Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President—fellow South Australian and, of course, friend. Thank you also for your kind words to all of us at the dinner that you hosted for retiring senators last week. It is heart-warming to see so many friends and family in the galleries today, and I acknowledge the members of the House of Representatives. Thank you for honouring me and my colleagues with your presence.

When I first set ‘Doc’ in this chamber on November 30 1995 there was a lot less diversity than there is today. I said in my first speech that my aim was to bring about change, and I am proud of the modest role that my party and I have played in bringing that change about, in changing the parliament into what it is today, in some small part, with a relatively younger demographic and more women.

At the time of my swearing in I was a little surprised that the media went on and on about those Docs, which I wore simply for comfort and convenience. But perhaps that was the media’s way of recognising change without having to endow the slip of the girl that they thought I was with too much significance. Perhaps the media needed to change as much as the diversity of the chamber, for we do not have true democracy without true representation. The Democrats have always recognised that, and we have created history with the people we have elected to this parliament and the people we have chosen to lead us—women, young people, different cultures, different backgrounds, Indigenous, different sexualities. I said in my first speech—and yes, Mr President, I do remember it well—on being the youngest woman ever elected to a federal parliament:

It is an honour that I cherish but for no longer than it takes other young women to be chosen by an electorate that has shown it wants true representation of all sectors of our population. I look forward to the day when I look across this chamber from my seat and see such a diversity of faces—young people, old people, different ages, men and women, and the many cultures that make up our nation, including indigenous cultures—that we no longer have to strive for it. When that time comes I think we will accept that neither youth nor age, any more than being male or female, black or white, is a virtue in itself, except that it deserves to be represented in a system that claims to be representative.

Well, Mr President, almost 13 years later my record is almost broken by Senator-elect Sarah Hanson-Young from our home state of South Australia. I wish her well and hope she does not have to endure the unimaginative headlines and endless comparisons that she has complained about—I have to admit, the ‘green Natasha’ does make her sound like an alien. But I wish her well. I hope that my experiences and the changes that have taken place, and the experiences of others in this place, ensure that she has an easier ride, and for those who follow her as well. I wonder if Sarah’s entry into parliament represents a new milestone, or is it still the non-mainstream parties that are nudging at the predominantly male and middle-aged political status quo, when women’s role in public life and politics can still be determined or defined—is often defined—in terms of our age, our appearance, our marital status and, yes, even our parental status?

I acknowledge tonight all my colleagues who depart with me and I pay tribute to them, but in particular the five female senators who leave with me. They have all played a particular role in advancing the policy interests of Australian women—and I include in that, of course, the late Jeannie Ferris, who was due to retire with us at this time. I worry that the clock will turn back on some of our hard-won gains, including reproductive rights, and I urge the Senate to maintain its vigilance. I have actually been at my happiest in this place when women of the chamber have worked together in united policy interests—the cross-party camaraderie of RU486, my pregnancy counselling legislation, foreign aid funding or stem cell legislation.

It is 106 years since women obtained the right to vote and stand for parliament, and yet look at the numbers. Women comprise less than a third of the federal parliament. We have such a long way to go still. That does not compare favourably with parliaments across the world. It is still inadequate by any measure, because critical mass does make a difference. Greater or equal numbers of women make a difference to policy and ultimately lead to decision making that better reflects the needs and concerns of women in this country.

Despite the public’s view of politicians as warring or involved in gladiatorial question time debates, this chamber is sometimes a very happy place, with many instances of cooperation. I think of the joy expressed when the best kind of, say, Indigenous legislation passes this place. It is also a sad place, showing deep concern across party lines for senators in sickness and with other problems; it is also a sad place when bad legislation is passed with guillotines and other spurious strategies.

