When we refer to political discourse, what we mean is the way in which language is used in the discipline of politics. That's how language is used in speeches, campaign materials, policy documents and debate to influence public opinion and decision making. Political discourse frames how issues are communicated and therefore how they are understood and how they are acted upon. Political discourse tells us not only about the policy agenda but about the strategies that politicians use to persuade, justify actions and gain support, but the purpose is often lost amongst analysis of the form and content. We say repeatedly that healthy and robust political discourse is a core feature of a well-functioning democracy and that we need it, we'll lose without it and we mustn't prevent or restrict it. That is right, because healthy political discourse can help to deliver many benefits to society.

There's no definitive blueprint for what healthy and quality political discourse looks like—it's different for many people—but the concern in this country is that what qualifies as acceptable political discourse is being infected by ever-present and dangerous scope creep where political discourse involving high-quality considered ideas is being replaced by poor-quality arguments based around sledging, saying 'no' for no's sake and populist vibes. There is no question that high-quality political discourse is under strain and that unhealthy, unproductive discourse is growing. Because unhealthy, unproductive political discourse has the potential to inflict great damage, we all have a responsibility.

I am not for a minute saying that politicians are solely responsible or that they have all the tools in the toolkit to address this issue, but there are things that we in this place and the other place can do to ensure a high standard of political discourse in Parliament House and out in our communities. Firstly, we can start by recognising that everyone in this House has shown something—displayed a quality, or multiple qualities—to their communities such that they got elected through a democratic process that is the envy of the world. We know that everyone worked hard to get here and that they have been chosen to be here by the Australian people who make up their communities.

Secondly, we should recognise that every political party and member of the crossbench actually have an 'Australia first' agenda. The agendas, the pathways and the policies may be different in terms of application and quality, but in their own way they all seek to put Australia first. No-one in this House, no political party, is out to ruin Australia or disadvantage the Australian people, and we need to stop saying that. Thirdly, vibes and slogans are catchy, but they need to be built on a foundation of evidence and data. Preparation for debate, careful consideration of the counterarguments and then the development of a persuasive position based on evidence is what produces high-quality political discourse. Why do we need it? Because the most important beneficiary is the voter, their families and their communities.

A few important questions: Will this speech I'm about to give benefit my community? Does this letterbox flyer give accurate information that my community needs? Is my social media post designed to offend or to inform? Does the question I'm asking in question time, or the answer I'm giving in question time, put the voter in a better, more informed position than before the question was asked or answered? Can I explain the policy rationale for doing something or changing something or not doing something? Can I explain why the opposition's policy offering is inferior, or am I just saying that? High-quality political discourse requires work and it requires preparation. It requires a proper consideration of different perspectives. It requires us to drop bad points and pursue credible ones. We must do this, because the Australian people deserve high-quality public and political discourse that leads to bipartisan action. If we don't provide this, people will turn to dangerously poor and ill-informed sources of information, and they will make their choice at the ballot box on that basis. So let's do the work.