a better place. Her contribution to public life is an example to all of us.

Jo Cox's death at such a young age is a tragic loss for her family, her friends, the constituents of Batley and Spen, the British parliament and the wider community. I join with others in expressing my deepest sympathies to everyone who knew her. For all of us who are members of parliament this is particularly real. I think each one of us is aware that, in the current environment, there but for the grace of God. I think that is what we all really understand.

This year I represented Australia at the Inter-Parliamentary Union gathering in Geneva. Australia had a particularly pertinent resolution up. It was one that Louise Markus, when she was the member for Macquarie, started when she went to a previous IPU gathering. It was then brought along by Senator Sue Lines, and I finished the process at the last gathering. Sometimes we see very good outcomes when we all work together. I see this as a prime example. Although the resolution was particularly relevant, and the former member for Macquarie had started this much earlier, it was not until we were there with our British colleagues discussing Jo's death that it was shown just how relevant this resolution was.

It is a particularly important resolution that says:

The freedom of women to participate in political processes fully, safely and without interference: Building partnerships between men and women to achieve this objective.

It is a wonderful example of how Australia contributes in this international forum. I was the rapporteur at a particular stage during the debate when the British parliamentarians raised the issue and discussed elements of the resolution and the act of provisions. It was here when we heard so much about Jo, when we heard how important Australia's resolution was and when we heard how important the timing was. So, in spite of the gravity of the situation, I want to inform members here that Australia has taken a very active role internationally in this space. I would encourage members to have a look at that resolution.

This was a very important resolution. This was the 135th IPU gathering. It was very important from many angles, and I presented it to the broader plenary when we finished. Just think: 141 countries were represented and over 673 MPs attended from around the world, and Australia's resolution was passed unanimously. There was such a great consensus, not just on the back of the tragedy with Jo. So many women that we meet when we are a part of those gatherings have such challenging environments as members of parliament. It is not like what we have come to expect in Australia—we see that frequently.

One of the parts of this resolution that I thought was really important was that it called on:

… political leaders and individual men and women parliamentarians to condemn—

which is what we are doing today—

acts of harassment, intimidation and violence against women candidates and parliamentarians, including online and in social media

It also called on parliaments to adopt legal and practical measures to prevent and punish such acts. In light of what has happened to Jo Cox, we can well support those recommendations.

I want to briefly touch on the need for the development and encouragement of strong male political advocates for women. They are very important to the success of women. Politics is very robust and increasingly adversarial right around the world. When I have talked with my colleagues and other parliamentarians at the IPU, as other members would have, and in the visits that have been to this house—and the Afghani women parliamentarians are a prime example—I have seen more and more women facing this sort of challenge.

I am particularly concerned about social media bullying. That can prevent men and women from running as a political representative. Once they get there the nature of the bullying is destructive and aggressive. It is a free-for-all. In recognising Jo's efforts, I say that every member of parliament I have come across in my time has been there for the right reasons. Each one has their beliefs and is pursuing them to make a difference and to do the best they can. Social media bullying is an issue that we have to deal with. Often it facilitates what we have seen here and can encourage a whole lot of others into that space.

I want to once again offer my personal sincere condolences to Jo and her family. This is no longer something any of us take lightly. If it can happen to Jo, basically it can happen to any member of parliament anywhere. I encourage members to look at this resolution. Equally, all members of parliament, men and women, are very aware of the environment we work in, and we need it to be safe. I encourage all of us to work to that outcome.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the motion concerning the shocking murder of UK Labour MP Jo Cox, the former member for Batley and Spen in the UK parliament, who was murdered in her community while just doing her job. Jo Cox was elected to parliament in 2015 and she quickly became known as a fierce advocate for inclusive public policy. In her inaugural speech she spoke of the fact that, regardless of difference, strong communities are far more united and have far more in common than the things that divide.

She spoke of the need to bring people together, and certainly throughout her life she led by example. Prior to entering parliament Jo Cox worked as the head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam Great Britain and then ran the humanitarian program for Oxfam International. Well before entering parliament, Jo Cox had made a mark on the world by working to reduce poverty and increase opportunity for the world's poorest and most vulnerable.

