Senator RICHARDSON (Minister for Health and Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories) (4.14 p.m.) —Mr Acting Deputy President—

  Senator Crowley interjecting—

Senator RICHARDSON —It was terrific. I am quite speechless really, but I suppose that I had better say something. Senator Newman said that I have been put down by the Prime Minister (Mr Keating) so many times in the last few months. I thought it was the case that the reform proposals which she and others said would not go through cabinet did, and did so with its support.

Senator Newman —They haven't been through cabinet. Come on!

Senator RICHARDSON —They have and they got cabinet support.

  Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator RICHARDSON —Of course we did. We put to that committee the proposals of cabinet that were endorsed.

Senator Newman —Rubbish.

Senator RICHARDSON —We did. That is a fact.

Senator Newman —They will come back again.

Senator RICHARDSON —I hope that they come back again; they need to. Senator Newman then said that I had disagreed with him a couple of times in the last week. Judging from question time, I know that Senator Newman is pretty expert in what has happened over the last week. She knows a lot about Fremantle and what occurred. But just in case she has forgotten a couple of things about Fremantle I will remind her of them.

  I do not think whatever the Prime Minister and I did in the course of the last week did a lot of harm because the swing to the government in the by-election was absolutely unprecedented and says volumes about the opposition and the paucity of its policies. I was asked by some journalists on Friday morning about what the Prime Minister had to say and what I had to say and whether there was a conflict. I said exactly, `I agree with whatever the Prime Minister said'. I support my leader absolutely. I wonder whether any of those opposite would be prepared to say that about their leader.

Senator Herron —I support my leader.

Senator RICHARDSON —I believe that Senator Herron does. He is one who has signed up. But I have heard, not just on the grapevine but also through every newspaper, radio station and television station in the nation, that most of his colleagues do not. There is a great discussion about who their leader ought to be. If only they could agree on it.

Senator Parer —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 194, which concerns relevance. Senator Newman has raised a very important issue today with regard to Medicare. All we are hearing is Senator Richardson's views in respect of what he perceives to be a leadership problem, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the urgency motion raised by Senator Newman.

  The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Colston)—Order! It would be helpful if the honourable minister did return to the motion in front of us.

Senator RICHARDSON —I shall. I occasionally digress; it is very hard not to when it comes to the issue of Liberal leadership. It is such a fascinating subject. I note from Senator Newman's utterances that we are getting to the stage where a Liberal Party policy on health might be produced. There is no document that we can point to. All Senator Newman's spokesperson could say is that Mrs Bishop's contribution has been `a collection of our press releases'. We get opposition health policy only through press releases. Every now and again Senator Newman will trot one out. If we look at a press release, we have to discern whether it is a policy.

  The spokesperson for Senator Newman said that what Mrs Bishop had said over the weekend was opposition health policy. That is very disappointing, because this is again in disagreement with Dr Hewson. I have to believe Dr Hewson—he is the leader—not Mrs Bishop, yet, and not Senator Newman, ever.

Senator Newman —Yet.

Senator RICHARDSON —Hello, there is another starter. Senator Newman says, `Yet'. There is another leadership candidate. That is about the 18th. It is an unbelievably big field. What a talent of riches from which to choose. On 6 February, Dr Hewson said:

Well, again, we will not be taking the same health policy to the next election. Bulk-billing was a policy. The abolition of bulk-billing was designed to deal with the problem of over-servicing. We will not be proposing that at the next election. We will be maintaining bulk-billing.

That is not what Mrs Bishop said. She said that it was only for the poor. Dr Hewson also said:

I think it was fair to say, at the last election, our health policy was pretty much an economic policy, if you like a health funding policy. I want a health care policy.

Want it he may; but get it he may not. Senator Newman and a whole host of others, now joined by Senator Woods, are not going to cop that health care aspect of it for a moment—not on your nelly; no fear. They do not want anything to do with health care; they want to go back to this hardline economics. But even Senator Newman was, I thought, at one point earlier this year getting close to adopting bulk-billing. She did try. She said:

Bulk-billing is not necessarily such a problem if it is truly an effective law that has been introduced. That was one of the big concerns we had, that bulk-billing led to over-servicing.

