The outbreak of grief after the attack on Helen Haines was genuine and spontaneous. Dr Helen Haines is the real thing in a world where Australians have shown themselves increasingly angry and frustrated in a political world they struggle to understand and respect, a fake world where representatives are trying, and all too often failing, to connect. Haines connects.
She is not a public relations confection, nor one whose every speech and action has been scripted and staged. Not every Australian would agree with her on every issue, but few would doubt her sincerity, her integrity and the dignity with which she advances it. And in a theatre of conflict, debate and vigorous prosecution of ideas, she has seemed to stand aside from the mainstream in being kind, natural and polite to all.
She is by no means the only such politician, but she and they often stand apart from the political crowd. A good many, but not all, are community independents (as Haines is), but there are mainstream politicians who can manage to project a personality. Their doing so may win them recognition and a bit of a following, but rarely preferment, least of all from political leaders who lack personality, feel for others, or an easy manner explaining or communicating with strangers.
These independent minds often share similar views, not least about open and accountable government, preservation of the environment and human rights and decency towards others. They are policy-focused, and outward-looking, not concerned with factional issues and settling scores.
Opinion polls suggest that they are out of sync with voters on some of these issues, particularly on immigration. But they have made their points without exciting rancour. Most voters know who they are and what they stand for. Just as importantly they believe that these folk mean it.
They can hold opinions others do not share without being a lightning rod for public anger, and without the difference being personal. They are widely admired, even loved, and a high proportion of the electorate knows where they stand.
I do not know any politician who does not want to be loved, but, these days, most politicians in the mainstream do not inspire much popular affection, and many are actively hated.
Politicians end up deserving the lack of affection they inspire
Decent men and women who have entered politics wanting to make a difference often end up being held in contempt because they waffle and avoid answering questions, develop bogus points and reek of insincerity, indifference and want of humility. Not only is the human touch absent, but they are not even on the plane on which most voters live.
They have little idea, other than from opinion polls and briefing from marketing folk about the most important issues motivating the electorate, and the lines they have rehearsed to show that they understand seem hollow, empty and mealy-mouthed. Most of those who have undergone media training would be better off forgetting everything they have been told. They would win more admiration, and more of a following if they answered rather than evaded the question.
When news first came that Haines had been injured after a man had driven a car at her as she was putting her bag in the back of the car, it was not clear whether the attacker was part of a politically motivated group, an ideological lone wolf, a driven person with a fixation or grievance, or a nutter. The initial words of politicians were intended to cover any of these possibilities, even as they professed shock about Haines being a target, because she has not been a symbol drawing hatred towards her, even from the burgeoning groups of One Nation voters who have abandoned mainstream politics, or others with racist fixations, including out-and-out Nazis, and others with nihilist inclinations, such as the so-called sovereign citizens.
It appeared quite soon that the alleged attacker was a local with mental health problems, known, as with his family, to Haines and her own wider family. His motivation, or grievance against, or reason, he allegedly turned his light truck at her is unknown. After allegedly driving into her, he reversed and drove into her again, causing her injuries which have required amputation of both legs. It appears that he was having trouble in his dealings with the NDIS, and was battling mental illness, but how these, or other opinions brought him to focus on Haines is not known.
The Australian has read into some social media comments that he was a tree-hugger. He had several times congratulated Haines for her stance and had been becoming more angry at Labor politicians about their inaction against Israel's genocidal actions against Palestinians. For news.com.au it seems that this is enough to turn him into a left-wing radical and potential terrorist, though it does not explain why he would fix his anger on Haines, who would mostly seem to agree with him. On Palestine, it is The Australian, not the accused man, who is out of touch with popular opinion. There is no suggestion, from social media posts, that he was anti-Semitic.
Turning down the temperature of confrontation and abuse
Albanese and other initial responders referred to a heated public debate and asked that Australians turn the temperature down. The PM did not give chapter and verse but there were any number of examples readily at hand, including several abusive statements - one particularly offensive one about independent Jacqui Lambie - from Pauline Hanson - readily to hand. On top of these were many social media comments from anonymous sources threatening violence against MPs or abusing them in the most intemperate terms. Even the Governor-General faced abuse over an entry on her Instagram page empathising with the Haines family.
