Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh) (09:41): I second the motion. It is important that standing orders be suspended for this matter to proceed and for the member for Chisholm to clarify certain matters that go directly to the public interest. There is a cloud hanging over the absolute majority that this government holds and a cloud hanging over whether or not the longstanding bipartisan position about the PRC's actions in the South China Sea is a position unanimously held by government MPs, and there are some important questions over fundraising and events that have happened over the past couple of years. The hypocrisy and false dudgeon by those opposite, who held one of our former Senate colleagues to a particular standard they now won't hold their own colleague to, is extraordinary! The false dudgeon and the hypocrisy of those opposite, who when in opposition trumpeted the importance of members making statements in this place—and not outside—where members are held to certain standards, is just extraordinary. There are important questions that need to be clarified here and can only be clarified by the member for Chisholm coming in here and making a statement to the House on those questions. As I said, whether or not the bipartisan position over the PRC's actions in the South China Sea holds and is unanimously supported by members of the government is now in question. The member for Chisholm would not agree with the longstanding position between the Labor Party and the coalition that some of China's actions in the South China Sea are unlawful. That raises questions about the unanimity of the government's MPs on this important question. There are important questions that the member for Chisholm has not been able to clarify, because she's contradicted herself over the course of this week over her membership of certain committees. They can only be clarified by her making a statement in this House. And there have been further questions raised only over the course of this morning, some of which only the Prime Minister may be able to answer. But, before the Prime Minister can answer them, the member for Chisholm has to give a full reckoning to this House. Now, we in this House all know—I thought those opposite in this House knew—that the member for Chisholm, like all of us, is not just another citizen. You can't just go out and make some clarification outside of this House when you're not bound by the rules set out very clearly to govern the members' obligations on statements in this House. Certainly when they were in opposition they trumpeted that principle very loudly indeed. I remember it. Most of the members on this side certainly remember it. There's selective amnesia going on with those on the other side. This goes to some very important matters of public interest. It is critical that standing orders be suspended and the member for Chisholm be given the opportunity to speak for up to 20 minutes to clarify these matters.