Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

As a nation we are often engaged in an examination of who we are as Australians. We're going through another episode of that right now. I think there are a lot of elements of what it means to be Australian that we reflect on at these times. When I think about this question I think quite often about the respect I have for our forebears, from First Nations to First Fleet, and the fact that when many of us take a moment to think about what our forebears had to do in this nation—with the climate, the environment that was there, to be able to survive when the odds were against them—it is something that should generate profound respect for a number of things. These things include not just our toughness and not just the fact that so often the Australian character is defined by a very heavy physical element, of being able to survive the elements themselves. One of the big things that's helped this nation survive is our know-how and smarts.

Know-how and smarts is not just something to make people think, 'I do not possess that; that is for someone who is much better than me.' Australians have a view that, whatever our walk of life, we've been able to make it in this country by thinking deeply about what it takes to survive. Again, I say that in the sense that, from First Nations to the First Fleet and beyond, we have had the odds against us. We've had poets write about our sunburnt country. The tragedy of that poem has befallen generations from then to now—the fact that we enjoy being in the sun so much. In many respects we have paid for that enjoyment, and in many cases we've paid for it with our lives, with the cancers that have emerged, particularly melanoma.

I think about the contributions by the member for Bass, the member for Kooyong and others who've spoken on this condolence motion today about Professor Richard Scolyer and the fact that he threw himself into trying to ease the burden and the dread that comes with a diagnosis. You are facing one of your most difficult challenges in life. He had spent the bulk of his time thinking about how we could beat melanoma and how we could free people from that death sentence—because, more often than not, that is exactly what it amounts to.

A lot has been said about what Richard Scolyer has done in terms of his professional, scientific and research background. But I want to come back, if I may, to the remarks I just reflected on. When we think of the Australian character we think of our ability to overcome with physical attributes. We also obviously think of our sporting prowess, and we've got a lot to be proud of there. But I think about how most people who've achieved an Order of Australia have come from a science and research background. Rightly, we give accolades for what occurs on the sporting field. But it's not just the physical that has led to heroism; it has also been the fact that Australians have dedicated their smarts and their know-how to helping their fellow Australians.

When I paid my condolences to Richard's wife, Katie—and Katie, Emily, Matt and Lucy were on the floor of the chamber with us yesterday—I expressed the view to Katie that her husband was a national hero. National heroes don't always attain that description of heroism because they've been successful. It is the journey and the struggle that they have undertaken that marks them out. In the case of Richard Scolyer, he became, as the member for Bass and others have observed, his own patient. When he had that seizure two years ago and he knew what was going to befall him, he said he did not want to die; he wanted to live. He threw everything into it, including his own body, not just to save himself but to save others. It's been that sacrifice that he made combined with the observation that, in so much of what he did, there was an absence of gravitas and ego.

Richard was us. He walked amongst us all, containing that special talent and gift that he had, with desire to save others. That, I think, marks him out. He was not successful in the journey he wanted so desperately to be successful in, but what he did and how he did it should mark him out as a national hero. My words to his wife, his widow, I gave from the bottom of my heart because this bloke was a national hero. I think it's right that we recognise that in this chamber—devoid of politics, devoid of division and united in the respect we have for a fellow Australian and what they're prepared to do for others. Richard Scolyer did that in spades.

I don't think any of us would not have been touched by that final letter that he penned, knowing how hard it would have been to write those words—every single letter in those words, every apostrophe and particularly the full stop. When he said we should commit to doing whatever we can to back science and research, he wasn't just saying that from a simple, mechanistic point of view. He was speaking to the Australian character, of which know-how is such a big part, and saying that we can get it done. It's not just about the know-how; it's about having faith in who we are. We are often the underdog and often underestimated, but we often achieve, and he wants to see more of that. If we honour this bloke, if we honour this national hero, in any way—if we are serious about honouring, in faithful regard, what he has done—we will pick up that challenge he set. That is to invest in science and in research, but also to invest in who we are as a country, who we are as a people and what we can do for the rest of the world.

I want to honour Richard Scolyer for what he did. I am but one voice, but, like many other voices in this country that wanted to honour him, I want to honour him in awe, in respect and in commitment to fulfilling what he asked of us—to pick up from where he left off and to deliver for others. Richard Scolyer was a national hero. Vale.

See this speech in context