After extremist attacks, parliamentary debates can serve as critical sites for shaping public discourse and reinforcing democratic resilience, provided they exhibit high deliberative quality. Deliberative quality refers to the extent to which political actors justify their positions with reasons, engage seriously with competing arguments, and remain open to reflection and revision. This paper examines the deliberative quality of parliamentary debates following the 2026 Bondi terror attack in Sydney, Australia, combining qualitative discourse analysis with computational text methods. The analysis shows that, although a degree of cross-party agreement was eventually reached in both cases, deliberative quality was consistently low across all four debates in the New South Wales and federal parliaments. The paper argues that legislation passed under conditions of poor deliberative quality carries consequences beyond parliament, potentially exacerbating polarisation and leaving key tensions unresolved in the public sphere. In the Australian case, this is reflected in the curtailment of fundamental democratic freedoms, including protest and freedom of expression. The paper outlines pathways for improving the deliberative quality of parliamentary debates, with implications for strengthening democratic resilience after extremist attacks.
