Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (09:35): Just to concur with my colleague, I thought this morning we, as per the schedule, were to be debating a motion on wild dogs moved by the member for Gippsland and not to be, as it looks to have become, debating like wild dogs over issues unrelated to the work of the day. I am concerned, as previous speakers have raised, about what seems to be some backing down on an agreement reached on how this place will and should work as the 43rd Parliament. There is a process in place that does involve the Selection Committee. There has been no evidence yet over the first 11 months of this parliament of any member of any political persuasion, government, opposition or crossbenchers, being denied their rights to get their bills or motions before the House. In fact, the evidence trail is that we are seeing more opportunity for private members' business from all political persuasions, from all members, than we have ever seen in the history of this parliament before even contentious issues such as pricing carbon and calls for plebiscites. The Leader of the Opposition, with that private member's bill, could not have done that in any other parliament other than this one, because of agreements reached. That has gone through the proper process of the Selection Committee, with the approval of crossbenchers, government members and opposition members involved in that selection committee process, and has been brought forward to the parliament for debate. That is the proper process. If any member wants to use it for any issue that they think is important to them or their constituency, that is the process we have all agreed on. I see in some commentary that ownership of the 43rd Parliament and parliamentary reform seems to have been given to only a handful of members of this chamber. That is completely incorrect. We were there for the group hug—with the Leader of the House and the Leader of Opposition Business. It was there for all to see. And in a somewhat frivolous moment there were 16 days of genuine committed work when ideas came from Liberal and National party members who for years had argued for parliamentary reform in certain areas. There were also ideas from the Labor Party, who for years had been arguing to have parliamentary reforms in certain areas, as they were from the Greens and from the crossbenchers. We sat around and worked it out and agreed. Now there seems to be some backpedalling on agreements reached, and that should be of concern to all members of this chamber. There is a process in place. I would urge all members to reflect on that and to use those agreed processes for all issues of relevance to public policy in Australia today. What seems to have become an issue of urgency in the last three days is an issue that has been around, by the looks of it from what I read in the paper, for at least three years—and, by the looks of it, there are certainly issues developing. Mr Ruddock interjecting— Mr OAKESHOTT: As the Father of the House interjects, I would hope he has seen enough business in this chamber, in government and in opposition, to stand strongly by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle under the rule of law that should stand for a Labor member, a crossbench member, a Greens member, an opposition member, members in the upper house, and 22 million Australian citizens under the rule of law in this country. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle we should all defend if we want to defend democracy and the parliamentary processes. Mr Ruddock interjecting— Mr OAKESHOTT: So until the evidence is in— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Hockey: What evidence? He won't come into the chamber! The SPEAKER: Order! Whilst the interjection from the Leader of the House is disorderly, and therefore the reminder that I give the chamber applies very much to him as well, as I indicated yesterday, when every person's vote in this chamber is as valuable as it is in this unique situation of the hung parliament I hope that people realise that I still have powers under 94(2)(a) to give even greater value to the vote. I think that it might help and assist the chamber if the rest of this debate is heard absolutely in silence. Mr OAKESHOTT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is coming to the important point whether the parliament should force another member to make a statement or not based on media reporting and allegations that are made before being proved. I do not think that is my role or the parliament's role. Whether personally that individual member should make a statement for their own conscience and for their own reasons, that is a separate matter for us to deal with and for their own personal judgment and for the decisions of the party that they are a member of, but for the parliament itself to force and call for someone to make a statement to this House based on allegations and not based on proof I think is an abuse of the parliamentary processes. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lyne would realise that I have to remind him that this is a debate about the suspension. Mr OAKESHOTT: Okay. But I think that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having this debate and part of the reason why I will not be supporting the amendment. Firstly, the process that is there has not been used and so private members' business and private members' time now look to be challenged. I would urge those who want to bring forward issues to use proper processes. Secondly, and fundamentally in defence of this chamber, if we are going to suspend standing orders and move motions based on allegations in the media or otherwise, whether serious or not, and call on people to make statements before things are actually proven, we are not going to do the business of this House that needs to be done. Thirdly, and for the general theme that it is a year into this 43rd Parliament, I will make a final point because I think this is partly questioning the value of whether the parliament is working or not. I think that it is. I think what we are seeing right here right now is a demonstration of intent of character and it does expose the hearts and minds of various members of parliament and what drives their business in this chamber. That is for the audience of Australia to have a look at and to decide upon at the ballot box. What a parliament cannot normally do when it is in a majority situation is this sort of intense character assessment of who is doing what and why, which we are seeing being openly exposed now. So I call on the Australian people to look at this and question what is being done as an abuse of parliamentary process in order to try to prove that democracy is dead. In fact, it is more alive than ever and everyone, all of us in this chamber, will be held to account for our behaviour.