Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (09:31): I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately— That the House: (1) notes there are obligations for statements made by Members to the House which do not extend to statements released outside the House; and (2) therefore, calls on the Member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House at any time before 2 pm, for a time not exceeding 20 minutes, which responds to: (a) widespread reports in the media about the Member this week; (b) discrepancies in the Member's public statements this week; and (c) questions which have been raised concerning her fitness to be a Member of the Australian Parliament. This motion is being moved so that the member for Chisholm can explain the discrepancies between the extraordinary interview that she gave on national TV and—having given this extraordinary interview on national TV on Tuesday night, and when the wreckage from that interview became apparent to everyone in Australia, and particularly to people in this House—being prevailed on, apparently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, to issue a statement that purported to clarify things. She claimed she was clarifying her denials or 'forgetting' of absolutely simple material. That is not to be believed. This House now has, from a recently elected member of this place, an absolutely extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt in which this member, the member for Chisholm, said as her excuse for her membership of these organisations that appear to be connected with the propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China that she couldn't remember and, therefore, she couldn't possibly have been a member of these organisations. Imagine if someone turned up to the compulsory drug testing for welfare recipients that this government wants to introduce and said: 'Oh, I can't remember; therefore, that's an excuse. Oh, and because I can't remember, I couldn't possibly have taken any drugs.' That's the equivalent of what we've had from this member for Chisholm. Yesterday—this is why standing orders should be suspended to allow me to move this motion—we had a further absurdity piled on the absurdity of her interview with Andrew Bolt in which the member for Chisholm did not stand up before journalists, did not give a press conference, but simply issued a written statement, written for her—and it's apparent that it was written for her—by the Prime Minister's office and the Minister for Foreign Affairs— Mr Sukkar: Why is it apparent? Mr DREYFUS: It is totally apparent because it's a parroting of— Government members interjecting— Mr DREYFUS: I'm asked why it is so obvious. It's because it is a parroting of words used by the Prime Minister and words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The statement is one in which she does not actually explain what the situation is in respect of her membership, or possibly former membership, of groups that are associated with the overseas propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. This is a very serious matter. When this kind of extraordinary revelation comes to light, it goes to whether or not the member concerned is a fit and proper person to be a member of this House. That is the kind of matter, absolutely, that the member should explain in detail to the House—exactly what her status is in relation to this organisation, and, if it's a past status, exactly what her past status was in relation to these organisations. It is not good enough—and that's why standing orders should be suspended to allow this motion to be moved—for the member to simply issue a written statement. What she should be doing is standing up in this House and explaining to this House what her status was, or is, with these propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a very, very serious matter and she has not explained her situation. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I will say to the member for McEwen that he is not going to bellow at me when I've asked him to cease interjecting. I want to hear the member for Isaacs in silence. As you can probably tell, I've got a bit of a sore throat, so I'm going to mete out punishment even more than I normally do. I'm not going to lose my voice. The member for Isaacs has the call. Mr DREYFUS: It is absolutely standard practice for a member of this House who finds herself in the situation that the member for Chisholm finds herself in to come into this House and explain her conduct, explain what her association with these organisations was and explain why she said the extraordinary things that she said in answer to perfectly standard and proper questions that were posed by the journalist Andrew Bolt. She's done none of those things in the statement that she released yesterday. The questions that were raised by her extraordinary interview remain unexplained, and that's why it's appropriate that this House should resolve to call on the member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House in relation to these matters. Let's go to some of the things that the member for Chisholm said in this extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt. She couldn't bring herself to support the bipartisan position taken by the Labor Party and taken by the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. That position—to be absolutely clear—she could not bring herself to say was that the actions of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea were in breach of international law. This is a standard position. It's one in respect of which the current Prime Minister of Australia outrageously suggested that there was some lack of patriotism in a former senator, who happened to be a Labor senator, and it suited the current Prime Minister of Australia at that time— Government members interjecting— Mr DREYFUS: to say that there was a lack of patriotism on the part of that senator—because of the statements that he had made about the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. Now we have a recently elected Liberal member of parliament who has said something virtually identical to the statements made by that former senator—statements in respect of which that senator ultimately resigned from his position in the Senate—and we've had nothing from the Prime Minister and nothing from the member for Chisholm in relation to this. Instead, she has not come and explained herself to this House but instead simply distributed a written statement that self-evidently was prepared for her by the foreign minister and the Prime Minister's office, self-evidently is not in her words and self-evidently is not the language that she herself chose to use when she was being interviewed by Andrew Bolt. The ridiculous hypocrisy of all of the people on the government benches, starting with the Prime Minister and including the member for Chisholm, is on full display for the Australian people to see. That's why standing orders should be suspended in order to have the member for Chisholm come into this House as she should, as convention would require she should. She's run out of the House, as one of my colleagues reminds me. She was here when I started speaking, but she's now run out of the House. She doesn't want to speak to this House. She's not prepared to front this House, of which she is a member, and fully explain the mess that she made on national TV on Tuesday night. The unexplained matters remain unexplained by her written statement issued yesterday, which was obviously written for her. She needs to explain, and this is a serious matter. It goes to whether or not the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to occupy the government benches which she is presently occupying, and it's a matter on which we should also be hearing from the Prime Minister of this country, who stood after this member's first speech and glowed with pride that she had joined the government benches. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?