Ms KERNOT (12:01 PM) —Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Slipper —Explain.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Fisher is warned!

Ms KERNOT —You ought to talk. Mr Speaker, I want to—

Mr SPEAKER —So is the member for Swan!

Ms KERNOT —I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak, although I do not consider myself accountable to the Minister for Employment Services, the member for Fisher or anybody else sitting on that side of the chamber. In fact, I abhor the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Minister for Employment Services and the way he calls himself a practising Christian.

Government members interjecting—

Ms KERNOT —Mr Speaker, I make this point because you told me yesterday that the minister could not be asked to withdraw because he was in transit. In fact, he went straight from this House, scuttled out of this House, knowing that he had said something specific and not generic, and he repeated accusations in a doorstop of which I have a transcript. Amongst other things he said: `Where did the money go? Did someone pocket the money? Certainly Wayne Swan has admitted that the money was paid over.' And this is where the connection takes place, Mr Speaker. He said: `What happened to it? Cheryl Kernot was the leader of the Democrats at the time.' Make that connection, Mr Speaker. But the point—the reason that I mention my abhorrence of his hypocrisy—is that he went from that doorstop to Paul Lyneham's funeral service. The Comcar drivers told me that he arrived at 4.30. Obviously, he thought it was more important to get out there and continue to defame me than to go to the funeral service. But I want to point out that I think I have a perfectly valid right to point to the hypocrisy of a man who willingly joins in the following words. This is the man who considers himself a specialist on Catholic doctrine. He goes into Paul Lyneham's funeral and joins in the hymn:

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Dickson—

Ms KERNOT —It is perfectly relevant.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume her seat. The member for Dickson has the call. I think I could reasonably have presumed that there was someone seeking the call. The member for Aston, I believe, was on his feet. I am not seeking from the member for Aston a point of order. I am seeking an assurance that he was in fact on his feet when I interrupted the member for Dickson.

Mr Nugent —Mr Speaker, I was merely going to raise a point of order on the question of relevance. The member for Dickson was not addressing the question that is before the House.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Aston will resume his seat. I merely wanted to indicate to the member for Dickson that my intervention was the result of a genuine belief—in fact an observation—that there was someone on their feet.

Ms KERNOT —Mr Speaker, we all remember what the Minister for Employment Services said about Greg Wilton's funeral. We all remember what he said in here and we all remember what he did less than two days after. I think the point that the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business have made about this minister being a serial offender is a point well made. And it is where this issue beganand the comments that this minister made and which I asked to be withdrawn and which you failed to act on.

Mr Crean —Which he now admits is a slur.

Ms KERNOT —Yes, and which you now admit was a slur on my name. Mr Speaker, I regret that we have to have this debate today—but it was in your hands yesterday. You allowed a minister to say what he said with intent—with intent to smear. I am not accountable to him, but I am very happy to talk about the circumstances of the preference negotiations.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Tell us about the money.

Mr SPEAKER —Minister for Aged Care!

Ms KERNOT —The minister's remarks about my role as Leader of the Australian Democrats obviously have nothing to do with his portfolio, but that has never stopped him before. I was the leader of the Democrats. I am grateful for the opportunity that afforded me to contribute to public debate in this country. And I resigned—unlike others, I resigned from parliament before recontesting a seat for the Australian Labor Party—and despite your best efforts to defeat me. As the leader of the Democrats I was travelling around the nation quite extensively but I did take part in some telephone conference hook-ups. I am aware that at the national executive a decision was made to direct preferences to like-minded candidates first and then—

Government members interjecting—

Ms KERNOT —No, you are wrong—and then in a split ticket to both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. That was in the Senate. After that, conversations were held with members of the preference committees of both the Liberal Party in every state and the Labor Party in every state. The Liberal Party was not excluded from these conversations. As a result of these conversations, I find myself in the ironic position of having been part of the decision which recommended preferences against the Leader of the Opposition, the then member for Brand. Then the Democrats announced that preferences were directed to X number of Liberal seats and a similar number of Labor seats.

It is as simple as that, Mr Speaker. I was not involved in the campaign for Lilley or in the state discussions about those allocations. I know nothing about any donations, and I join Gary Gray, Robert Ray and Meg Lees who speak with authority on this matter. I do know that Senator Bob Woods did approach Senator Vicki Bourne with all sorts of offers; I do know that. But I think the minister is being deliberately misleading in attempting to single me out as a member of a party. I was the leader. But, to use his argument, John Howard should then be responsible for the actions of former Senator Bob Woods in negotiating preferences and how-to-vote-card printing with the Shooters Party candidate in the by-election in Lindsay.

Mr Speaker, I categorically reject any association with this decision or with any money which may have changed hands. That is why I was extremely disappointed in you yesterday when you failed to require the minister to withdraw that statement. It was not a generic statement; it was a specific statement. It was said with intent to smear, as we know have been the actions of this minister ever since the day I joined the Labor Party and he began peddling his poison about me to the press—some evidence of which I have.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Dickson said I poisoned people against her and I was doing this consistently, and she said she had evidence. Produce the evidence.

Mr SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. That is no valid point of order.

Ms KERNOT —Anybody listening and watching this debate would be asking why we are carrying on like this. I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: because it is about the style of John Howard's government and the abuse of this parliament in lying and defaming people almost on a daily basis. We on this side have had enough of it. We have particularly had enough of it from this Minister for Employment Services. Some old cynics would say that `twas ever thus.

There is a very big difference between the argy-bargy of daily politics and the use of this chamber to daily smear and slur the character and reputation of members on this side. It is your duty to uphold the rights of people on this side as much as you do of your government by virtue of the fact that they are ministers. I take great exception to people leering and jeering from the other side—this from a man who vilifies the unemployed, calls them `job snobs' and says `You can't trust politicians.' I take exception to a person leering and jeering who presides over a crisis in aged care. I take exception to a minister involved in telecard rorting. I take exception to the many ministers who have failed the Prime Minister's own code of conduct and continue to occupy the front bench on the government side. That is what it is all about. That is why we are passionate about it.

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, your failure to defend my rights to have that slur against me withdrawn yesterday when I asked for that to be done—when the minister has misled you about his inability to come in here yesterday and do it by telling you that he was in transit—causes us to reflect on the way you have exercised your authority in that chair. I did come to see you—I am very happy to put that on the public record—and I am still dissatisfied with the result of the outcome because, Mr Speaker, this is the result: it has been repeated all around this country because you did not give me the protection that I asked of you. I object to that too, Mr Speaker—and I told you so.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we do need to look at the way you have conducted yourself in this particular aspect of the debate. We do need new `fair to both sides' standing orders which are relevant and where truth matters—where truth and relevance matter. That is why our passions are inflamed. That is why I talk about Paul Lyneham's funeral. That is why I talk about the man or nation that chooses the darkness or the light. The Minister for Employment Services always chooses the darkness.

Mr SPEAKER —The question is that the House has no confidence in the Speaker. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation is seeking the call.

Mr Crean —TA rorter!

Mr McGauran —You are such a hypocrite. You paid back more than I did, Simon.

Mr Crean —At least I was there. You weren't there.

Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation have just illustrated the very remarks between each other that each other would want withdrawn and the difficulty the chair has had in intervening this morning.