I join with all the comments that have been made and, in particular, what we just heard there. This room does not lend itself towards anyone receiving universal respect, but it did not take the horrors of last Monday for there to be universal respect for Helen Haines. The thoughts of the entire parliament and the nation are with her. The extraordinary strength and dignity of Phil, I think, have affected each and every one of us.

I have a role in terms of people's safety, and I go through different risk factors for the people who work here on a very regular basis. As I go through the different levels of risk—Helen was so far down the list. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't defend us having robust debate. Helen would always defend there being robust debate. I'm mindful of a comment that I heard Phil make this morning, which I think poses a question for all of us to simply consider. It goes not simply to, 'Would I be capable of doing something horrific?' but to, 'Would my words, if heard by someone on the edge, potentially have an impact that I wouldn't want them to have?'

This is not something simply for people in our line of work. It is something, as was just said, applying universally as the world becomes angrier. Talk to people who work for the police force, who work in hospitals, who work in hospitality. I spent a whole lot, six years, of my life before I came here working with retail workers. It never occurred to me that the biggest issue for the union would end up being the levels of abuse that people were receiving simply for working in retail. The place is getting angrier, and not all of that comes to us or the media, but some of it has to come to each and every one of us, and we need to be curious about the question, 'Is there a different way of making the same point?' Every different issue people would want to raise, we need to be able to raise. But, when language becomes dehumanising or violent or when language uses terms that would actually place someone outside of society, then we need to be curious of the question of that. Whether or not that ends up being relevant as the legal process for the attacker on Helen makes its way isn't the point. It's simply the question of whether there are things we can do to make people safer. If there are, we should be curious about how we do them.

While a lot has been said about Helen's impact on de-escalation, I do need to concede the most terrifying moment of my time in politics came from Helen Haines. During COVID, there was this thing that Insiders did where people would wash their hands while singing, and then, at the end of it, they would nominate who would go next. I cannot sing a note. I love music; I cannot sing a note. Helen had written her own song and filmed it onsite at the property and was loving it, and then she nominated me. The fact that there is video out there somewhere of me putting on my guitar the AC/DC riff to 'TNT' while chanting 'oi'—it is the only bit of melody I can handle—is a debt I owe entirely to Helen Haines.

But I simply say that this is a moment for all of us and everyone who has a voice louder than the average person—but it is also a question for all Australians—to be curious about whether there is a gentler way of making the same point. None of that gets in the way of robust debate. If we can find that way, it doesn't just make the people in this workplace safer and make their staff safer; it's something that hits workers across the nation and across the world. We can do better, and we can use this moment for that.