Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Health and Aged Care) (3:12 PM) —All we have had from the Leader of the Opposition is a series of unsubstantiated and scurrilous allegations. One of my staff members has just provided me with my diary of the week beginning 5 May 1998. I am happy to table that diary so everyone can see what I did that week. There is no meeting with radiologists; there is no private meeting in the week before the budget. There is only the meeting that I have consistently said happened, and I have had two statutory declarations to say what the nature of that meeting was.

The Leader of the Opposition makes several charges, and they are as follows: that I deliberately or carelessly caused a situation in which some radiologists were able to take advantage of budget knowledge. We still have not had any concrete evidence from the opposition that there was inside knowledge. We have had assertions that have never been backed up by any fact. The fact is that there does appear to be widespread backdating. There does appear to be widespread misrepresentation of contracts, and that is a complete scam that is totally unacceptable. But there is no evidence at all that people benefited from inside information.

I have said previously that there was very widespread expectation of this measure and that was for several reasons. The first is that the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee reported in October 1997 and that report said that MRI should be more greatly funded than it is now. I had said publicly and privately on many occasions that I would like to see MRI better funded. The reason was very simple. I thought that the situation that I inherited from the Labor Party, whereby 100,000 Australians a year were having to pay between $400 and $800 each for a scan, was completely unacceptable, and I wanted to see that situation changed.

It was well known that the government wished to do something about this. We entered formal negotiations with the College of Radiologists as a representative body on 10 February, and those negotiations continued through till about 23 April, off the top of my head. Those negotiations were carried out by my department. They conducted the negotiations and in that time I had one meeting in March with the President of the College of Radiologists to discuss a large range of issues, but I had no further part in the negotiations whatsoever.

I was told by my department around 5 May, and I wrote to the Prime Minister the same day, that there was a potential problem whereby we may have a large number of orders. The Leader of the Opposition has alleged in the last 24 hours that I did not take my department's advice, but that is not correct. On 5 May, when I was first alerted that there may be a problem, I asked my department what advice they could give me because, to use the Leader of the Opposition's phrase, this is a technical area and you do need advice from your department. I agree. It is a highly technical area.

The fact is the decision I took on 5 May was in line with my department's advice. I asked my department for a range of options. I asked them what their preferred option was. I chose their preferred option. In making that decision as a minister, I was taking the preferred option put to me by the department. I acted the same day I was told there was potentially a problem with bringing it in from 1 September. I was told in the middle of August that there appeared to be, and there were rumours of, a large number of machines coming in. At that time, I again took my department's advice and passed a regulation bringing in the supply-side measure. When I was informed this year, and actually last week, about a problem with the Health Insurance Commission's investigation, I again acted swiftly to institute what I have done now.

So, far from not taking my department's advice, I have taken their advice the whole way along. I have not acted independently. Far from not acting swiftly, in every case where I have been alerted by my department that there was a problem, I have acted as swiftly as possible. The third point of the opposition's censure that I failed to act appropriately when warned by my department is simply wrong. I have taken my department's advice on this matter because of the technical nature of it. I have acted with great speed on every occasion.

The further allegation is that I delayed the investigation until it was too late. The records simply do not back up that fact. I concede the Health Insurance Commission's investigation is going slowly. The only intervention I have had in the Health Insurance Commission's investigation is to ask them to do it as fast as possible, after which they increased their staff numbers doing the investigation—and they have increased the staff numbers a second time. So, far from delaying investigations, my only intervention as minister has been to try to speed up investigations. I notice that, in Senate estimates, the Health Insurance Commission said they expected to have the investigations over by July. I was later told it would be November. It will now be perhaps later than that.

The Health Insurance Commission advise me that they are finding there is significant obstruction from a number of people involved. They are having to seek warrants to acquire information, and it takes two weeks per warrant to execute. When this involves serial pieces of information, it may take several lots of two weeks. I realise that is highly unsatisfactory, but the Health Insurance Act offers little alternative. This is not something into which you can bring the Federal Police; this is something the Health Insurance Commission must investigate itself under the National Health Act. I repeat: far from delaying the investigation, at every point I have sought to speed up this investigation and get the information absolutely as fast as possible.

The opposition also charges that, after being challenged as early as 9 February, I have given misleading answers on my role in pre-budget MRI negotiations. I have said many times—and I stick by this—that I was told on 5 May by the department that we may need a supply measure. That was the first I knew about it. The same day, I wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we would need a supplyside measure. My only involvement between then and budget night was the one meeting with the College of Radiologists.

