Political Civility Must Include Accountability

By Denis Hay  

Description

Political civility must protect criticism, improve parliamentary behaviour and address legitimate grievances while rejecting violence.

Australians should be able to condemn violence against an elected representative without surrendering their right to criticise government. Political civility should protect debate and the people taking part in it. It should also require those exercising power to listen, answer questions and accept scrutiny.

The alleged attack on independent MP Helen Haines has brought these responsibilities into painful focus. Compassion for her and her family must come first. Her suffering must not become a shortcut to conclusions about an accused person’s motives or the millions of Australians who peacefully disagree with government.

The wider question is important: when political leaders ask the public to lower the temperature, are they also willing to examine government failures and the standards they set in parliament?

Quick Answer

Criticising government is not, by itself, inciting violence. Australia needs a clear distinction between peaceful political disagreement and threats or encouragement of harm. Governments should address legitimate grievances, explain decisions and accept scrutiny, while individuals remain responsible for violent conduct. Politicians should also meet the standards of respect they ask of citizens. Evidence about trust supports taking people’s sense of being heard seriously, but does not establish that policy failures caused a particular attack. A credible response combines public safety, protection of democratic criticism, better parliamentary behaviour and measurable improvements in government performance.

What we know about the attack on Helen Haines

Victoria Police’s 20 October statement said a man had been charged after Haines was allegedly struck by a vehicle outside her Wangaratta office on 19 October. Police alleged a targeted incident and reported that she was in a critical but stable condition.

On 21 October, ABC reporting of a police press conference confirmed that the investigation remained incomplete and that motivation was a central question. Charges are allegations, not findings of guilt. The investigation and any court proceedings must establish responsibility through evidence.

That uncertainty matters. Neither criticism of government nor government neglect can responsibly be presented as the established cause of this attack. Haines’s experience does not prove a general theory about political violence.

We can discuss the health of Australian democracy without claiming knowledge that investigators have not established. We can also protect politicians, staff and members of the public without portraying citizens who challenge power as a collective threat.

Political civility should protect criticism

A citizen who says a housing policy is failing is making a political argument. So is someone who questions whether public spending serves communities or powerful interests. Those arguments may be right, wrong or incomplete. Assess them with their evidence.

Threatening someone, urging an assault or organising harm is fundamentally different. The Attorney-General’s Department’s hate crime guidance describes federal offences concerning advocacy or threats of physical force or violence against people on protected grounds, including political opinion. Other Commonwealth, state and territory laws can also apply.

This is not a complete legal test for every statement. Context, wording and the relevant law matter. But being angry with a government does not automatically turn political criticism into incitement.

Nor is Australian free speech an unlimited personal constitutional right. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s protest explainer explains that the implied freedom of political communication limits government restrictions; it does not provide personal immunity from all laws. Peaceful expression and assembly deserve protection alongside others’ rights and safety.

Social Justice Australia’s guide to free speech in Australia examines that legal framework more broadly. The concern is how we preserve meaningful criticism as public debate shifts toward civility and security.

It would be unfair to assume every appeal for respectful debate is an attempt to silence opponents. It is equally important to challenge any argument that treats criticism itself as disloyal, dangerous or morally equivalent to violence.

Listen to the grievance as well as the language

When a person angrily describes a government failure, two questions arise. Is the conduct threatening or abusive? Is the underlying complaint justified? Both deserve an answer.

Consider a hypothetical constituent who repeatedly seeks help with a delayed service and receives generic replies. A more courteous final email would not, by itself, fix the delay. The public agency still needs to explain what happened and whether a remedy is available.

The same principle applies to housing access, healthcare, income support and other public responsibilities. Citizens should not have to demonstrate perfect composure before their evidence is considered. Staff should not have to endure intimidation to provide that consideration.

Governments also cannot grant every request. Needs compete, resources are limited, and some proposed solutions cause other problems. Listening means acknowledging the concern, examining the evidence and explaining the decision. It does not mean promising whatever will end an uncomfortable conversation.

Our earlier article on political anger in Australia discusses broader grievances about representation and economic priorities. This article adds a narrower test: whether calls for better public conduct are accompanied by better institutional conduct and a genuine response to complaints.

Trust research shows why being heard matters

The latest OECD Australian trust survey results, published in June 2026 using 2025 responses, complicate claims that confidence is simply collapsing. High or moderately high trust in the federal government rose from 38 per cent in 2021 to 51 per cent in 2025. Trust in political parties was lower, at 39 per cent.

The same country note reported a 60 percentage-point gap in federal government trust between people who felt they had a political voice and those who did not. Overall, 48 per cent felt that people like them had a say in what government does.