She was killed while going about her normal business as an elected representative. There was certainly nothing unusual about the scene. Meeting constituents and hearing concerns are the duties that all MPs carry out day to day irrespective of their political stripes, not unlike what I and my colleagues do in our own electorate. Of course being a member of parliament is not a job for everyone. In fact, earning your place in the House of Commons or here in the House of Representatives is hard fought. MPs give up many things to lead the fight on issues and steer the country in the right direction, making it better and creating a more just society.

Jo Cox was doing just that when her life was taken in a cowardly and planned attack. The man who would be her killer was a racist and a right-wing terrorist, who believed that the ideology of acceptance and multiculturalism was so dangerous and so perverse that those who believed in it should be killed. The irony of this, I am sure, will not escape many people, but it brings to light the broader problem that we see here in Australia of political posturing by extreme and retaliatory groups, who teach aggressive reactions to perceived threats. We even hear it in this place from time to time. We hear it in the press, we hear it in press conferences and we hear it out in the community. It is divisive behaviour that acts as an example to communities who feel let down by the political status quo. We hear the echoes of extremism repeated in the media by journalists, commentators and self-appointed experts, because apparently having a platform makes you an expert on any number of things these days. I am reminded of the quote by Bill Bullard, who said:

Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge … is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.

It leads me to wonder—as I am sure Jo Cox did while advocating for a more accepting and harmonious society—whether the people who would have us believe the world's problems can be solved by segregation and hostility have ever sought to put themselves in the shoes of the most vulnerable.

We cannot just count ourselves lucky to live in an open and free society and pretend that severe human suffering does not exist around the world. We cannot just blame those who have come to this country to seek a better life for themselves for the things we, as leaders, are ultimately responsible for: opportunity, equality and a fair go. Jo Cox had that clarity of purpose. She spoke of the importance of being an accepting society and she spoke of the government's role in making sure everyone has a chance to succeed.

I extend to her family my sincere condolences. I pay tribute to her life of advocacy and purpose. She was a credit to her family, to her party and to her country. In the words of her husband, 'Jo would want us to fight against the hatred that killed her.' To honour Jo, her husband and their children, I undertake to do just this.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this important motion that the House of Representatives of the Australian parliament condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, member of parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents; that the House expresses its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues and to all who knew her; that we, as members of parliament here in the Australian parliament, pay tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life; and that we convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

On 17 October, I rose to speak on a motion of condolence for Jo Cox. I would like to make some further comments today in my capacity as chair of the UK-Australia parliamentary friendship group and as a female member of the House of Representatives. It is again with much sadness and reflection that I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, someone who, through enormous courage, enormous conviction and her dedication to her constituents of Batley and Spen, showed every day how important it was to her to fight for what she believed in—for justice, for truth and, most importantly of all, for the rights of others.

As we have heard in this debate today, Jo Cox was brutally murdered on 16 June. She was simply doing her job. She was listening to her constituents in what we here in Australia call a listening post or a mobile office. I think for each of us here in Australia, like members of parliament all around the world, Jo Cox's death came as a horrific shock. Here was a member of parliament from the House of Commons upholding the democratic institution of her parliament, reaching out to people—those who agreed with her and those who did not—and being on the streets of her constituency at a very difficult time for the UK, when the debate over Brexit was at its very highest.

It is with enormous relief that we learned just last week that Thomas Mair, a white supremacist, will spend the rest of his life in prison for Jo Cox's brutal murder. I do not really want to spend much time reflecting on the murderer. In my view, he was simply a madman and what he did was utterly horrific. I want to spend my contribution today reflecting on the words of Jo Cox's husband, Brendan, who has been extraordinary in the way he has spoken about his wife. He said of Thomas Mair:

We feel nothing but pity for him, that his life was so devoid of love that his only way of finding meaning was to attack a defenceless woman who represented the best of our country in an act of supreme cowardice.

Speaking outside the Old Bailey after the verdict, he said:

To the world, Jo was a member of parliament, a campaigner, an activist and many other things. But first and foremost she was a sister, a daughter, an auntie, a wife, and above all a mum to two young children who love her with all their being. All their lives they have been enveloped in her love, excited by her energy and inspired by her example. We try now not to focus on how unlucky we were to have her taken from us, but how lucky we were to have her in our lives for so long.