If you read the statutory declarations that were tabled some time ago, the reason for this meeting is quite clear. The negotiation had gone on late in the budget cycle. We had missed the cut-off date for the printing of the budget. What was going to appear in the budget were the savings we were making in radiology without the balancing of the other side whereby we were providing MRI. We felt that there was a problem with good faith with the radiologists in that they had negotiated an overall package of savings, one of which was MRI, and this would not be reflected in the budget documents on budget night.

So I had to explain to them the reason for it not appearing in the budget documents the way they were imagining and how we would communicate with their members immediately after the budget so they could see that the government had acted in good faith. The meeting went for about an hour, and most of the meeting was discussing that. Again, you will see that confirmed by the two statutory declarations that I tabled in this House.

The supply-side measure, which was commercially sensitive, was talked about in general terms. I stated that in the House as early as 16 February in answer to a question, but the college did not know what that supply-side measure would be. The notion of asking them to keep the final meeting secret was not because they had been told what the supply-side measure was but because they were told that the government would need to take some action to limit supply.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that there are several contradictions in what I have said. I would say there is no contradiction in anything I have said. Firstly, he claims that, on 11 February, I was talking about our not knowing the time scale of ordering of machines but that, on 18 October this year, I had said there had been a rush. I was referring to two different things. The rush that I was referring to yesterday was the rush of the 13 machines that radiologists have just found that they ordered 18 months ago and spent $3 million on but forgot to tell anybody about. That is just not tenable. It is completely unacceptable. I do not know the dates on which they were supposed to have been ordered. I have not been told, and that is the normal process for an investigation such as this.

The second contradictory thing I am supposed to have said is about a budget leak. I have never conceded there was a budget leak, because we have not been given any evidence that it occurred. All the opposition have done is make up a whole series of allegations and assertions but they have provided no information that it happened. I cannot rule out the possibility, but I think it is very unlikely. I think people were speculating and taking positions on the advice of MRI companies. When the Health Insurance Commission finally finishes its investigation, I think people will see that the scam is a widespread backdating and widespread misrepresentation of contracts. That, by definition, rules out a leak—because you would not have to do either of those things if, indeed, there had been a leak.

The opposition said that I had private meetings in the week before the budget. I have tabled my diary for that week and, between learning of the supply-side measure on the 5th and tabling on budget night, I had no meetings with radiologists.

Mrs Irwin —What about phone calls?

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —The member opposite says, `What about phone calls?' My recollection is that I did not speak directly or indirectly to any radiologist anywhere in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition makes allegations also that we went ahead without any checks. If you have a look at the sequence of events here, there were checks at every point of the process.

Mr McMullan —They were pretty good!

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —They were pretty good. They have uncovered a widespread scam, and it will result in many referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and they have been stopped.

Mr McMullan —You should have stopped them. That's your problem.

Mr Beazley interjecting—

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —They have been stopped; they have absolutely been stopped. The Leader of the Opposition interjects—I know I should not respond to him, but it shows that he does not understand the sequence of events here. I was not told of a scam on 5 May; I was told of a theoretical possibility. I was told in August that year that there was a problem. That is when we brought in the statutory declarations, which have proved to be very effective.

The other thing I should respond to is the $150 million that the Leader of the Opposition talks about being wasted. I do not know where he gets his mathematics from but, if he has a look at this year's budget papers, he will see that we are only budgeting $66 million for MRI and, as at the end of August, it was on budget. So that figure of $150 million he seems to have plucked out of the air. Even so, I concede that I do not want to see any of taxpayers' money used inappropriately.

Finally, in question time, allegations were made about Dr Best and Dr Meikle. I think that is highly scurrilous. I hope he has the courage to go and make the allegations outside of the House. I am not aware of Dr Meikle ever organising a dinner for me. Having checked with my chief of staff, who tends to know about these things, I do not believe he has ever organised a dinner for me, although I do know him. I have known him for the best part of 20 years because my younger sister used to date his son when they were at school. With respect to the fact that he is a radiologist and has MRIs, I was aware he had one at Box Hill, because he asked me to open it. With the other two, this is the first I have heard anything to do with it. That you should seek to besmirch someone's name in this House is, I think, utterly cowardly.

As for Dr Best, he has organised the odd dinner for me, and there is nothing improper in that. Everyone in this House does fundraising dinners from time to time. Any money I have obtained from those dinners has been dealt with appropriately, according to the party's fundraising guidelines and in accordance with disclosure under the Electoral Act. The opposition has put up nothing other than cowardly and scurrilous allegations. Quite frankly, Kim, on your polling, I think I am going to be around a lot longer than you.