I rise to speak to this very important matter of public importance. Thanks for bringing it, Member for Bradfield. Political violence has no place in our society or in our democracy. Millions of ordinary people made enormous sacrifices for our political system to be founded on the principle that our political debates are settled by the ballot box not by violence and not by coercion. There's been a flurry of commentary from politicians and from the media over the last week since the wonderful Helen Haines was brutally attacked. I've already spoken in this chamber, as have many others, about how inspiring and kind an individual Helen Haines is. Today, I want to focus on how we understand and undermine the drivers of political violence.

Firstly, it's unclear whether the attacker's motives were primarily or consciously political. We must not jump to conclusions. There were clearly major mental health issues at play and some failings of our support systems that let people slip through the cracks. If politics is involved here, it is part of a very complex and unique set of circumstances. There is no doubt that there's an increase in predatory online activity and ecosystems that seek to prey on people's isolation and hurt.

It is true that there's more anger in the community now than there ever has been. It is true that there is more division than before, and, of course, we must have civility and respect in politics, but these concepts can be vague and slippery enough to serve different agendas. Civility obviously means not being a monster, but it also may imply that everyday people are not entitled to their legitimate feelings of anger and frustration at unfair systemic treatment.

When we're asked to turn the temperature down, there is a risk that that can backfire. If everyday people are frustrated because their living standards are dropping and because they're feeling more and more disconnected and alienated from their communities and more powerless, they will want to see politicians who understand these feelings. Having politicians simply adopt a more civil tone but keep everything else the same will only create more frustration in the community. Of course, we should not have politicians shouting at each other, hurling personal abuse. Politicians should behave appropriately and model the decent behaviour the public expects, but the solution is not really at the level of rhetoric at all.

If the core reason for the growth of frustration and anger is a decaying social fabric, then the solution can only be found at the level of that social fabric. How do we mend that social fabric? First, policy—actually genuinely start improving people's lives in significant, meaningful ways. Things have to be affordable. Our services must not have huge gaps. Housing cannot be so precarious. We need to feel more in control of our own lives.

Second, social organising, rebuilding that social fabric through deep community work, through rebuilding community organisations, through community programs, conversations and campaigning that creates and expresses shared interests—it's only through this that the hypercompetitive individualistic and profit-first culture of neoliberalism can be overcome. This is why the lesson from this horrible attack cannot be 'maintain the status quo but be more civil about it', nor can the lesson be 'nobody have passion in politics and nobody express their frustration'.

Finally, the lesson cannot be for politicians to be removed even further from everyday people out of safety concerns. The lessons should be the opposite. We need to dramatically break with the status quo and improve people's lives. We need more caring, more passion in politics but more collective passion. We need politicians more embedded in their community and more responsive to community need. Helen is a woman so thoroughly embedded in her community. We need more like her.

Coming back to democracy, political violence is a tragedy for the individual, but it's also a tragedy for democracy. Democracy wasn't won by meekness, and it's not defended by meekness. Women were given the vote not because they were civil. The suffragettes were an enormous pain in the backside of the political establishment. In my youth, the backwards authoritarianism of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen years in Queensland was not resisted with bland civility. It was resisted with passion and with conviction, and it was through these movements of great collective power, strength and passion that our social fabric was built.