Brendan Cox also thanked the many hundreds and, frankly, thousands of people who spoke out about Jo Cox's bravery and compassion. He said—it is extraordinary that he found these words at such a time of immense grief in his own life and in the lives of his family members, including his two children:

This has been Britain at its best – compassionate, courageous and kind. It’s given us great strength and solace.

I also want to add that the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the murder was 'an attack on democracy, and has robbed the world of an ambassador of kindness and compassion'.

The member for Forrest today made a particularly important contribution, speaking of the work of the IPU and the resolution led by Australia. I think it is a very important time for us to remember that, when we go out and do our job upholding this wonderful democratic institution, we do so with a sense of risk. It is incredibly important that we, as members of parliament here in Australia—in both the Commonwealth parliament and the state and territory parliaments—and others in parliaments around the world join in solidarity to condemn this terrible murder. As MPs, we need to do everything we can to keep each other safe, to support each other and to make sure that we acknowledge that this is not an easy life sometimes. Every time we go out and speak with people on the streets, attend protests and meet with people who are angry, we respect the right of every individual to speak up for what they believe in. But we also think it is important that members of parliament are respected too. I am particularly horrified by—and I am not even going to talk about it much in my contribution—the terrible hate speech that emerged on social media after the death of Jo Cox.

Today, in sadness and with great reflection, I rise to express my sincere condolences to Brendan Cox and to his children. We salute Jo Cox for her wonderful contribution to public life in the UK and the impact that she has had on all of us around the world.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise together with my colleagues on both sides of this place to pay tribute to the life of Jo Cox who, as we know, was senselessly killed as she met with constituents in Birstall, West Yorkshire in June this year. Jo Cox was the MP for Batley and Spen, where she was born and bred, and was first elected at the 2014 general election. She had barely been in the Commons long enough to get her feet under the desk, yet she had already built a reputation for working hard, particularly on international issues, and was widely regarded in the House of Commons as a rising star.

Ms Cox grew up in Yorkshire and was the first in her family to go to university. She did it in style, attending Cambridge no less. There she was struck by the still-rigid class structure in which it did matter where she was from, who she knew and how she spoke. Before her election she was again working in areas where the impact of her contribution was commendable. She worked for Oxfam as the head of public policy and then went on to work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ms Cox was the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Syria and argued that military action could be beneficial to the Syrian people. She was a leading campaigner for the Remain campaign in the Brexit referendum, and a couple of the themes we saw in the referendum campaign sadly and tragically played out in the context of Ms Cox's death.

Jo Cox was killed as she met with constituents as part of what is called in the UK a 'constituency surgery'. It is a practice that does not really apply in precisely the same way in Australia but is widespread over there, but it fundamentally comes back to the same thing. Ms Cox was doing in the UK the same sorts of things that all members in this place and places in states and territories do as part of their everyday lives—that is, just engaging with the community in an effort to make sure that she understood the needs of her community and properly reflected those needs, attitudes, wants and desires in the people's place in the United Kingdom.

In the course of going about her everyday work, as we know, she was tragically killed by Thomas Mair, a local white supremacist, who railed against her participation in the Remain campaign. Mr Mair was described as someone previously thought to be perhaps a bit odd but harmless—if only that were to be the case. Whilst there is evidence to suggest that Mr Mair did suffer from OCD, a psychiatric assessment found that he was not so mentally ill as to no longer be responsible for his actions. The reality was that we saw a lone wolf at play—someone from the far right, a white supremacist terrorist. He was a terrorist, plain and simple.

The context of this crime is important and it does touch upon a couple of key themes that resonate not only throughout the community in the United Kingdom but also much closer to home. The Brexit campaign was marked by something similar to the Donald Trump 'post-truth' divisiveness, which sparked a flurry of activity surrounding hate speech in the United States. It was marked by its vilification of foreigners and scare campaigns about migration from the EU. Reams have been written about the connection of Mair's actions with what he believed to be a threat to the interests of white Britain, but really what we saw in relation to how those warped, inappropriate, ill-conceived and, quite frankly, unacceptable views were perceived as legitimate was the Brexit campaign itself, which actually served to confect that threat.

