Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (09:44): I was not going to speak on this suspension motion moved by the Leader of the House and the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business until I heard the speech by the member for Melbourne. I have been in this place now for 15 years and, even though there are set standing orders in this place, there are certain conventions and it is often the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who set the tone of the House. I was in this place, as the Leader of the House has referred to, during 1996-97, when a number of ministers were forced by the Prime Minister to resign because of their behaviour, and the Prime Minister on numerous occasions came into this place and gave speeches. The reason we are moving this motion today is that we have tried to use the standing orders as they stand— Mr Oakeshott: Wrong! Mr HOCKEY: to have the evidence come before the House— Mr Oakeshott: You're wrong. Mr HOCKEY: The outspoken member for Lyne just said, in this place, 'innocent until proven guilty'. That is damn right: innocent until proven guilty. But, if a member of this House goes on 2UE to do an interview with Michael Smith and makes certain admissions and then cannot be tested in this place on those admissions, it is the independent member for Lyne and others who are refusing to properly use the mechanisms of the House. The SPEAKER: Order! Let's get back to the motion, which is the amendment before the House, because people have strayed. We are not debating the motion that gives the reasons for the suspension. I think if we get back to focusing on the suspension of standing orders it will be much better. Mr HOCKEY: But, but— The SPEAKER: No 'but-buts'. I have been very tolerant and I am just saying I think we should be more focused in this debate. Mr HOCKEY: I am endeavouring to do so, Mr Speaker, because the motivation for this amendment by our side to the motion to suspend is due to a frustration that the House is not operating sufficiently properly to ensure that a member of parliament is properly accountable for the words that they utter in a public forum. For crying out loud—if this place prohibits someone from being accountable for their words then this House is worth nothing. Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney must address the suspension motion, not the— Mr Pyne: We didn't interrupt you. Mr Albanese: You did interrupt me. The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt just does not seem to get it, and if I hear a squeak from him for the rest of this debate he will be out under standing order 94(a). That would mean that the last 50 minutes for him has been wasted. These are crucial debates. If you think that they are important, please find it in yourself to sit there quietly. I say to the member for North Sydney that the motion before the chair is an amendment to an original motion by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. He will go to the reasons why he believes that sessional and standing orders should be suspended now—not generalities. Mr HOCKEY: Mr Speaker, I am saying that there should be a suspension of standing orders, which is perfectly legitimate, and it should be done now because traditionally the government has always taken suspensions that go to the character of an individual in this place. Previously, they have always done it. I tell you what—John Howard did it and other Prime Ministers have done it, but this Prime Minister has refused to countenance other motions to suspend standing orders at previous times this week. She even went so far as to close down question time yesterday, which I must say is unprecedented, in order to avoid the scrutiny associated with this suspension— Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is now speaking about question time; he is speaking about anything but why the suspension of standing orders is required and why the Selection Committee processes are not being adhered to. He is straying from the question before the House. The SPEAKER: I call the member for North Sydney. Mr HOCKEY: I say, because it is so important, that all the standing orders are available for proper use by all members of parliament, and the standing orders serve to ensure the great tone of this place—that is, accountability to the Australian people for our words and deeds. That is what this place is about— Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chifley has no greater protection than the member for Sturt. Mr HOCKEY: If we are not accountable in this place for our words at all times when this chamber is sitting then we devalue this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we must suspend, and suspend now—just as our suspension should have been accepted by the government earlier in the week, and as the Prime Minister should have accepted questions yesterday and must accept questions today. When it comes to the Selection Committee, I understand, as does the coalition, that there is a process in place. But, when you suspend standing orders, you are in fact suspending the process to ensure that a matter that is more significant to the Australian people comes before the House immediately. This is not a game. This is about the reputation of this place, the reputation of an individual and the reputation of a government. It comes down to the proper workings of this place and whether we are mature enough to be able to deal with issues in the public domain immediately. That is what the suspension of standing orders is about. It is about dealing with an issue directly relevant to the Australian people immediately—because it is an issue that is dominating. I refer to some of the words of the member for Lyne who said that a member in this place should be treated as innocent until proven guilty—absolutely right. No charges have been laid in this matter. What matters is the fact that a member must be accountable— The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is straying. Mr HOCKEY: I will come back. I am just responding to the member for Lyne. The SPEAKER: I am inviting you not to stray. Mr HOCKEY: I am coming back, Mr Speaker. Because charges have not been laid, it is a matter that can be debated by this House now. Sub judice does not apply—and this is specific to the standing orders—until formal charges have been laid. If we are now saying that we cannot suspend standing orders to have a proper debate about an issue relevant to the words of an individual because it may somehow condemn that individual, that is redefining the operations of this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we are moving the suspension. That is why I would expect that those people who believe in this chamber will similarly support the suspension of standing orders this morning.