Mr KERR(9.46 p.m.) —It appears the government is moving on with an icy resolve to insist upon what is frankly not a commonsense approach, given that there is an issue of substance that we all know ought be before this parliament, to debate an issue that is not principally on the minds of any members of this House. But let us put it frankly before us. Child care is a crucial issue for all Australians. For those who have young children, there is nothing more important than making certain that they have quality, affordable care. Parents who require child care have been let down by this government, which has withdrawn some $800 million—notwithstanding pledges given before the last election—from the way in which this works.

But let us look at what happens in child care. Let us look at what they pay child-care workers. A child-care worker on the award receives $359.60 gross. A minister of the Crown who resides and spends a night in Sydney gets more than that tax free in effective outcome, and when we have allegations before us of theft and fraud and this House battles on facing—

Mr Miles —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this House has gone over that issue and really what the member for Denison is talking about is not relevant to this debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that you bring him back to the topic under debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —I thank the parliamentary secretary. The honourable member for Denison will of course be relevant to the question before the House, and I will be listening very carefully.

Mr KERR —Thank you indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to suffer any ill fate. I have already left the chamber once today, and I do not want to repeat it. But might I say that it is entirely relevant to the issue of child care, this bill and the withdrawal of funding to make some proper comparisons between the way in which this government is dealing with the funding of child care, the way it is dealing with the legitimate salary and wage needs of those employed in the sector that have been kept down because of the way in which this government has dealt with the sector—salaries which work out at $359.60 per week gross, out of which tax is paid—and the way a minister of the Crown, in a capital city like Sydney, who makes a claim can receive I think $320—it used to be $300—tax free so that one night's claim of TA is equivalent to the salary of that child-care worker for a week.

Mr Miles —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am being very forbearing in regard to this matter. I just want to draw your attention again, Mr Deputy Speaker, to relevance, and I point out to you that what is being said is not relevant to this debate at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the parliamentary secretary. The honourable member for Denison will of course be relevant, and I will try again to listen very carefully.

Mr KERR —Thank you indeed. What I am seeking to do is to highlight the absurdity of today's proceedings when we are studiously ignoring what the honourable member who sought to interrupt before about the calling of quorums said in saying, `Let's have some commonsense and let's deal with the serious matters in front of us.' There are serious matters that everyone knows are here, and we sit here ignoring them while we proceed with ordinary debate as if we can ignore the stench that is emanating from these matters.

Coming to this bill, let us look at what it means. (Quorum formed) Child-care centres in the community sector have had $100 million in operational subsidies withdrawn. That effectively means that, on average, parents who place their children in such centres—and I was one and I was very grateful for the quality of care—now face an additional burden of $20 per week. Let us see how $20 a week works out against a minister of the Crown's travel allowance. Let us take a hypothetical example.

Mr Leo McLeay —No, don't do that.

Mr KERR —No, it is just a hypothetical example.

Mr Brough —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill does not go to travel expenses, this bill does not go to ministers' wages, nor does it go to the wages of child-care providers. The speaker has flagrantly disregarded your rulings. You have attempted to bring him back to order. I suggest strongly that you do in fact rule him out of order altogether. He has already been removed once today, and twice might teach him a better lesson.

Mr McMullan —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I realise that people are very sensitive about the matters that the speaker is raising, but it is perfectly within the standing orders, it seems to me, to draw analogies to say that there are cuts being made in subject A and there is waste in area B.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Before I call the honourable member for Denison again, for his benefit and the benefit of all members I draw attention to standing order 81:

No Member may digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion:

Also standing order 85 states:

The Speaker, or the Chair, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Main Committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his or her own arguments, or the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech:

I call the honourable member for Denison, who I do advise in the strongest possible terms to be relevant to the bill.

Mr KERR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I do think members of the House, and indeed yourself, sir, would be cognisant of the difficulty of conducting a debate in the absurdity of this situation. We are discussing under the standing orders a child-care bill, but we are discussing it against an environment where, before this debate came on, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Jull) came into this House and dropped a dead cat on the table, from which it is plain that the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) stands charged with allegations of theft and fraud. There is no doubt that this is a difficult situation to address.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary on a point of order. I might say to all members in the chamber that I am having considerable difficulty in hearing the honourable member for Denison because I am trying to give some attention to the standing orders so that I can—

Mrs Bailey —Throw him out with his crutches.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not need your advice, Madam. As I was saying, on each occasion this has happened, and I do not know whether the member for Denison is deliberately doing this, once I am absorbed in the standing orders he digresses. It seems that every time I look in the standing orders someone rises on a point of order. The honourable member for Denison has the call, and I do advise him that I will apply the standing orders unless he sticks to the subject of the bill.

Mr Miles —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: you did call me a moment ago, and I just want to make this point. I refer to standing order 85, which you have just read to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. I have just read it to the House. There is no need for you to read it again.

Mr Miles —Okay. What I am suggesting is that standing order 85 says:

. . . may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech:

This is the fourth time he has been regarded as irrelevant.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the parliamentary secretary, and I say to all members in this place that the same standing order can apply to points of order. I call the honourable member for Denison, who I do encourage to be relevant.

Mr KERR —Thank you very much. I understand that there is a great deal of sensitivity in this parliament tonight, and rightly so. Mind you, that sensitivity should be extended with respect to the minister directly responsible for the child-care area. If you just look today at the reports that are in the Australian Associated Press, they tell us today that federal family services minister Judy Moylan—responsible for child care, responsible for the debacle that we are talking about here, responsible for the funding cutbacks, responsible for the shameful behaviour that contrasts so odiously with the kind of slippery conduct that you do not want me to be able to speak about or anyone else to be able to speak about—

Mr Leo McLeay —The stench is rising.

Mr KERR —The stench is rising. It says of her that her front bench position looks in doubt today after a party room bucketing that saw Prime Minister John Howard take her outside. Here we have the debate on who is the most grievously wounded and the next to fall—whether it be Minister Sharp, who is plainly now in a circumstance where the Australian public see him as indicted and needing to defend himself against the most serious charges involving potential fraud and corruption—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison, this is the last time that I will warn you.

Mr KERR —As to Ms Moylan, she flew home to Perth sick after the meeting and was not in parliament for question time—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the honourable member for Canning.

Mr Leo McLeay —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill was introduced into the House by Minister Moylan. To canvass the position of Minister Moylan in relation to a bill that Minister Moylan has before this House is certainly relevant and certainly in order. I cannot see for the life of me why, when the government has banished the minister from town because the Prime Minister had to take her outside, and she is not here tonight, you will not let us raise that. My goodness. It is cover-up No. 4.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Resume your seat. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the honourable member for Canning.