Much closer to home, what is deeply concerning to me is the fact that we see similar threads throughout exchanges and social media, in the media and in other forums in relation to what can only be described as unacceptable hate speech; speech and communication which can only have one intent, and that is an intent to divide, an intent to vilify and an intent to belittle. It tries to create a perception, for completely baseless reasons, that one group of this society is superior to another. Every breath we take and every step we walk must be dedicated to stamping out any form of traction that this dialogue might receive in the context of the various forums that we see. That is why, whether we like it or not, what we do in this place resonates so strongly out in the community in relation to our opportunity here, as leaders of our respective communities, to make sure we do that, to make sure we lead.

How do we lead? It is very, very simple: we lead by calling out any single form of language or conduct that serves to divide, belittle, bully or attempt to vilify one section of the community at the expense of others. That is also why we need to take such significant and strident steps to preserve the sanctity of the protections that are carved out in our current legislation. That is why we must make sure in this place that we lead by example and rise above any kind of debate that may have the effect of watering down very hard fought for protections in our legislation, such as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The effect of doing so can have such profound and potentially tragic outcomes, and that is why it is so important.

The other really important factor that strikes very close to the heart of the tragedy of Mrs Cox relates to the fact that her family lost a member of their lives just by doing her job. That happens all too often in every single walk of life; we see families faced with the prospect of their loved ones not coming home from work. It applied in the most tragic of ways to Mrs Cox; it applied in 195 cases of workplace deaths in this country. In my home state of Western Australia, it applied 35 times when we lost workers on worksites. This is a rate of 2.6 deaths per 100,000 workers in my state, which, tragically, is the highest rate in the country. Regardless of what we do, coming home safely from work in whatever walk of life, in whatever part of the world you live in, should not be an aspiration. This should be a fundamental, acceptable human right. We must make sure in this place we do everything meaningfully possible to make sure that occurs every single time. In this place, we are elected not to represent our own interests; of course we are elected to represent the interests of our constituents. And Mrs Cox did that, with a bias towards those who had no voice of their own.

As I conclude my remarks, I acknowledge and pay tribute to her wonderful family, who have been so strong in such trying circumstances in making sure that they continue to lead the fight that Mrs Cox began—that is, calling out injustice, calling out for those who are marginalised and making sure everyone within the country of the United Kingdom, just as we should do here, has an equality of opportunity to achieve. Jo Cox died as she lived: working for the marginalised and forgotten, upholding democracy and campaigning for a better future for the people she represented. May she rest in peace, and may her life be an example for us all.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not know Jo Cox—she was from a different political tradition to my own, she served in a parliament on the other side of the world and she worked for an organisation, Oxfam, with which I deeply disagree on many issues, and yet she touched the lives of so many people. She touched the lives of some members opposite who knew her; she touched the lives of members of my own side who had encountered her on international delegations. And in many respects we all know Jo Cox, even if we do not know Jo Cox the person. She was someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's aunt, someone's wife, someone's mother, someone's friend and someone's member of parliament. She was a public servant who was motivated by the same great traditions that motivate all of us to come into this place—to do something for our community, for our country and for the world, and to make it a little bit better.

She was brutally murdered at a time when she was holding a constituency surgery, very much like many of us do in our own electorates here in Australia—putting ourselves out into our communities, holding listening posts, holding street stalls and making ourselves available as we go about functions and businesses. I think one of the great strengths of being a parliamentarian in a democracy like ours and like Britain's is that constituents can come up to you, they can approach you, they can ask you things, they can present you with things and they can give you a piece of their mind—and, frankly, they so often do. That is part of us staying in touch, and that is something we never want to lose.

I remember in the early 2000s when I worked in the court system—I had the privilege of being an associate to one of the justices of the High Court. At that time you could walk into practically any of our courts without going through a security scan, and I thought that was a fantastic thing. It actually said how secure our democracy was that, with the exception of the Family Court, you were pretty safe to walk into a courtroom. Now there are security scanners everywhere. Now this parliament, in and of itself, is in lockdown, in a security sense, and that is just a sign of the times. We have to take greater precautions for our own security when meeting in this place, we have to take greater precautions for the security of judicial officers meeting in courts and, sadly, sometimes we have to take greater precautions when we are out in the streets. That is something, sadly, that Jo Cox found. We never want to be in a situation where we cannot be accessible as parliamentarians to our constituents or we cannot be accessible to the community. That would be a very sad thing if it happened.