Some social media was picked up by others taking the opportunity to condemn the attack on Haines and the misogyny of much of the abuse from social media. So also, was a theme connecting the attack to the physical and sexual abuse of women, their vulnerability in public places, and the fact that women, especially women in public life, always seem to be targets of violent men at a rate far greater than men.
I am inclined to think that the spectre of domestic violence falls onto a different part of the spectrum of violence against women than physical assaults on public figures. It will be unlikely that it will be addressed by police and other programs directed at violence within the family. That said, campaigns must seek to change the social, cultural and legal environment so that the fundamental unacceptability of any physical attacks on women is included. Or on men, for that matter.
Politicians, men and women, have expressed concern about whether they needed extra protection in modern politics, and have been promised additional briefings about steps they could take to reduce risks. Many are proud that Australian politicians can generally move safely, or anonymously in the community without vast escorts of security guards, and they want that to continue.
Some weeks ago, Helen Haines criticised the PM over the soft corruption of organising a grant for a golf club in his electorate, as an electoral promise for which the club was invited to apply. The list was confined to seats nominated by government members and was a rort as clear and blatant as the various marginal seats rorts Albanese had so strongly criticised when he was leader of the opposition during the Morrison government. Albanese simply has no shame. After Haines attacked the grants as "grey corruption" Albanese had his spinners circulate her request for grants to improve lives in her electorate. The suggestion was that she was a hypocrite; in fact, it was Albanese's spinner who was being cute with the truth because all members, on all sides, request grants for their electorates over their political terms. That is quite different from privileged inside tracks. Some called the Albanese list a "shit sheet", which might have been stretching it a bit.
It's always easy to see a deceitful and dissembling PM
But anyone who wonders why the PM is getting a reputation as a liar should listen to his havering on this particular question. The problem is that he comes across as unbelievable, almost able to make Morrison seem credible. Albanese has pretty much used up any cred he once had on national occasions, such as during the appalled silence after news of the attack on Helen Haines came. He would be better getting the assistance of the Governor-General on such occasions.
It would be idle to consider the fundamental problem as being one of anonymous threat or smear through new social media operating without censorship or control. These are now a part of the landscape of political commentary and reaction, and are, of course, potentiated by political party campaigns through thousands of outlets, and AI bots, increasingly operating without close controls. Much of the more dangerous or scandalous material has disappeared before it can be chased down.
But the well is also being poisoned by familiar players, including from the mainstream media. News Corp, for example, seems to have a business model of creating hatred and anger at minority groups in society, as well as of fighting culture wars against critics in the arts, culture, and the science establishment. In this, the American company seems to take much of its lead from the deterioration of American politics, racial and class divisions and the many vagaries, inconsistencies and corruption of President Donald Trump. But it has spread to Australia through its local outlets.
Labor ministers will not criticise Rupert Murdoch or his son Lachlan, and for much the same reason - sheer funk - they will not criticise Donald Trump and American policy. Their restraint does not prevent News from engaging in one-sided political commentary, and relentless anti-Labor campaigns at election time.
As things stand, News Corp seems to be as much invested in a One Nation victory as a Coalition one. It is not the taking of sides that is objectionable: the background of journalism lies as much in pamphleteering for causes as in impartial and independent coverage. The objection should be focused on the bias, deliberate misrepresentation, and abuse and incitement, including to racist, sexist and nativist causes.
It is not yet clear that the attack on Helen Haines must be seen as the beginning of a new cycle of danger to politicians and others in the public square.
Australia has a long tradition of violence at election time, even if the level of tumult is rarely the same as, say, the US and France. But any environment of violence or threat to personal safety must be resisted, even as we devote our share of resources to permitting debates to be robust.
Australia is, generally, a safe country with a tolerant population. We do have players trying to break up and divide the community, but that sits inside developed habits of expression falling well short of homicide. We cannot preserve this by banning the clash of ideas. Assassination is one thing; noise and tumult is another.
The very robustness of such debate, even (or particularly) over issues that offend the sensibilities of politicians operates as one of the safety valves which restricts most from going to extremes that threaten life and limb. Police and security forces must appreciate that a trend to close down on dissent, or to restrict freedom of expression, is usually counterproductive.
Changing times have seen the questioning of many old institutions and community values. It has not seen any diminution of the appetite for calling into question the actions of our politicians and leaders, and for understanding that it should only occur with civility and mutual respect.