Also Australian, not a clinician but I work in health.
Where I have seen the best use of computers working hand-in-hand with doctors is around the areas of clinical risk and funding.
Computer systems that prevents a clinician from prescribing a lethal dose, or prevents a known adverse interaction between drugs have already saved lives in Australia. In hospitals which have properly implemented these systems, drug mistakes have dropped dramatically.
On the funding side, I have found that clinicians are very interested in ensuring that the maximum public funds are available for their patients as soon as possible. If a patient fulfills the requirements for a funding stream, the clinician wants to know about that immediately so that they can start providing their patients with those services. This is especially important in community care situations where patients can receive at-home support to maintain adequate cleanliness and hygiene in order to keep them out of hospital (hospital being bad for the patient and bad for the public purse).
And normal doctors do not? Are they infallible? Does papal infallibility apply to doctors to? I know a bunch of doctors, they aren't all that different from normal humans except in Australia we work them until they are sleep deprived. They will be making potentially lethal mistakes continuously and it isn't being detected. Every so often there is a scandal when an egregiously bad doctor is found.
Consistent bias and repeatable mistakes are a lot safer to work with than random bias and random mistakes.
We have a lot of examples where humans could initially compete with machines until one day they no longer could. Patient analysis has hallmarks of being a solvable problem (pattern recognition, image interpretation, consuming huge amounts of data, etc). If someone is allowed to compete it will end well for everyone. Once that goes 'doctor' is a title that means something different to what it does now.