Jo Cox was killed, as other members have said, in a hate crime by a white supremacist. I think political murder is not something that is new in Western society—there were political murders in the Roman senate—but there is a climate in our political debate, a climate in our political discussion, that is motivated in part by the communications technology by which we operate and the social media environment in which we live.

I remember when I was growing up my mother used to say to me that fire and water were good servants but bad masters, and I think the same sort of thing can be said of social media. It provides us with a wonderful sense of opportunity and possibility to communicate with people, but it also narrows the sources from which we get information. It is possible to live in a world that is entirely an echo chamber: where people only ever agree with your opinion, where you are not exposed to difference and where you are not exposed to a friendly debate or a polite exchange of ideas. And I think it does something even worse than that: it is taking us to a pre-enlightenment age where reason is replaced by emotion. This is the age of the emoticon. This is the age of the Facebook meme. It is constantly trying to stir our emotions to get reactions rather than to stir our minds to reason. An appeal to emotion has always been part of the political armoury, but I think we are seeing that more and more now. As I said, I worry that we are hurtling towards a pre-enlightenment age where reason will be completely overtaken by emotions. And when emotion rules reason it can often lead to violence, and that is what we saw here in this instance.

Violence is never, ever the solution for political problems or political challenges. Members who may have read the excellent magisterial biography of Sir John Monash by Geoffrey Serle would have seen that Monash was a great soldier—everyone knows that—but he was also a great citizen. One of the things that Serle had access to were the prodigious diaries that Monash kept from the time he was a 16-year-old boy. In the early thirties, when it seemed as though democracy was failing, Monash was repeatedly approached by ex-servicemen who were saying to him, effectively, 'All you need to do is say the word and we will be prepared to follow you in a coup d'etat'. Monash wrote back to these ex-servicemen and said, 'To achieve constitutional change, you must use constitutional means.' That is a very important message. However much people are upset with the decisions that are made in a political system, there is never an excuse to resort to violence.

I get worried every year when I read the results of the Lowy Institute polls that show a decline in support for democracy. This year's Lowy Institute poll showed just 61 per cent of the population and 54 per cent of 18-to-29-year-olds believe that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. We must work harder to demonstrate to people that what we do in this place serves them.

The previous speaker, the member for Perth, made some comments about the Brexit campaign and its connection to this particular instance. While I acknowledge that the murder of Jo Cox was a white supremacist and while I acknowledge that he supported the Brexit campaign, there were arguments advanced for Brexit that had nothing to do with white supremacy. It is very important to note that. The British people felt—and that is why they voted in the way they did—that, having had a democratic tradition that stretched back hundreds of years, they had lost control of their ability to control courts and make final decisions about the things that occurred in their own country, and there are reasonable arguments about that that can be made. I just wanted to make that point.

I said earlier that what happened to Jo Cox occurred on the other side of the world, but it occurred in the British parliament and, as the British parliament is the mother of our parliament and is the mother of so many parliaments around the world, it has an extra effect in this country. What happens in Britain has particular cultural effect here, although we are quite proudly a multicultural nation that has been infused with and has the benefit of the many people who have come here from different backgrounds. Our law, our language, our traditions and our parliamentary democracy stem from Britain, and it is very much British institutions and British traditions which have formed the way we see ourselves.

A generation ago, students learnt British history and that British history has helped cement our traditions. They learnt things like the Magna Carta, John Hampden, Ship Money, Star Chamber, Charles I losing his head, Judge Jeffreys, the Glorious Revolution, the first reform bill and, to quote the late John Hirst who wrote an article called From British rights to human rights:

... those who didn't know these particularities knew at least the slogans of British constitutional liberty: Britons never will be slaves; the Englishman's home is his castle; it's a free country; fair play; I'll have the law on you—which were heard as often in Australia as in Britain ...

