Senator MARSHALL (2:55 PM) —My question is to Senator Patterson, the Minister for Health and Ageing. Can the minister confirm that in the last week of May the government made an extraordinary payment totalling $30 million to 4,600 general practitioners throughout Australia with no strings attached—an average payment of $6,800 for each general practice? Is it not the case that, while the government claims that this money is to assist doctors to upgrade their patient records, there will be no requirement for doctors to use the money to improve patient records, no accountability or acquittal for this $30 million and no mechanism by which the money will have to be repaid to the government if the upgrading of patient records is not done? Isn't the complete lack of accountability for this end-of-financial-year gift to doctors the reason that some doctors have described the payment as `money for jam'?

Senator PATTERSON (Minister for Health and Ageing) —We went through this issue quite extensively in estimates. I do not know whether the honourable senator has sat down—and he should have—and read all those estimates questions: Senator McLucas's long questions and Senator Nettle's long questions. They will be very entertaining for him to read when he has nothing to do on a long plane journey. I presume he has not read them. I do not think he was there and I did not expect him to be there because he is not a member of that committee.

We did give doctors funding for IT. Honourable senators might have read this morning in the IT section of the Australian—it might have been the Age—that general practitioners are further ahead than most other sections of the health care industry in working towards being computerised. It is important to have computerised information in a general practice, and we are ensuring that with our practice incentive payments which go only to doctors who have been accredited as practice incentive payment general practitioners. That means they have to go through an accreditation process and be involved in delivering better health outcomes in terms of asthma programs and mental health programs, which the Labor Party never cared about. They never funded doctors to deliver outcomes for people to manage chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and mental health. The practitioners who have taken up the Practice Incentive Program do things like recalling patients for pap smears or for extra visits for their asthma programs. This money came out of the PIP program and it was to assist doctors in upgrading, entering or improving their data. There will be further funding for which they will be required to give evidence that they have used that funding and how they are going to use the future funding.

The funding was to ensure that we have doctors as up to date as possible to reduce red tape. That is an issue that they have been concerned about. We now have a task force in my department, with various PM&C representatives, to reduce red tape. The doctors argue that, as these programs have developed, they have increased their administrative load. This will be reduced the more that they are computerised. In fact, I went to a practice recently on the North Coast of New South Wales. The young doctor there has computerised her whole practice and also the Practice Incentive Program. She said that she does not see that she has a red tape problem. So we need to simplify the Practice Incentive Program and make sure general practitioners are as up to date as possible with their IT, because we will then be able to deliver better primary health care and better outcomes. That is what we are interested in. The sort of thing the Labor Party are focusing on is the level of bulk-billing and that seems to be the only issue that they have in their health policy.

Senator MARSHALL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't it the case that the $30 million payment to doctors was made indiscriminately to all registered practices, whether or not the practice already had fully computerised records or, in fact, had no other electronic records at all? Isn't it also the case that, if the government had not rushed to splurge this $30 million of taxpayers' money before the end of this financial year, the money could have been spent on other health priorities? Would this money not have been better spent paying for the equivalent of 1.2 million bulk-billed GP consultations?

Senator PATTERSON (Minister for Health and Ageing) —As I indicated, this money was to assist practices that needed to get further up to date, to reward practices that got up to date and also to ensure that we have general practice as highly ITed and as highly up to date in terms of their computerisation as possible because it assists them in spending more time with their patients. As health minister, I want to assist them to do that—rather than filling out forms—to be able to be with their patients and have practices whereby they can recall their patients who are due for checks on diabetes or for cervical screening and all the other things that general practices ought to be doing in terms of improving health outcomes for Australians.

Senator Hill —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.