These are survey findings about perceptions, not proof of cause and effect. They do not measure a person’s likelihood of violence. They nevertheless support taking political voice seriously, while recognising that national averages can improve even as some people remain deeply dissatisfied.

Governments should look beyond national trust figures and listen to people whose concerns remain unanswered. Improving public confidence does not make a failed service or an ignored complaint any less important. At the same time, one agency or representative’s failure does not mean every part of government is failing. Criticism is strongest when it identifies the problem, who is responsible and what needs to change.

Government failures can be real and documented

Public frustration should not automatically be reduced to poor communication or misunderstanding. Sometimes the policy itself requires correction.

The Robodebt Royal Commission’s recommendations provide a concrete example of why government must examine its own behaviour. Its 2023 report called for Services Australia to design policies around the people it serves, avoid reinforcing stigma, communicate clearly, and account for financial and other stress. It also recommended genuine consultation with frontline staff and better ways for their concerns to reach management.

Those recommendations address institutional responsibilities. They ask how decisions are made, whose experience counts and whether warnings lead to action.

The broader lesson is that a complaint can contain valuable evidence even when it is uncomfortable for a minister or department. A government that concentrates only on an angry complainant’s tone risks missing the administrative failure underneath it.

That does not establish any connection between Robodebt and the attack on Haines. It illustrates why public accountability must extend beyond teaching citizens to speak politely.

Responsibility should also be allocated carefully. A federal policy, a state service, a local planning decision and a private provider’s conduct are different things. Effective criticism identifies who made the decision and who can change it.

Understanding anger does not excuse violence

Explaining public discontent and explaining an individual offence are separate tasks. A person may feel ignored and respond by organising a campaign, writing an article, joining a community group or making a submission. We cannot assume that dissatisfaction leads towards violence.

The claim that government neglect explains “everything” about political violence would go beyond the evidence. So would the opposite claim that harsh criticism explains it all. Investigators must examine the circumstances of the particular case rather than fit it to a preferred political narrative.

There is also a danger in presenting violence as the point at which neglected people finally get heard. That would reward intimidation and diminish the efforts of people who persist through democratic channels.

Government should respond to legitimate grievances because fair treatment is its responsibility. It should not require a threat before a citizen’s problem becomes important.

Individuals remain accountable for their conduct. Governments remain accountable for theirs. These responsibilities operate together, without transferring blame for an assault to its victim or to peaceful critics.

Parliament must meet the standards it asks of citizens

The public is entitled to expect more from parliament than personal insults, disruptive shouting and answers that evade the question. Vigorous disagreement is essential. Humiliation does little to help assess whether a policy works.

A documented example occurred at the highest level. On 8 October 2024, Anthony Albanese referenced Tourette syndrome during Question Time. ABC’s account records that he immediately withdrew the remark and apologised. His later parliamentary apology, reproduced by OpenAustralia, acknowledged that his comments were hurtful and should not have occurred.

The apology belongs in the account. Fair criticism should record both the original conduct and any correction. The incident still illustrates how a parliamentary exchange can use a condition affecting people outside the chamber as a political put-down.

In August 2024, crossbench MPs criticised Coalition conduct; Sussan Ley defended vigorous debate and challenged the crossbench’s own behaviour.

These examples do not establish that every party behaves equally badly, or that every allegation of misconduct is justified. They show why standards must apply to conduct itself, without exemptions based on political allegiance.

Parliament has examined these concerns. The House Procedure Committee’s July 2023 report, Raising the Standard, devoted a chapter to respect in the chamber, the Speaker’s role and sanctions for disorderly conduct. The problem therefore cannot reasonably be dismissed as something only outside critics have noticed.

Citizens should also distinguish scrutiny from obstruction. A difficult question can be entirely appropriate. An uncomfortable answer may be necessary. A robust parliament needs both, with rules that prevent intimidation and allow members to be heard.

Better manners must come with better answers

A quieter Question Time would be welcome, but volume is only one measure of its quality. A minister can be perfectly polite while failing to explain a decision.

Our editorial judgement is that accountability should be judged by what the public learns. Did the answer address the question? Did it identify the evidence? Did it explain a delay, acknowledge an error or give a date for further information?

The opposition and crossbench also have responsibilities. Questions designed around unsupported allegations or personal attacks can waste opportunities for scrutiny. Ministers should be challenged on decisions, outcomes and evidence, and should respond on those terms.

Political leaders could make an immediate difference by correcting their own colleagues, declining to celebrate insulting exchanges and giving substantive answers greater prominence. A withdrawal should be accompanied by a change in behaviour, rather than become a routine cost of gaining attention.