The murder of Jo Cox was fundamentally an attack on British democracy. It was fundamentally an attack on British institutions and the British tradition, which is as much their tradition as it is our tradition. We must always condemn political murder in whatever form it occurs, because it is fundamentally an attack on our democratic system.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those members opposite who moved this motion originally and to acknowledge the work of the Leader of the House in showing that this is a motion which should be adopted and sent to the House of Commons. I send greetings to members of the House of Commons and say that we in Australia feel solidarity with them at this time. I particularly want to send my condolences to the family and friends of Jo Cox, her constituents in Batley and Spen, the British parliament and the wider community. May her memory be a blessing.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this place to support this motion regarding the murder of Jo Cox MP. I am speaking about a woman I have never met but whose work and message has touched the lives of so many who live across the pond, as it is colloquially referred to. Jo Cox was born on 22 June 1974 and she died on 16 June 2016, just six days before her 42nd birthday. She was elected to the British parliament in 2015 to represent the good people of Batley and Spen. She had been attending a constituency meeting, doing her job—a job that she truly loved. This senseless, targeted action sent shock waves through the British parliament and the country. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said the death of Jo Cox was a tragedy. He said:

She was a committed and caring MP. My thoughts are with her husband Brendan and her two young children.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the country would be in shock at the horrific murder of the MP who was a much loved colleague.

Jo Cox was a rising leader in the UK Labour Party. Like myself, she was elected to represent the area where she was born and raised. Jo was a strong advocate for equality, passionate about her electorate, a loud voice for refugees and a supporter of Britain staying in the EU. Before her parliamentary life, Jo worked at the Freedom Fund, an antislavery organisation at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as for Oxfam and the British aid agency; and in various senior capacities in the UK, US and Brussels. Her work brought her into contact with some of the most downtrodden and vulnerable people in the world. She met women who had been raped in Darfur. She encountered child soldiers in Uganda and met Afghan civilians, desperate for help from the global community. Jo connected with these desperate people and went on to be a strong voice to bring their issues to the attention of those who could make a difference.

Jo's passion and drive for equality and social justice naturally carried over to her parliamentary work, and in her maiden speech she spoke about people coming together, saying:

… what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us.

Given Jo's aforementioned observation, I remain constantly curious as to how and why we live in such a right-wing, conservative world, where the norm appears to be an obsession with promoting and nurturing fear of fear itself based on difference, regardless of whether it is perceived or actual. I live in a proud, multicultural community, and for that I am truly grateful.

It is clear from Jo's transcripts in the parliament and in interviews that she had a spirit like no other and a conviction to speak out. She revelled in being a nonconformist and when asked by a reporter what she does to relax, she answered, 'I climb mountains'—because, of course, that is what she would do. Jo always spoke with great understanding and never disregarded those who held opinions that differed from her own. In fact, Jo said:

It is a joy to represent such a diverse community.

With regard to Brexit and the hostility towards immigration, Jo cited it was a 'legitimate concern' that did not make someone 'a racist xenophobic'; for Jo, however, it was just purely about the facts and providing real solutions outside of Brexit, as she outlined in one of her speeches:

Over half of all migrants to Britain come from outside the EU and the result of this referendum will do nothing to bring these numbers down.

No-one, including politicians, should fear going to work or doing the activities associated with their job, and that is just what Jo was doing on the day her life was tragically cut short. She was just doing her job, serving the people of Batley and Spen. Jo's death was nothing short of a dreadful tragedy, an unspeakable act, and I will not mention the name of her convicted killer in this place because he does not deserve his name even being muttered. What is most important is that Jo's message of a better future for all lives on. What we need to remember is not how she died but rather how she lived her life. What some would hope would further divide us, we must take every possible step to ensure that we find unity in this tragedy, as Jo Cox deserved no less. When some would want fear and hatred to foster and grow, we must show love and compassion. When we are attempted to create fences that segregate or use symbols that only serve to promote fear and division, we must resist and break down the barriers with open and welcoming, courageous arms. Jo's husband Brendan said after her death:

Today is the beginning of a new chapter in our lives. More difficult, more painful, less joyful, less full of love.