This could be a better place by having more diversity of cultures, and I include here the deaf culture. I have seen captions arrive for question time on broadcast television, as I hoped for in my first speech. It could also be a better place by the parliament being more family friendly in its hours and amenities. You may notice Mandy Dolesji, an Auslan interpreter, signing my speech tonight. This is commonplace in some parliaments across the world, and I hope before too long that it is here as well. But for tonight, at least, the parliament is a little more accessible to members of the deaf culture in our nation, who are as worthy of respect as any other culture in Australia. Many of you know of my interest in interests affecting deaf and hearing impaired Australians, hence my private member’s bill on captioning and the establishment of a captions inquiry. Thank you, Senator Coonan.

I have lived through great dramas in this chamber and in the political life of this nation, including the heart-breaking challenge of giving a condolence for September 11 victims and the debate, due to the Democrats’ insistence, about the government’s decision to deploy troops to Iraq, or indeed the dark, dark days of the Tampa, to which the Democrats responded with alacrity, including with an urgency motion, and of course steadfast opposition to the subsequent migration laws. The images of refugees in Woomera with their lips sewn together will forever haunt me.

Not the least of these dramas has been the drama of my own party, whose demise has done no-one any good. It has simply taken away a choice from the voters that they wanted maintained for 31 years. The narrative of our days here has many versions. It is not my intention to offer one tonight, as it would only lead to contention. Instead, I prefer to focus tonight on the achievements we can all be proud of. From the day when Don Chipp planned the party until today, when this last quartet of senators marks its departure having worked to the last minute to serve the public and the ideals of the party—and the four of us have been working to the last minute, as you may have noticed—we have achieved a great deal.

We have changed the political landscape for the better, transforming the Senate, as we like to think, from a house of the living dead to a genuine house of review. We have injected accountability into policy and processes. We have made elections more transparent. We have reformed the committee system for the better. For more than three decades, we have been Australia’s third-party insurance, a slogan I have often liked—and I see those clever minds at The Gruen Transfer also adopted it for one of the two advertisements that they put forward. I have to say though I liked their other slogan too: as long as Canberra has bastards, you need the Australian Democrats; let’s make bastards history. Actually I think you really need to say ‘let’s make bastards history’ in a Don Chipp voice. It reminds me of footage of Don in the aftermath of the logging of the Daintree when he said, ‘Those mindless bloody vandals.’ We did play a pivotal role in saving the Franklin as well. But we have always been straight talkers and we have often liked a bit of a spicy slogan—give a damn, keep them honest. But one of my favourite cartoons is actually of me as leader pledging to ‘keep the, er, naughty people honest’.

But our commitment to accountability and democracy is only matched by our efforts at good policy. Don Chipp got to see his small party do big things, despite the fact that some, including the media, were never really in love with the presence of a third party and, when its absence loomed, mostly gave no more profound thought to the matter than they had when the party had considerable support. They had certain cliches that rang down the years and which were applied no matter what the occasion. They claimed that the party did not know what it stood for or what it believed in, and yet people in their thousands not only voted for the Democrats but consistently, you could say relentlessly, sought us out for assistance when cracks appeared in the national facade, when they felt no pride in what the government was doing. I think of refugees in particular or threats to our liberties through the suspension of rights and the casual treatment of our environment, which we believe characterised both major parties until recently. Most Australians did know what the Democrats stood for. And then there were the accusations that we were too far to the right or too far to the left—glib accusations that saved some the trouble of thinking that a third or even a fourth party might be extremely valuable to the nation’s deliberations.

I wish remaining crossbench colleagues well, but the legislative expertise of the Democrats is a pretty tough one to follow. Among the four of us, we have 47 years of legislative expertise. I have seen 69 senators come and go in this place since I have been here. I have been most at home here when I have been debating, scrutinising or analysing laws, and I have been most infuriated when this chamber’s processes are undermined or curtailed. I have enjoyed the chance to amend laws more than a hundred times or so, but I have especially enjoyed policy formulation in the areas that I covered—genetics, constitutional change, human rights, social justice, work and family, and deafness issues. My not-so-secret passion of course has been space and science issues, ranging from the debate about the patenting of genes and gene sequences to establishing a Senate inquiry into space, regulating biotechnology, enshrining—and it only took eight years to do it—genetic privacy in law, and of course I am still trying to ensure the prohibition of genetic discrimination. The US congress did it in March after 13 years. My private member’s bill has been on the table for 10 years, so I urge the government to adopt it at some point. But it has been really fun, good, nerdy stuff.