These are proposals for better parliamentary practice. They are not claims that Question Time misconduct caused violence outside parliament.

Recognise reforms and assess their results

Australia is not starting from nothing. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission investigates workplace matters and alleged breaches of behaviour codes. Its existence is a meaningful institutional change, although workplace oversight should not be confused with the Speaker’s management of debate in the chamber.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service’s May 2026 release of its 2025 workplace report also provides a more balanced picture than a blanket description of parliament as dysfunctional. Survey respondents reported commitment to public service and positive team experiences. The report also identified excessive workloads and uneven confidence in responses to unacceptable behaviour.

The service acknowledged low participation in some survey groups. Those limitations matter: the findings should not be treated as a complete account of everyone’s experience or proof that reform has succeeded.

The next step is to assess results over time. Are people safer? Are complaints handled fairly? Do leaders change their behaviour? Establishing a commission or publishing a code is a beginning, not a substitute for answering those questions.

Public spending debates should explain choices honestly

When a government says a service cannot be improved, citizens deserve an explanation of the actual constraint. Is it a shortage of workers, a delivery problem, a competing priority, or a budget decision?

Australia’s monetary sovereignty is relevant here. The Commonwealth operates within a national currency system with the Reserve Bank of Australia as its central bank. The Australian dollar has a floating exchange rate, and Commonwealth Treasury Bonds are denominated in Australian dollars. Households, businesses and state governments do not issue that national currency.

Those differences make a household-budget analogy incomplete. They do not allow government to summon trained nurses, skilled builders, materials or infrastructure simply by authorising expenditure. Spending beyond available capacity can add to inflation. Environmental limits and the time needed to train workers also matter.

Existing budget laws and funding arrangements remain relevant. Fiscal policy concerns government spending and taxation; monetary policy is conducted by the Reserve Bank. In a 2020 speech on public sector balance sheets, then governor Philip Lowe explained money creation while warning against treating monetary financing as costless. That historical explanation should not be mistaken for a current policy announcement or endorsement of unlimited spending.

A useful public debate therefore asks what resources a proposal needs, how capacity could expand, who benefits and what inflation risks must be managed. Citizens should be able to challenge spending priorities without either treating government as a household or assuming every proposed investment is affordable without consequences.

Five practical tests for a more accountable democracy

These proposals link debate standards to the quality of government. None guarantees agreement or eliminates the risk of violence. Each offers a practical way to make public scrutiny more useful.

1. Give complaints a traceable response

Agencies and elected officials should tell people who is handling their concern, what can be done and when they can expect a reply. Complex cases need realistic timeframes and an explanation of review options. Frontline staff need the resources and authority to provide that service safely.

2. Report outcomes rather than announcements

Governments should distinguish between a promise, an allocation of money, work underway, and a delivered service. For housing, report homes completed and available for occupation. For services, report access, waiting times and whether problems were resolved. Publish shortcomings alongside achievements.

3. Apply parliamentary standards consistently

Leaders should support fair enforcement even when a colleague is involved. Sanctions need transparent reasons and fair procedures. Reform should preserve rigorous questioning while addressing personal abuse, intimidation and persistent disruption.

4. Show what public consultation changed

A consultation should end with an accessible explanation of the evidence received, the options considered and why decisions were made. Keep telephone and in-person routes available for people excluded by digital systems. Consultation cannot promise agreement, but it can demonstrate that participation was worthwhile.

5. Protect safety alongside peaceful participation

Security responses should address actual risks and unlawful conduct. Proposals affecting protest or political communication should be precise, justified and open to independent scrutiny. Staff safety, accessible representation and the public’s ability to organise all deserve consideration.

What can citizens do now?

Constructive criticism can be forceful. Start with a decision or service failure, describe its effects, provide evidence and ask for a specific remedy. Keep a record of the response and use an appropriate review or complaint process when needed.

Working with a community organisation can help turn an isolated problem into documented evidence of a wider issue. Public submissions, meetings, letters and peaceful advocacy give people ways to challenge policy between elections.

When sharing political content, check the original source and its date. Distinguish a verified fact from an allegation or interpretation. Correct mistakes openly, including those that favour your own argument.

Democratic participation should not depend on having the loudest voice. Making room for people who disagree, or who struggle to be heard, strengthens the case for change.

Conclusion

The attack on Helen Haines warrants compassion, investigation and accountability through the law. Its motive must be established from evidence, not assumed from a wider political argument.

The broader evidence supports taking representation, fair treatment and institutional behaviour seriously. It also shows that trust can improve and that reforms already exist. Neither blanket despair nor institutional self-congratulation is justified.