I and Jo's friends and family are going to work every moment of our lives to love and nurture our kids and to fight against the hate that killed Jo.

Jo believed in a better world and she fought for it everyday of her life with an energy, and a zest for life that would exhaust most people.

She would have wanted two things above all else to happen now, one that our precious children are bathed in love and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her.

Hate doesn't have a creed, race or religion, it is poisonous.

I am sure that Jo's family, whilst terribly sad are also incredibly proud of the person she was and the work that she did for her community and for humanity, never faltering from her beliefs and values. Most deepest and most sincere sympathies go to Jo's family and friends, especially her husband Brendan and their children.

Whilst I might be across the pond, I hope her family hears my message—that her message and fight will not be lost, and they will be continued in this place. There is no room in our world for divisive politics that aims to nurture hate, fear and discrimination. It could be said that it would do politicians good to hear the following words: 'Speak boldly and with intellect. Never hush your voice for someone's comfort. Speak your mind, make people uncomfortable, for it is in our discomfort that we grow.' It is often argued that our thoughts become our reality, and this is why the politics of fear and hate is so dangerous and seriously flawed.

Jo Cox's life and her work as a politician were not about the politics of popularity. They were about leadership that welcomed and valued difference and diversity and that created a better life for the people that she served. I commend this motion to the House.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like so many others, I rise in this chamber to speak in support of the motion in relation to the late Jo Cox MP. What we saw on the event of her murder was an absolute tragedy—certainly for her community, certainly for her country, certainly for democracy around this world and of course, most particularly and above all else, for her family—because Jo Cox was going about the role of an elected official, a local MP, who was quite passionate about the causes and the electorate in which she was involved. We understand from the history that so many of us around the world have read about Jo Cox since her untimely death that she was committed to Oxfam, and she was committed to the resettlement of Syrian refugees, amongst others, into her country. We certainly understand that, whilst she was a relatively short-term member for her electorate, she was quite popular and quite engaged in her community.

I note that, when we look at the aspects around this terrible tragedy, Jo was killed because of who she was and because of what she stood for. It is important that we all understand this because otherwise we will learn nothing. Words matter. If you engage in the politics of fear, hate and division, if you talk about the breaking points of a society, you cannot expect that there will be no consequences. In this case, we saw that politics of fear, hate and division come to this tragic end in the case of Jo Cox. To think that she was so viciously attacked in the streets of her community resonates with anyone who supports democratic processes around this world and certainly for the few of us who have the great honour of representing our communities here in this federal parliament in Australia. Whilst we must debate issues, whilst we must embrace all opinions on important societal issues, it is important that we recognise that the politics of fear, hate, division and violence, as we saw in this case, have no place in our society—particularly in a democratic society.

This year has been particularly divisive, and it is up to every one of us in public life to do all that we can to heal the wounds within our communities around the world so that we can reunite and build for the future. I note that Labour MP Tracy Brabin, who was elected to replace Jo, said in her maiden speech that her constituency of Batley and Spen would not be defined by the one person who took her from us but by the many who give. What happened was not only an attack on a woman, a family and a community but, as I have also reflected here today, an assault on the principles and basis of our democracy.

Each member of parliament around the world in democratic countries can reflect on their own engagement with their own communities, irrespective of their political attitudes. I know that in my home community of Groom, in Queensland, we have recently welcomed, as part of the federal government's resettlement program, a number of Syrian families into our community. I was honoured and proud to join with other community leaders just recently in an official welcome to them by the whole community, held at St Patrick's Cathedral but supported by all walks of life in our community and certainly all faith traditions.

I thought of Jo Cox on that day. I thought: there she was, carrying out her role as a local member. There she was, pursuing her passion for her community and not only her community but those from elsewhere, such as the Syrians that she was so keen to support. Again, regardless of political orientation or attitudes, all of us need to guard against extreme views and those few occasions where those views can play out so violently.

So today—along, I am sure, with all members of the Australian parliament and of parliaments around the world in democratic countries—we must join together and learn from the message of Jo Cox and what she means to all of us. Her legacy will live on for all of us in democratic countries. I note that her replacement quoted from Jo Cox's own maiden speech when she said:

… we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.