Senator SPINDLER(1.15 p.m.) —This will not be the last time that I speak in this chamber, but it is my final speech in the sense that we have a first speech at the beginning of a Senate term. This Senate has a proud recent history as an effective house of review. It has been a privilege for me to contribute to the development of a more democratic system of government, firstly as senior adviser to former leaders of the Australian Democrats, Senators Don Chipp and Janine Haines, and now—for six years—as a Democrat senator for Victoria.

The traditional view of the main function of a member of parliament is that of a legislator. Certainly, this task has been embraced by the Democrats as the major responsibility, in particular since 1981 when we obtained balance of power in the Senate. Unless the government has had the support of the major opposition party, the Democrats have usually determined the fate of legislation. This means that every clause of every bill has to be assessed on its merits, as defined by the policies and principles on which Democrat supporters cast their votes. This role has been acknowledged by the Australian community; and finally, in the recent somewhat silly debate on mandates, most people now accept that it is a nonsense that the government of the day should have absolute power to enact anything and everything as long as it was part of its election platform.

Being a legislator is not enough. The Senate offers other opportunities to press for positive social change, and in ways not dictated by the government's legislative program which lands on our desk with total disregard of one's own agenda. I owned up to my agenda in my first speech—to push us closer to a society which is socially and economically just for all its members, regardless of colour, creed, gender, sexuality, disability or wealth; a society which is ecologically sustainable and which is accepting of our responsibility to reduce inequality globally.

This is based on the strong belief not only that inequality in people's life opportunities is morally wrong, but also that such inequality, injustice and intolerance ultimately leads to conflict, oppression and violence. This was reinforced by my childhood experiences in war-torn Europe and the enormity of the Holocaust. I determined that I wanted to do all I could to ensure that such events did not occur again and that we would leave a safer and better world to our children and to their children. I am very glad that my wife, Julia, and our children, Rebecca, Linden, Christopher and Karen, and Karen's husband, Gary, are here today.

The main barriers a person of ethnic background has to overcome have been identified as lack of English, incomplete education, lack of money and little information on electoral and constitutional matters. These were some of the barriers that I faced when, with Julia's support, I decided in 1972 that I wanted to pursue the parliamentary option to work for the reforms I saw as urgent. These were formidable barriers. But while I prefer the words `determined' and `single-minded', most of my friends, colleagues and staff—and certainly my family—would be inclined to use the term `pig-headed'.

The inevitable result was that our children were short-changed. I know now—and, in a way, I knew it even then—that I was depriving them and myself of the time, the friendship and the personal closeness they should have had and I would have loved. I thank them and can but hope that their presence here today indicates that they understand what drove me and perhaps even that they consider that the results, however modest, provide some compensation for the loss they have experienced. All would have been in vain but for the loyalty, wisdom and support I received from Julia. I would not be here without you, and my gratitude to you is deeply felt.

None of us can function without our staff. Having been on both sides of the fence, I can appreciate the pressures and frustrations of that job and am grateful for the assistance I received from John McLaren, Ken Archer, Stephen Merrylees, David Ferris, who is here today, Matthew Townsend, who is also here, and Di Droog. But the prize goes to Beverley Irving, who started on the day I became a senator, is still managing me, and will leave as I depart. Thank you, Bev, for your effective, efficient and loyal support; but, more than that, for your friendship and the tact and sensitivity you used so well to interpret a uniquely demanding personality to the outside world.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to many staffers in the offices of other senators, led by Jacqui Flitcroft, Geoff Dodd, Mary Ritson, Jene Fletcher, Shirley Simper, John Cherry, Cheryl Thurlow, Althea Smith, Stephen Swift and the ferocious Sandra—alias `Sam'—Hudson. At times like these, one looks for continuity. It is fortunate that John Beever and Fergus McPherson are able to be here today, providing the link with the Australia Party, with Fergus managing the 1972 campaign from Gordon Barton's office and John Beever in Victoria accompanying me on that first visit, in 1972, to the then Minister for Customs to suggest that he tie his political future to the Australia Party. In 1977, this visit bore fruit, and Don Chipp became the craggy face of the new Australian Democrats.

