I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Bradfield, and I thank her for moving it. Yesterday I spoke about the member for Indi. Today I want to talk about the bigger picture, because the attack on Helen happened in a climate that has been escalating. Political violence reaches well beyond this building. Police officers have been killed by people with antigovernment beliefs. Places of worship have been attacked. Journalists, councillors and public servants face threats and intimidation for doing their jobs. ASIO now says politically motivated violence is one of its principal security concerns.

I've been thinking a lot about why this is happening. One reason is that we now spend less time in the places where we would interact and form relationships with people who disagree with us, like churches, sporting clubs, even workplaces. It's now quite easy to get through the week mixing only with people who agree with us. Much of our conversations about difficult issues have moved online, where algorithms reward outrage. Short videos favour heroes and villains, and there isn't much space for nuance or compromise. Trust is also low: around four in 10 Australians are dissatisfied with how our democracy is working. When people feel nobody is listening, frustration can harden into distrust of institutions, and sometimes into hostility towards the people who represent them.

We don't know what might have prevented this attack, but there are some things we can work on now. This week we're debating the digital duty of care, which I've been calling for. A duty of care starts to change the outrage that's good for the business of the social media platforms. Law enforcement and mental health services need to share information better so warning signs are picked up early. We need to look after the people who work in our electorate offices, who are often the first to cop that abuse. Importantly, we need to teach young people how to disagree well.

On the civics education inquiry, I heard that many teachers are wary of raising controversial topics for fear of being accused of pushing their own politics. This needs to change. The Scanlon Foundation puts it well: problems start when we treat our view as the right view rather than simply a view. There's an exercise I run with my year 11 youth advisory group to help demonstrate this. I ask each student to pick an issue they care about and then build the best possible version of the opposing argument. It's a good reminder that reasonable people can look at the same material and disagree.

We also need to look at how we behave in this place. Despite the fact that almost all the issues we debate in here have decent arguments on both sides, I don't think I've ever heard one side of this House genuinely concede that the other has a decent argument. Imagine how refreshing that would be! When MPs treat each other as enemies, it shouldn't surprise us when people outside do the same. In her first speech, Helen said that the people of Indi chose to use their voice not to drown out the voices of others but to hear the voices of others. I'd like to see this sentiment reflected in the way we all engage, particularly in this House. Disagreeing well is a skill that can be taught and improves with practice. Here in the parliament, we must start by setting an example.

Respectful debate belongs to all of us, and it's stronger when we all help build it—at home, at school, at work and online. We must all start by seeing the person behind the opposing view and remembering that no disagreement, however strongly felt, can ever justify violence.