Mr LATHAM (Manager of Opposition Business) (9:22 AM) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion that the House take note of the statement.

The SPEAKER —I wish to clarify this. For the House's information the Clerk has pointed out that, while leave has been granted to the member for Werriwa, in fact we do not have a statement in the sense—

The SPEAKER —I am attempting to facilitate the House. I am merely seeking to ensure that what we do, as pointed out by the member for Brand, follows the standing orders. If leave were offered for the member for Werriwa to make a statement, that would assist.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, if the member for Werriwa wishes to make a brief statement, I think the House should accommodate him.

The SPEAKER —When the Leader of the House is attempting to facilitate the House, it ought to be recognised. Leave has been granted. The member for Werriwa has the call.

Mr LATHAM —I move:

It is very important to do so because it is difficult to believe that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government can, in fact, be believed on this matter. It would be extraordinary for a member in this House to claim that a constituent is someone who lives outside their constituency. This is one of the basic rules of a democracy: where we have a representative system in the parliament we each have a constituency and the people who live within our constituency are our constituents. So there is no doubt that the minister for regional services tried to mislead the police minister in South Australia. On 25 September last year he wrote:

I repeat `the normal context of a constituent matter'—that is, someone who lives in his constituency. He is not saying it is an abnormal matter, or someone living outside the constituency—

Any reasonable person at that point would think that the minister is saying to the police minister in South Australia, `I am making a representation on behalf of my son and I want you to believe my son lives in my electorate.' That is what the minister for regional services was trying to convey to Mr Conlan on 25 September. He asked for the infringement—the breach of the law—to be reconsidered. He then followed it up with a letter on 11 November 2002, saying that he had written to raise a constituent matter regarding the issuance of an infringement notice.

Again, there is no attempt to point out the fact that the minister's son lived in the electorate of Canning rather than the electorate of O'Connor. He is again trying to mislead the Minister for Police in South Australia by saying `this is a constituent matter'. He goes on to refer to constituent correspondence and to `my constituent' in the letter of 11 November—he again refers to his `constituent'. There is no doubt that the minister for regional services was trying to mislead the Minister for Police in South Australia with his extraordinary intervention in this matter. Then we had the minister standing up in the parliament yesterday and saying that it was a constituent inquiry. This is a misleading of the House. The minister, having misled the South Australian police minister, is trying to convince the House of Representatives that someone who lives in the electorate of Canning is in fact a constituent of his.

Mr Randall —It was Swan!

Mr LATHAM —That is the problem. It was a constituent inquiry for someone who lives outside his electorate.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (9.26 a.m.)—Mr Speaker, I think the government has extended a great deal of leniency to the member for Werriwa. I move:

Question put.