The new party was as forward looking as it is today and did not deserve the image of the middle-of-the-road party bestowed by some commentators too lazy to read policies or to analyse Senate decisions. The left-of-centre reform movement also failed to look beyond a leader with Liberal Party antecedents, and valuable years were lost while the ALP proved itself unable to manage the vision of a Whitlam and extinguished Chifley's light on the hill, yet managed to hang on to most of the true believers against what should have been their better, more strategic judgment.

A similar trend is in evidence now as the intellectual left refuses to acknowledge what the Democrats are doing and instead proceeds to parrot claims that Cheryl Kernot is taking the party back to the centre of Australian politics, apparently because she has some media appeal and a commonsense presentation which belies her uncompromising sense of justice. The work I shared with Senator Kernot on the Mabo legislation was the high point of my legislative work. I also appreciate the fact that she was prepared, as I was, to advocate tough action on Bosnia at a time when this would have averted some of the worst tragedies which have eventuated since. When I advanced the concept of my sexuality anti-discrimination bill she endorsed it and became one of its strongest supporters. Surely, these are the actions of someone prepared to put herself and her party at the cutting edge of reform. Yet, recently an academic, who should have known better, suggested that the Democrats lacked a rigorous analysis of what needed to the done to achieve a sustainable post-industrial society, thus displaying his ignorance of the party's alternative budget proposals released in various forms since 1990.

There is measurable support for a strong, united party offering a substantive alternative to the coalition and to the ALP but this will not succeed at the ballot box unless the Democrats become part of the agenda-setting process in the lower house. The party is now well placed to gain House of Representative seats at the next election. I am confident that it will succeed.

Earlier I said that being a legislator is not enough. Perhaps the most important avenue to explore new directions is offered by the Senate committees and their staff. From an early foray through the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitution Affairs, which resulted in a tougher antimonopoly test for mergers and acquisitions, to the first independent inquiry by an individual senator on industry development and tariffs, to the prolonged cost of justice inquiry, to outworkers, to treaties, to what may yet turn out to be a highly significant report on indicators and benchmarks for national wellbeing, not to forget the unfinished business of the casino and sexuality enquiries which are bequeathed, amongst others, to Senator Cooney for his diligent attention, I count this avenue as a critically important part of my work in this place.

Senate committees are delivering the process and the content for the leadership a national parliament should provide but rarely does. Certainly the `vision thing' was sadly absent from the recent election campaigns of the two major parties. I have some further comments on my other Democrat colleagues, on other senators, and on the invaluable services of the clerks and Senate staff but these will have to wait until tomorrow's valedictory, in deference to the time I have available today.

Let me just say today that I did not mind being called a communist by Senator Bill O'Chee, and a Marxist by that urbane sparring partner of mine, Senator Rod Kemp, consoling myself that one is defined by ones opponents as much as by ones friends as indeed was proved by Premier Kennett calling me a Nazi. The Senate offers many opportunities to pursue persistent campaigns on particular issues. For me, it was the antinuclear campaign culminating in being arrested at Nurrungar and, more recently, the exploitation of child labour, a campaign I will be able to pursue as chair of the Anti-Slavery Society in Australia and to some extent also at the International Centre for Conflict Resolution at Melbourne University.

As I am leaving this parliament, I am deeply concerned that the blunt instrument of cutting costs across the board is damaging severely the national interest in many areas, and is in fact moving us further away from what Eva Cox in her Boyer lectures called the civil society. We need to hold our own in the global market place but the Howard Government is cutting industry and export boosting programs. We need to become the intelligent and innovative society but cuts are mooted to education and research. We need to fashion a just and sustainable society but the ombudsman's budget is reduced by a third. We need to conserve our natural environment for future generations but more forests will be woodchipped and the pollution of air and water allowed to proceed. This Senate has an immense task ahead of it and, in many ways, I regret that I will not be part of it.