Ms PLIBERSEK (3:22 PM) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Ms PLIBERSEK —Yes.

The SPEAKER —Please proceed.

Ms PLIBERSEK —I claim to have been misrepresented today by the Attorney-General and I seek leave to table the letter that he mentioned in the parliament today. I believe that he intentionally imputed a wrong purpose and intent to the letter that he mentioned. He implied that it is unusual for a member of the parliament to write on behalf of constituents asking for the expedition of—

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Sydney is debating the context of the letter, not explaining where the minister misrepresented her.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Tuckey —Don’t give us lectures about the way the place operates!

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sydney will not debate the issue. The member will merely show where she has personally been misrepresented.

Ms PLIBERSEK —The Attorney-General implied that it is unusual for a member of parliament to write on behalf of a constituent asking for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to expedite business visas. We do it all time, because skills have declined so badly in this country. We believe Australians should be trained first and trained—

The SPEAKER —The member for Sydney has made her point. Is leave granted for the member to table the letter?

Leave granted.