My question is to the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Nash. I refer to the government's proposed GP tax and comments from the president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Dr Ian Kamerman, who said:

The proposed Medicare co-payment model is going to hit rural patients hard and will cause significant problems to country medical practices and their communities.

Isn't the Rural Doctors Association right?

The best thing that this coalition government can do for people living in rural areas is fix the economic mess that was left to us by the previous Labor government. It is very obvious that this government has had to make some tough decisions when it comes to the budget.

Mr President, I normally do not take a point of order this early—

Government senators interjecting—

Check the record, Senators. In terms of the process I ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question. It is about the Rural Doctors Association statement. She has begun and probably will try to continue not mentioning that at all in her response.

I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. The minister has been answering the question for 22 seconds and still has one minute 38 seconds remaining. There is no point of order.

Quite extraordinary from those opposite, before I am even 30 seconds into the answer, to go to the question of relevance. I can indicate to those opposite that, unlike the previous government, it is the coalition government that is focused on delivery for rural and regional health. Whether it is the $238 million to double the Practice Incentive Payment so that we can improve teaching outcomes in regional areas, the $52 million for infrastructure grants for rural and regional areas or the $13.4 million extra for additional scholarships—

Mr President, on relevance: I ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question she was asked, which was around the issue of the rural doctors statement.

The minister has 58 seconds. I draw the minister's attention to the question.

Those opposite would know that the arrangements for the co-payment are ultimately a matter for the GPs in those services. Those opposite may not know that there are currently lower billing rates in rural and regional areas. The circumstances have not changed: it is up to GPs in those clinics to make that determination.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate if rural and regional patients will be required to pay the $7 GP tax during times of drought and natural disaster?

Clearly the senator was not listening to the answer I have just given. It is a matter for GPs, in their clinics, to determine whether they are going to bulk bill. That has always been the case, it will continue to be the case, and I reiterate that that is a matter for the GPs themselves.

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Did the minister fail to consult medical associations before the GP tax was announced because she knew how much it would hurt rural and regional communities or because she does not care?

To assert that I do not care about rural communities is so far from the mark it is extraordinary. As those opposite would also know, it is for cabinet ministers to determine budget arrangements. Those opposite may not know that I continually consult with those in the rural medical sector and, on an ongoing basis, I convey their views to the health minister. The economic mess Labor left us is the reason we had to make such tough decisions in this budget. When we came into government we inherited a situation of potentially a $667 billion debt. This government is responsible and it is prepared to make the decisions to fix that situation to ensure the future prosperity of the nation.