Social Justice Australia’s position is that calls for political civility should include a commitment to substantive answers and better government. Leaders should examine their own conduct and respond to legitimate grievances, while citizens retain the freedom to challenge them peacefully.

Protecting representatives and holding them accountable are both essential to a democracy that serves its people.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is calling a government incompetent inciting violence?

Not by itself. Criticism of competence or policy is different from threatening or encouraging harm. A legal assessment depends on the actual words, context, and applicable law; political expression is not exempt from all legal restrictions. Federal guidance explains relevant hate crime offences.

Does explaining public anger excuse an attacker?

No. Examining grievances can help assess government performance without excusing violence. The cause of a particular offence requires evidence about that case. A person’s dissatisfaction does not remove their responsibility for unlawful conduct.

Is public trust in Australian government continually falling?

No. The OECD’s 2026 Australian country note reports higher trust in the federal government in its 2025 survey than in 2021. Trust varies between institutions and population groups. An improvement in the average does not mean every citizen feels represented or receives adequate services.

Does the Parliamentary Standards Commission replace the Speaker?

No. The commission’s role concerns parliamentary workplace conduct. The Speaker and the House have separate responsibilities for managing proceedings. A workplace complaint system should not replace enforcement of standards during debate.

What can a citizen ask for when a minister avoids a question?

Ask for the missing information in writing: the decision’s basis, the responsible agency, the delivery timetable or the review process. A precise question makes it easier to assess whether the response addresses the issue. Preserve the correspondence and share it responsibly if advocating reform.

Join the discussion

What would make you feel that those who govern are hearing your concerns and considering them fairly?

Share your experiences, evidence and views in the comments, including respectful disagreement, alternative interpretations or corrections. Explore the related Social Justice Australia articles linked above, and share this article with your community to encourage informed discussion about democratic reform.

If you believe in what we are trying to achieve, your support can help Social Justice Australia continue producing independent public-interest analysis. We appreciate every contribution, large or small. Consider supporting the work and taking part in a constructive local campaign, consultation or community discussion.

#AustralianPolitics #GovernmentAccountability #Democracy #PublicTrust #SocialJustice

Authoritative Sources

1. Victoria Police – Security Investigation Unit charges man following Wangaratta incident. 20 October 2026. vic.gov.au
2. Keira Proust, ABC News – Police not ruling out further charges against Brendan Nugent over Helen Haines attack. 21 October 2026. net.au
3. Attorney-General’s Department – Hate crime offences. Current guidance accessed 21 October 2026; no publication date displayed. gov.au
4. Australian Human Rights Commission – Explainer: Protest rights in Australia. 21 August 2025. gov.au
5. Denis Hay, Social Justice Australia – Free Speech in Australia: Rights, Laws and Limits. Current page accessed 21 October 2026. com.au
6. Denis Hay, Social Justice Australia – Why Political Anger in Australia Keeps Growing. 12 May 2026. com.au
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Australia. 29 June 2026; Australian survey conducted September–November 2025. org
8. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme – Report. 7 July 2023; corrected edition 11 July 2023. Recommendations 10.1, 13.1 and 13.2. royalcommission.gov.au
9. Dannielle Maguire, ABC News – Anthony Albanese has apologised for using Tourette syndrome as an insult. Here are the facts about the disorder. 9 October 2024. net.au
10. Anthony Albanese, House of Representatives – Questions Without Notice, statement on indulgence at 7.59 pm. 8 October 2024. Hansard reproduced by OpenAustralia. org.au
11. Sarah Basford Canales, The Guardian – Sussan Ley defends Coalition’s question time ‘passion’ as Labor proposes penalties for politicians’ bad behaviour. 21 August 2024; updated 18 February 2025. com
12. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure – Raising the Standard, Chapter 3: Everyday respect in the Chamber (Recommendation 10). July 2023. gov.au
13. Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission – About Us. Current institutional guidance accessed 21 October 2026; no publication date displayed. gov.au
14. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service – Media release: Tabling of the 2025 Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace Report. 13 May 2026. gov.au
15. Reserve Bank of Australia – Exchange Rates and their Measurement. Educational explainer accessed 21 October 2026; no publication date displayed. gov.au
16. Australian Office of Financial Management – Information Memorandum: Treasury Bonds. 1 March 2024. gov.au
17. Philip Lowe, Reserve Bank of Australia – COVID-19, the Labour Market and Public Sector Balance Sheets. Speech, 21 July 2020. gov.au
18. Social Justice Australia – Homepage. Accessed 21 October 2026. com.au
19. Denis Hay, Social Justice Australia – Parliament Passes New Hate Speech Laws, What It Really Means. 23 January 2026. Used for the duplication and scope check. socialjusticeaustralia.com.au

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia