Don’t Tell Us to Be Quiet

Australians are being lectured on their manners by a political class that should be answering for its own conduct.

My friend and pro-life warrior Dr Joanna Howe put it plainly:

I'm not going to be bullied into "kindness" by leftist ideologues using the Helen Haines tragedy to censor anyone from the political right who wants to criticise them.

She is right.

I served alongside Helen Haines in parliament. I found her professional and decent, despite our political differences. The attack on her was horrifying. She deserves our prayers, our support and justice.

But her suffering does not hand the political class a licence to police everyone else’s tone.

Anthony Albanese is promoting “more kindness” and “more listening and less shouting”. Tanya Plibersek has used the parliamentary response to the attack to denounce social media, the tech giants and the “manosphere”, urging parliament to seize the moment as a turning point.

Meanwhile, Labor is pushing its digital duty of care legislation through the Senate.

That pivot deserves scrutiny. What evidence actually connects this particular attack to the online speech ministers want new powers to regulate?

The Australian reports that investigators are examining whether the accused targeted Haines as a proxy for a family member, alongside a possible political motive. The investigation is unfinished. Yet the prescriptions for remaking public discourse are already being written.

Even Albanese has cautioned against rushing to conclusions. His government should honour that caution rather than use a tragedy to advance an agenda it had already settled.

Victorian Liberal leader Jess Wilson put her finger on the real issue:

“Restoring confidence in our democracy demands more than changing how politicians speak. It requires changing how governments behave.”

If politicians would only tell the truth. If they'd only honour their promises. If they'd only explain where the all the taxpayer money went. If they'd only accept responsibility for when things go wrong.

Australians have every right to be angry when politicians fail those tests. Demanding a softer response does nothing to correct the failure.

And while it is generally better to play the ball than the man, politicians cannot expect their character to be exempt from scrutiny. Their actions and beliefs will sometimes warrant personal condemnation.

One of my Coalition colleagues once chastised me for listening too much to the rank-and-file members of my party. He then dismissed most of his own local branch members as simple rednecks and racists who did not reflect the wider community.

These were the people who had preselected him, worked for him and helped put him in parliament. He accepted their hard work and their support, then spoke of them with contempt.

That revealed a flaw in the man himself. His character deserved scrutiny as much as his policies.

Calling such conduct arrogant and ungrateful is a judgment he earned. Demanding “kindness” must not become a shield against it.

Angus Taylor was also right yesterday to defend robust parliamentary debate. Democracy gives people a peaceful means to air grievances, condemn wrongdoing and remove those responsible. Suppress that expression and you weaken the system.

Threats and violence deserve punishment. Citizens also deserve the freedom to speak plainly about those who govern them, including when their verdict is harsh.

I will pray for Helen Haines. I will keep condemning political violence. And I will keep calling out arrogance, dishonesty and contempt wherever I find them.

Politicians who want less condemnation should give Australians less reasons to condemn.

“Without exhaustive debate—even heated debate—of ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower