Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Kirk, Mr C. Kirk, Mr C. The Hon. B.R. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. B.R. HOOD (18:06): I move: That this council— 1.	Notes with deep sorrow the assassination of American political commentator Charlie Kirk on 10 September 2025; 2.	Extends its sincere condolences to his family, friends, colleagues and supporters; 3.	Affirms that political violence has no place in a free society; 4.	Condemns all forms of political violence and intimidation; and 5.	Calls on all South Australians, particularly political leaders, to commit to respectful and peaceful public discourse. Today, I rise to move a motion that condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the assassination of Charlie Kirk and political violence in any form and to remember Charlie as a fierce believer in free speech and open debate and as a man of faith. Charlie Kirk was not simply a commentator or a political organiser; he was a man who built a movement from the ground up around college campuses in the United States. Through Turning Point USA, he gave voice to millions of young conservatives across the United States and beyond. He stood boldly for what he believed, often in hostile environments, and he did so with clarity, conviction and an unshakable belief that free speech matters. Charlie spoke openly about his faith, he lived it and wove it through his message to the next generation. In a remarkable way, his death has amplified that testimony. In the days since his assassination, I have had people contact me who, confronted by this murder, have reconsidered questions of their own faith. Some have been moved to explore Christianity for the first time, others to recommit themselves to a faith they once set aside, and that is a profound legacy. But we should not need to speak about legacies, we should not need to be reflecting on faith in the face of a murder, because Charlie Kirk should be alive today. He should still be debating, organising and speaking. He was assassinated for his words, and that is something every person in this chamber should find chilling. It was not an isolated incident; it is part of a growing pattern of political violence that we can no longer ignore. We must remember Charlie Kirk as we must also remember the political assassination of Minnesota Speaker of the House, Melissa Hortman, and her husband, Mark, only a few months ago. We must remember Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and his family, who were evacuated from their home in the middle of the night after an arson attack set fire to their house in another act of political violence. We must remember Congressman Steve Scalise, shot at a baseball field, nearly killed for doing nothing more provocative than participating in a bipartisan sporting event. We must remember CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, whom 26-year-old Luigi Mangione is accused of murdering in cold blood because of his grudge against the US health system. Luigi is somehow still celebrated for the accusations against him. We must remember the attempted assassination of President Trump. By sheer chance, by a fraction of an inch, he survived. Had that bullet landed differently, the United States would have been thrown even further into crisis. There are many more, from both sides of politics and beyond, and all of these events, like Charlie's murder, have one thing in common: they grow out of a culture where hatred is normalised, where opponents are not just people with different views but enemies to be destroyed, where words of contempt become seeds of violence. What has disturbed me most since Charlie Kirk's death is not just the brutal act itself but the response that I have seen on social media—not from far-left activists but from people I know personally, words like, 'People should not be killed for speaking their mind, but...' The moment the word 'but' appears, the sentence collapses. 'But' turns a principle into an excuse. 'But' shifts the focus of the crime to the victim, as if somehow Charlie Kirk or any other person killed for their opinions or political affiliation had it coming. 'But' drains away empathy and leaves only the coldness of justification. If you truly believe people should not be murdered for their words, then there can be no 'but', no caveat, no condition, no excuse. You either stand against political violence or you allow it. For those who have celebrated Charlie's murder, who have laughed, who have mocked, who have cheered, who have danced, those who have used their own stage, like musician Bob Vylan, to quite literally jump for joy at the death of another human being, you should be condemned for your disgraceful conduct. Yet, I want to acknowledge this: not everyone has responded with cruelty. There have been voices from all sides of politics who have spoken with decency, compassion and shock about what has happened and I want to commend those voices. They show that even across deep divides there can still be agreement on the most basic human truth: that life is sacred and violence is never the answer. That is why we must call it out at every opportunity, call out the 'but' wherever it appears, because we should not think that Australia is immune to this violence. We must call it out because anything else signals the kind of politics that we are willing to accept, and we must accept a higher standard. We must be willing to debate fiercely without resorting to violence. We must argue with conviction, without slipping into hatred. We must model to the community that we can disagree without destroying one another, because if we cannot then we are laying the groundwork for the same poisonous violence to take root in this country. Charlie Kirk's life was cut short, but his message is not silenced. His courage to speak openly, his faith that guided him, his commitment to defending free speech without violence—those are the things that will endure. The challenge to us is whether we will have the same courage to stand for these principles even when it is costly: that political violence and timid acceptance of it, should you disagree with the one who is on the receiving end of the bullet, has no place in a democracy; that assassination can never be justified; that if we stop debating with words, we will end up fighting with fists and guns. This is something Charlie Kirk himself warned about: find our disagreements respectfully, because when people stop talking that is when violence happens. Let us keep talking, no matter how much we may disagree, because what can come next is infinitely more painful and more destructive. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. We are all Charlie today. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter. At 18:15 the council adjourned until Thursday 18 September 2025 at 14:15.