Ms MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Did the minister see the statement in yesterday's Sunday Age by Dr Peter Carr that the minister advised a group of representatives of the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists that he was considering extending Medicare rebates to MRI machines under contract on the night of the 1998 budget? Does the minister recall that Dr Peter Carr declared a personal interest when the minister indicated his intention to the meeting? Did the minister leak the proposal to extend Medicare rebates to MRI units under contract at this meeting? Will the minister now release the minutes of the meetings where Dr Carr was present?

Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Health and Aged Care) —I thank the honourable member for her question.

Mr Crean interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —I was asked a similar series of questions—one in particular on 16 February—about the contents of the discussion of this meeting. At that time, I said of the college that:

. . . in very general terms they put a point to us, but we did not tell them what we intended to do.

That is absolutely correct. I have a letter—which I will table—from the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists dated 15 May, three days after the budget, in which Acting President Dr John Earwaker states:

The agreement has been endorsed by the College Council with several reservations, which were communicated to you by the President, Professor Sage . . . at your meeting last week.

Therefore, my statement in parliament is backed up by the letter three days after the budget. It was discussed in the most general of terms, and the college did put concerns to me. However, I have seen the allegations in yesterday's Sunday Age , and they are incorrect. I now table a statutory declaration, signed today, from a member of my department, Penelope Rogers, who attended that meeting. Amongst other things, it states:

Some participants at the meeting tried to press the Minister for details, including issues around the supply side of the measure. The Minister made it clear he understood their interest in these issues but, as his Department had repeatedly advised the RACR, that was a decision for the Government and he was unable to disclose details of the measure.

Further, I received an email—that I will also table—from my staff member at the meeting, who no longer works for me. It states:

He—

meaning the minister—

agreed that details of any proposed restrictive measures would not be revealed until after the budget was announced, and at no stage during this meeting were the details of the restriction of MRI machines discussed. At no stage during the meeting was the mechanism for how the budget would be restricted divulged by the Minister.

She finishes her email by saying:

I will be seeing my solicitor tomorrow morning to put this into a stat dec.

I will make that available to the House when it becomes available to me.

So Dr Carr's comments are therefore incorrect. I also say that his comments that he had a conflict of interest are not correct. He did not make such a divulsion at the meeting. That is in the email from my staff member, and it is also my recollection. I would be deeply concerned if I knew that someone at the meeting had a potential conflict of interest. I was advised by the Health Insurance Commission just several minutes before coming into question time that, under this circumstance, they could advise me that Dr Peter Carr himself is under investigation by the Health Insurance Commission and his comments should be seen in that light.

Ms Macklin —The minister has tabled a number of documents. Would he please table the minutes of that meeting.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga does not have the opportunity to speak unless she wishes to ask an additional question.