Ms MACKLIN (10:48 PM) —Unfortunately, a dispute has arisen about a change to the transcript of Hansard . I have written to Mr Speaker about this, but I would like to take a few moments in the House to explain the problem. The issue arises from the answer given by Dr Wooldridge to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in question time today. The relevant sentence in the chamber green reads as follows:

The opportunity was created on the basis of advice I tabled from the secretary to my department some weeks ago from the Attorney-General's Department on the basis of the DOCS dispute, nothing else.

However, when I viewed the tape, it clearly and unambiguously shows that the minister said `legal advice'.

I note that when this matter was taken up with the Hansard office, the transcript was corrected and the word `legal' was inserted in Hansard. The term `DOCS' has been replaced with the word `docks', which I understand to have been the intended reference. However, late this evening the word `legal' was again removed following representations from the minister's office.

This is a deletion of great importance to the meaning of the minister's comments. He is seeking to represent his comments as relating to the memo from his departmental secretary—which it is true he did table some time ago. It is dated 21/10/99. That deals with the advice his department provided to him. It is clearly untenable because he specifically referred to legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department which is a document he has not tabled and one that he has sought to keep from the public gaze. The `docks dispute' is not canvassed in the other advice—the advice that he has tabled—the advice from the Secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care.

I have asked the Speaker that he ensure that the Hansard is restored as a true and correct record of the answer that the minister gave as evidenced by the tape. It cannot be purported that the comment was a slip of the tongue as there is no other construction that can be put on the reference to the Attorney-General's Department. The presence or absence of this word is of great moment to the meaning of what the minister said and to the substance of his defence of his actions. In my letter to Mr Speaker, I have noted that the House of Representatives Practice records on page 573:

Although members have this right to make corrections to their remarks, emendations which alter the sense of the words or which introduce new material are not admissible.

Significantly, the House of Representatives Practice also records:

In some instances of error or inaccuracy in the Hansard reports, the position is better clarified by a personal explanation.

In this case, what I would seek and what I have asked Mr Speaker is that if the words spoken in the House should stand as the correct Hansard record then I would submit that the minister should be required to make a personal explanation tonight about why the word `legal' should not stand part of Hansard and why he will not table the legal advice that he has told the House during question time that he has already tabled.

Because the session is so close to an end, I have asked Mr Speaker to give very early and quick consideration to this matter. I have come into the House at this very late time because of the urgency of this matter. We do have in front of us a major scandal of significant proportions. A significant amount of public funds has been used by people. The government has been taken advantage of. We know that inside information has been used to certain people's advantage. The minister has received legal advice and is clearly refusing to table it.

I would ask the minister to come in and make a personal explanation as to why the word `legal' should not stand part of the Hansard and why he will not table the legal advice that he has told this House—it is quite clear from the tape—he has from the Attorney-General's department. This is another matter which he is trying to keep hidden from the public gaze—another part of this scan scam. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis) —As the honourable member for Jagajaga would realise, this is a matter for the Speaker. He is the correct person to make rulings on this issue.