On 7 January, her spokesperson, who works overtime—this spokesperson gives it a hell of a go—said:

The message she is getting is that the policy certainly needs to be reviewed.

Amen to that. We all have to say absolutely that the policy needs to be reviewed. I am glad Senator Newman is getting that message; I am delighted. Senator Herron has not got that message; he thinks it is perfect as it is. But Senator Newman is getting the message, and that is good. The spokesperson continued:

But the decision to drop the policy is firmly a matter for the party room.

If it is firmly a matter for the party room, I suggest that Senator Newman takes it there because all of us would like to know what the policy will be. Will bulk-billing be retained for the poor only or will bulk-billing stay as it is now? We cannot tell from the quotes that I have just read out what the policy will be. I do not think Australians would mind knowing.

Senator Newman —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Obviously there is a need for a personal explanation.

Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Newman should not do it while I am speaking.

Senator Newman —I am happy to make it clear that the leader has spoken for the entire party; it has been through the party processes.

Senator West —What is it?

  The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Colston)—Order! That is not a point of order.

Senator RICHARDSON —That is even better; do not knock it, Senator West. We are told that what Dr Hewson said was true; that was all part of the policy. So when it was changed by Mrs Bishop, who said that she sees it as the safety net for those in need, what happened? Who was right? Was Mrs Bishop right or was Dr Hewson right? He did not make the same distinction.

Senator Newman —Mrs Bishop is not the leader of the party.

Senator RICHARDSON —So Mrs Bishop was wrong; now we have it. The difficulty is that this morning Senator Newman's spokesperson—the one who works all the overtime—said Mrs Bishop was basically right `in line with opposition policy'—in line, but against it, apparently. I do not know who to believe. I find this very perplexing. Here we are trying to discern what the opposition's policy is. Senator Newman says that Dr Hewson is right; she says that Mrs Bishop is right; and then she says that Mrs Bishop is wrong and that Dr Hewson is right. I do not know where to go from there.

  I suspect the truth is, as usual, that the opposition still does not have a health policy and it is not going to get one. Therefore, when people such as Senator Newman get up to have a go at what the government has done on the question of health policy, the difficulty she faces is that she has no basis on which to comment—the opposition has no policy. Dr Woods' policy got thrown out; only Senator Herron still believes in it. Senator Newman does not, but she is not even sure how much of it she does not believe. The only thing about opposition members is that they are never sure what to believe in; they are never sure who to believe; and they are certainly not sure who should lead them. Yet we are supposed to take seriously comments on health policy.

Senator Newman —You have only a minute to go.

Senator RICHARDSON —I think I have two, if Senator Newman can count.

  Senator Newman interjecting—

Senator RICHARDSON —I listened to Senator Newman and when it comes to saying nothing, she is an expert. She has to be because she does not have a policy. On the other hand, the government that created Medicare has it as the basis of health policy, and we are proud of it. The only thing that I would seek to do, would be to add to it. Certainly, after 10 years, I am not saying that everything is perfect. If there are something like 30,000 Australians waiting for longer than six months, I think that is inappropriate and it is something that we should work on. It is worth acknowledging that that is something the whole of government in Australia—the federal government, the state governments, which run the hospitals, and the Commonwealth government—should address. Next week when there is a meeting of health ministers in Perth, we will be addressing some of the issues.

  As I said in question time, we need to address the numbers, distribution and training of surgeons because that, at least in part, does it. We will be spending $25 million a year over the next four years, which we will be directing to making sure that the numbers on waiting lists go down and that some patients, who were not going to be dealt with otherwise, are dealt with now in a hurry. That is tangible evidence of what we are doing. But in the opposition's case, it cannot even agree on whether or not to abolish bulk-billing or how much of it. No-one has a clue what Senator Newman is talking about because she does not have a clue herself. If she does not have a clue, what she ought to do is get one and get one fast.