Taylor's defense of parliamentary debate draws sharp criticism from independents

Monique Ryan and Zali Steggall have criticized opposition leader Angus Taylor for his response to the attack on Indi MP Helen Haines. The two crossbench members described Taylor's remarks as tone deaf, arguing that he failed to read the room during a speech delivered in Canberra on Monday.

Parliament resumed one week after the incident outside Haines's electorate office in northern Victoria. Haines lost both legs in the alleged attack. A 43-year-old man has been charged, and police continue to investigate without disclosing an established motive.

In his address, Taylor rejected the notion that parliamentary behavior contributes to political violence. He stated that while some suggested a causal connection between robust debate and violence, he disagreed with that view. Taylor argued that the Westminster system settles differences through rigorous debate and that those who turn to intimidation cross a line that must never be crossed. He also urged judges to come down harder on those found guilty of violence and called for Australia to be celebrated more readily rather than defined by guilt over its history.

Steggall, who sits beside Haines in the lower house, expressed personal disappointment with the speech. She asserted that there is a direct link between words and actions, adding that she did not feel Taylor grasped the lesson Haines would want people to learn. She noted that the same care should apply to media reporting, election advertising, and social media.

Steggall said she spoke with Haines's husband, Phil Haines, on Monday. He asked members of parliament to raise the standard so that a meaningful shift toward respectful debate occurs before Haines returns. Steggall emphasized that while respectful disagreement is possible, words matter and have an impact.

Ryan called Taylor's response hugely disappointing. She told ABC TV that if Taylor did not believe the words used in politics mattered, she did not understand how he aspired to lead a political party. Ryan stated that if parliament could not rise to the occasion after such an unthinkable event, it never would.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce also opposed changing parliamentary practice. He described the attack as unAustralian and noted that while parliament has a role, it would not solve the problem. Joyce pointed to a change in dynamics in Australia and abroad, citing vindictive rhetoric in public life as a primary driver.