‘What would Helen do’: politicians warn against tightened security and ‘letting bad people win’ after alleged attack

Helen Haines, the independent Indi MP, was struck twice by a car outside her office on Monday. She lost her leg in the incident, which is believed to have been an allegedly targeted attack. The event shocked colleagues across federal and state politics because it happened during an ordinary part of a politician’s daily life.

The vehicle was a white LandCruiser. Its 43-year-old driver was arrested and is now facing three charges. The article does not identify the charges or establish a motive. Politicians therefore avoided discussing the specific incident while highlighting the broader rise in threats and violence against public officials.

The attack has prompted a fresh debate about political safety and accessibility. The AFP and ASIO are giving federal politicians safety briefings, while Victorian MPs have received advice about CCTV, correspondence and office visits. Haines’s colleagues remain concerned that stronger protection could distance politicians from their communities.

A crossbench MP is a member of parliament who does not belong to the governing party or the main opposition. Crossbenchers can include independents and minor-party MPs. They often scrutinise legislation, negotiate with larger parties and represent views not covered by the major-party blocs.

Helen Haines is an independent MP for Indi. Her colleagues describe her as one of the most respected and popular members of federal parliament. Crossbench MPs use “What would Helen do?” among themselves, have printed it on T-shirts and shared it online. The phrase shows how strongly she has influenced their group’s identity and conduct.

Her attack therefore affected more than one individual. It unsettled a parliamentary community already dealing with threats and abuse. Monique Ryan, a close colleague, said Haines’s experience should not lead politicians to become separated from constituents. The response has become both a personal show of solidarity and a wider argument about public service.

The Australian Federal Police recorded 951 reports of harassing and threatening behaviour against office holders two years ago. Last year, the figure reached 1,067. These reports cover behaviour directed at people holding public office and provide a clear snapshot of the pressure politicians face.

The change was an increase of 116 reports between the two years. That is roughly a 12 percent rise. The article gives no longer-term AFP comparison, so it does not establish the full historical trend from these figures alone. Josh Roose, an expert in violent extremism, says the numbers have exploded “exponentially” since the Covid pandemic.

The figures matter because threats are not isolated complaints. MPs described death threats, rape threats, a bomb threat and human faeces sent to an office. Agencies are responding with repeated briefings, while politicians are changing how they travel, advertise events and use social media. The rising totals intensify questions about safety and participation.

The Australian Federal Police, or AFP, is the national police agency responsible for federal law enforcement and policing matters. ASIO is Australia’s security intelligence organisation. In this situation, both agencies are involved in helping politicians understand and respond to threats, although the article does not describe a specific protection operation for Helen Haines.

The AFP and ASIO planned safety briefings for federal politicians on Wednesday. The article notes that there had already been about half a dozen such briefings during the year. Some politicians, including ministers and members of sensitive committees, have also received risk assessments from security agencies.

Their role is mainly advice, assessment and preparation rather than automatically assigning guards. The AFP said it generally provides safety briefings and advice, while declining to discuss specific protection. ASIO chief Mike Burgess has warned about violent rhetoric in public discourse. The agencies’ involvement reflects concern that threats can emerge in offices, online, at public events or during ordinary travel.

Politicians are already altering everyday routines because of threats. Some avoid advertising public events widely, take different commuting routes and use greater caution on social media. These changes try to prevent attackers from predicting where an MP will be or gathering personal information about them.

One MP said the AFP advised her not to drive home by the same route. Mike Freelander was considering bulletproof office windows or concrete bollards to stop vehicles from mounting the pavement. Victorian MPs were urged to check office CCTV before leaving, report concerning correspondence or visits, and avoid campaigning alone.

The measures show how security now reaches travel, offices, campaigning and online communication. They may reduce exposure, but they also impose costs and make public work less spontaneous. MPs are weighing more protection against the risk of seeming inaccessible. The approaching Victorian state election adds urgency, as candidates will be spending more time in public and on the campaign trail.

Elected representatives need to meet constituents in offices, at events and in public places. Greater security can place physical and social distance between them and the people they represent. Guards, barriers, controlled entrances and restricted travel may protect an MP, but they can also change ordinary conversations into managed encounters.

Monique Ryan, a close colleague of Helen Haines, said guards or AFP officers might not have stopped the incident. She said politicians wanted to remain “normal human beings” and members of their communities, rather than being “locked off”. Crossbench MPs are especially concerned because accessibility is central to their public role and community-based identity.

This creates a difficult balance. Threats require precautions, briefings and risk assessments, yet excessive protection could discourage open contact. MPs are already changing routes, social-media habits and event publicity. The debate is not simply about whether to increase security. It is about designing protection that reduces danger without removing the everyday access on which representative politics depends.

Threats and violent rhetoric can change who feels able to enter public life. Potential candidates may decide that abuse, surveillance and personal danger are too high a price for public service. Current politicians may also reduce public contact, alter their routines or leave office. That can make representation less open and less diverse.

The article records rape threats, death threats, a bomb threat and human faeces sent to an office. Tanya Plibersek called rape threats regular, while Anne Aly said she received 19 death threats in one week. These experiences show how abuse can target both politicians and staff, and how threats can follow people beyond parliament.

The danger extends beyond federal politics. Josh Roose says vulnerability affects politicians simply going about daily life, and Victoria’s election has prompted extra precautions. Agencies are providing briefings, but MPs do not want protection to destroy accessibility. If violent rhetoric continues, parties and governments may need stronger advice and security while preserving safe, meaningful public participation.