I rise today to speak about my friend and colleague, the member for Indi. Helen and I were both elected in the same cohort, entering parliament in 2019. She immediately left an indelible impression on me as someone who stood out in public life for her decency, thoughtfulness and determination. She is deeply respected and admired in this place across the political divide, and throughout the community she has dedicated her life to serving.

Today is a time to reflect on the terrible incident that occurred last week at its most personal level and also on how it relates to politics and our public discourse more broadly. We are here to acknowledge the horrific events that led to Helen's injuries and, at the same time, to think about her as a person, a wife, a mother, a grandmother and a parliamentarian. She represents her local community with great passion, advocating for both local projects and systemic issues affecting regional communities. She has also been such an effective champion of some of the most important national issues that this parliament has had to grapple with in our time here. Throughout her time as a parliamentarian, she has strongly advocated for a national anti-corruption body. When a select committee was appointed to shepherd the formation of that institution, Helen was appointed deputy chair, and her appointment was welcomed across the political aisle. After the passage of the NACC legislation, she continued in her role as deputy chair of the ongoing oversight Committee, reflecting the respect and trust in which she is held by members of this chamber. Helen is a person and a parliamentarian of the highest calibre—the best of us, which has been a phrase so often used today.

The events we are reflecting on reinforce that no-one who puts themselves forward to serve their community should have to fear for their safety or accept threats, intimidation or violence as part of the job. Yet increasingly that is the environment in which people in public life are being asked to operate. My own office has experienced confronting behaviour, and I know we are far from alone. MPs and their safety have understandably been the focus of a lot of the discussion today and in the public discourse. I also want to stress that electorate officers are regularly exposed to threats, aggression and at times direct violence. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary electorate officers who work for members and senators right across the political spectrum in this place and the other place. They are often the first point of contact for people who are in great need and in some instances also angry, distressed, frightened or desperate. Sometimes that anger is political. Sometimes it comes from people experiencing serious mental illness or profound difficulties. Sometimes it comes from people who feel like the world has stopped listening to them. Whatever the cause, our electorate officers often bear the brunt of it. They do extraordinary work, frequently with little recognition, and deserve to feel safe in their workplaces. We must never allow abuse and intimidation of MPs or their electorate staff to become routine.

Of course, as so many in this discussion today have noted, this problem exists well beyond politics. Nurses, doctors, paramedics, retail workers, teachers, social workers and so many others on the frontline of service delivery are increasingly being asked to manage aggression and violence simply because they are doing their jobs. There is something profoundly wrong when the people whose work it is to help others are themselves placed at risk, when compassion is met with aggression and public service with intimidation. So much of the aggression in our community is gendered, and that is another aspect of the discussion which has been so important today.

All of us in this parliament and across the community more broadly have a responsibility to set a higher standard, not just in what we say when something terrible happens but in our everyday conduct and language. Political disagreement and robust debate are essential to democracy, but, of course, the line shouldn't be crossed to violence and intimidation. Frankly, I think, quite often not accepting the valid motives of the people you're debating is the first step in heading towards unhealthy debate and clash.

I want to finish where I began, with Helen. Helen came into public life because she wanted to help people. She brought to parliament the same compassion and sense of purpose that led her into nursing, midwifery and research. My thoughts are with Helen; with her husband, Phil; and their entire family. She is a valued colleague, a deeply respected parliamentarian and above all a good friend and a good person. She has given so much of herself in the service of others. The very least we can all do is ensure that Helen and the many thousands of Australians who dedicate their lives to helping others can continue that service in safety. Helen, I look forward to seeing you back in this chamber where you belong—swift recovery.