JOURNALIST: What was the mood like?

PHELPS: Very congenial.

JOURNALIST: From the beginning?

PHELPS: Yes, yes.

JOURNALIST: Who, sort of, broke the ice?

PHELPS: Oh, I think shaking hands and saying hello breaks the ice. We had had a discussion on the telephone last night, and I think we both knew that we were going into the meeting with a much more positive point of view than otherwise might have been the case.

JOURNALIST: So, describe then, you know, when you walked in, not together obviously, but how did that work out? I mean, what was the body language? What was said, ah, to sort of calm the waters between the pair of you?

PHELPS: I think we were both very pleased to be there to be able to sort out our differences, and that the aim of the meeting was to establish common ground, to look at the issues that are important to health in Australia for Australians, and I think that that was achieved.

JOURNALIST: The Government was fearful of the AMA after the budget when you came out the next day and said that you weren't happy with what was offered in the budget. Was that discussed today - the AMA's role in being a lobbyist, I guess?

PHELPS: Yes. Well, the Minister said that the AMA and the Government will not always agree and that the AMA was excluded from pre-budget discussions despite the fact that we had put in a lengthy and completely professionally costed submission, and that that was ignored. Of course, the only thing that you have left after that process is criticism. So I think a far healthier situation for everyone concerned is that the AMA will be working more closely with government in developing policy and discussing health financing and implementation, and so that there will be less to criticise and argue about in fact.

JOURNALIST: Does that mean that you curtail your criticism in some settings to make further down the track easier?

PHELPS: The AMA will remain a fiercely independent voice for the Australian health system and represent the interests and the views of Australian patients and doctors, so we will be criticising where appropriate. We will also be providing constructive positive comment where appropriate. I think that there will be more positive comment when you have the ability to put it at an earlier stage in discussions.

JOURNALIST: In retrospect, do you think that the move to seek legal action, was that a correct step? Would you take that sort of move again in the same circumstances?

PHELPS: Absolutely. Absolutely. My boundaries are very clear and the boundaries were crossed and we have asked right from the outset for an apology for those comments and that apology has been forthcoming, and I now look towards the future.

JOURNALIST: … [inaudible]…agreement …[inaudible]…

PHELPS: No, no. We wanted an apology. I wanted an apology for the comments that were made personally about me and for comments that were made about general practice as a speciality, and I felt that the AMA was really obliged to stand up for GPs on this issue and I am pleased to say that that is now behind us.

JOURNALIST: … [inaudible]…Dr Wooldridge down a peg through his apology?

PHELPS: I think it is difficult to apologise and I think that I would have to say that it was a very courageous move, to apologise publicly. I wasn't expecting it but I am very pleased that it happened.

JOURNALIST: Just to clarify just exactly what happened, what more have you got out of today's lunch?

JOURNALIST: … [inaudible]…in relation to GP's fees anything …[inaudible]…

PHELPS: I think that the important point to come out of it was that the AMA would be involved in all discussions to do with GP finance, and implementation of the federal health budget. And in general practice financing, there are a lot of very important issues facing us. And the AMA needs to be working with government on those.

JOURNALIST: In terms of …[inaudible]…between the pair of you, though, what was achieved today that you felt was more important than what you got out of yesterday? What …[inaudible]…

PHELPS: We spoke a lot about policy today and we …[inaudible]…

JOURNALIST: … [inaudible]… but more between the pair of you to resolve the issues between the pair of you?

PHELPS: Between the AMA and government, not between us as individuals. I think the apology settled the difference between us and I have always said that was a completely separate issue to the AMA working with government on policy. So we had most of the discussion today centred around discussions of policy.

JOURNALIST: And I might …[inaudible]…

PHELPS: No there were a number of …[inaudible]… we will be working on and there will be announcements made over the coming month, I would say, but today is not the day because we haven't really worked out all of the final details but there are some exciting announcements to make.

JOURNALIST: …[inaudible]…

PHELPS: There will be appropriate changes to the health sector in areas like competition policy and medical indemnity and general practice financing which will begin from today's discussions.

JOURNALIST: Will this be like starting afresh … your relationship with Dr Wooldridge?

PHELPS: No question, yeah. Yes.

JOURNALIST: Did you see a different side of him today?

PHELPS: Ah, I would have to say I feel today were the most constructive discussions that we have had in the past year. Okay.

Ends