Mr President, you know how I have relished my time on what was your committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade. In particular I would argue that the Democrats’ support for and advocacy of human rights, especially in places like Burma, West Papua, Tibet and Timor, is in many cases second to none. But my first committee was the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and it is the same committee that I attended my last meeting of yesterday—and I thank the secretariat and the chair for toasted sandwiches as a tribute.

My belief in publicly funded and accessible education was the catalyst for my political involvement and I have enjoyed legislating in those areas and hopefully making a real difference, whether it was income support legislation, making income support more available to farming families and to younger people, initiating inquiries into the higher education sector, the first Senate inquiry to focus solely on student income support, or even negotiating the Backing Australia’s Ability package with the former government when the ALP decided to oppose it. However, the education sector has suffered under successive governments Whether it is the introduction of voluntary student unionism, the lack of indexation for universities grants, the meagre income support and increased fees and charges, or the blackmail over industrial relations conditions and unprecedented interference in academic autonomy, all of these changes have impacted most on those who are traditionally disadvantaged and have also undone the work of generations of people and advocates for education predicated on equal access. I will never resile from the principle that education should be publicly funded and accessible to all—and, if I stand for anything, it is for that.

Many of you in this place are friends—family friends and many dear, dear friends. On many occasions, Ian and I have been heartened and I think overwhelmed by incredible shows of goodwill, especially when Cordelia and Conrad were born. Beautiful baby gifts and flowers came from all sides of the chamber—native flowers of course from my Green colleagues. The point that I make is that many of you have been a part of many happy and sometimes more difficult personal moments in my life during my time in the Senate—as have my staff.

It has been exciting to give some people their first taste of politics as well as to benefit from the expertise—the extraordinary skills and specialist knowledge—of people who have been interested in human rights and social justice, and being able to do so by having them on my staff. Like everyone in this place, I have had many wonderful, loyal, clever, committed and extraordinary staff. I acknowledge some in the gallery today: Rebecca Smith, Richard Denniss, Jill Manning, Daele Healy and Kirsty McKenzie. There are too many to mention, but I will acknowledge my current team, of course: Dr Heidi Kneebone, Mat Tinkler, Jane Hockley, Emily Johnson, Raina Hunter, of course, and Ragnhild Duske; and volunteers Craig Bossie, Rosemary Drabsch and, of course, Bryden Spurling. Many staff have contributed to my time in this place—volunteers and interns, part time and full time.

Thank you to those who make our work possible in this place: attendants, Comcar drivers, Hansard, security, cleaners, the catering staff and the clerks—the wonderful clerks. How many hundreds of amendments have you written for me? You have helped me to prepare 24 private member’s bills, in an attempt to bring forward ideas and make them into achievable policy. I also thank the Black Rod’s office and many, many others in this place—and please forgive me should I forget anyone.

I acknowledge my family in the gallery, of course: Jenny and Greg Stott; Frank and Florence Stott; of course, my mother, Shirley Stott Despoja; Ian, my husband; my children, Conrad and Cordelia—‘hi’; my godchild Sebastian; two godparents of my children, Craig Chung and Melissa McEwen; and Lori, thank you for helping me balance this work-life collision, as it is called by Professor Barbara Pocock—another former staff member, I might add. There is no truth in the rumour that Conrad is named after ‘conservative plus radical’. That is Nick Bolkus causing rumours. But I do not think that compares to Nick Minchin’s cute nickname for my children: CO1 and CO2. In fact, the last time Conrad was here was for the opening of parliament, when he yelled out, ‘I love you, Kevin Rudd.’ But do not get too cocky, Labor Party, because he has done that too to John Howard. I like to think that he is a very loving child with a due respect for authority and high office. Cordelia, as you know, was in here this morning, inadvertently voting on the family and community services legislation.