Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President, Parliament House, Canberra

And while there appear to be some solutions and commitment to solutions in the long term, we are still faced with a short term crisis. That is the imminent collapse of one of the nation's - of the nation's biggest medical indemnity provider. And at this stage there are no solutions to that crisis.

QUESTION: Has the government agreed to provide more money at least for that insurance provider?

PHELPS: No. I have in fact in my hand a copy of a letter with John Howard's signature on it, which has gone to the UMP, which has said that the government will not be providing any further assistance. Where this leaves the majority of this country's doctors is, at this stage, very unclear. I would have to say our health services are in a precarious situation. It's no good for the Ministers to say that of course they're not going to let the health services collapse when in fact they have no plans in place to stop that from happening.

QUESTION: So what does it mean for patients now?

PHELPS: Well, what it means for patients is that if the nation's biggest insurer collapses, then 60% of Australia's doctors the very next day will not be able to go to work because they will be unable to work without insurance. And certainly in the State of New South Wales they can't work if they're uninsured because they will lose their registration.

QUESTION: Apart from the goodwill, therefore, has today's meeting been a waste of time?

PHELPS: No, it hasn't been a waste of time, because we've been able to actually articulate what the problems are and set out a plan for the future. And there is broad consensus on where we need to go in the long term.

What we don't have, at this stage, is a short term solution. And we do have a crisis upon us. It's going to be upon us before 30th June this year. We had the - Dr Daryl Roberts from APRA, who has said that the medical indemnity industry will not be able to meet its requirements as of 30th June.

Now, we are facing a major crisis. It is a potential catastrophe. And, at the moment, we do not have a short term solution to that. We were hoping that a short term solution would emerge from today.

QUESTION: So you still want the Federal Government to come in and bail out the main insurer to keep - to prevent that deadline expiring?

PHELPS: We need to see a solution. That's one solution. But there is very clear indication that the profession has reached the limit of its ability to afford more calls, higher indemnity premiums. And it can't be passed on to patients because patients wouldn't be able to afford essential health services if all those costs were passed on to them.

So, you know, the shortfall estimated for the industry at June 30 will be in the order of $500 million.

QUESTION: You say that there's a long term solution but there's no short term one. What is the longer term one?

PHELPS: There's a comprehensive long term solution. It involves structural law reform so every State can look at the way it deals with medical negligence cases through the courts. To look at ways of reforming that. We need to look at the way that the courts themselves deal with negligence actions. We need to have alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, so people can sit down and discuss with their doctor when something goes wrong. The doctor can actually say, 'Look, I'm terribly sorry. This went wrong. This is why it happened and this is what we're going to do to try to help you.'

Rather than at the moment, as soon as there's an accident, everyone backs off at a rate of knots because it means that they're going to have to admit liability and end up in court. Now, we have to change that system.

We have to look at expert witnesses who appear in court for either the plaintiff or the defendant. And we need to have a panel of accredited experts who are trained and accredited by the colleges, who are recognised by their peers as having expert status. And, at the moment, that situation doesn't exist to a large extent within the court system.

So there is a great deal that can be done. We need to look at the no win/no fee arrangement that is being advertised by a lot of lawyers, and whether that is adding cost to the system. So we do have broad consensus on a number of issues.

And, of course, one of the big issues that can make a difference is to set up a nationally coordinated scheme for the care and rehabilitation of people who are seriously injured. That will make a big difference.

QUESTION: Was there any agreement on that?

PHELPS: There was agreement within the meeting, but there was no - there was no actually official agreement from the government. So what we need to hear is that there will be a statutory scheme set up which will coordinate, organise, orchestrate the care and rehabilitation of people who are severely injured. Because, frankly, it doesn't matter how somebody is injured. We need to be able to care for them. We need to provide the disability services, the nursing, the long term care that these people need. And in practical terms that's the bottom line.

QUESTION: How much money would the government have had to provide to bail out this failing insurer?

PHELPS: Look, it's not up to me to put an actual dollar value on it. But what we were hoping, when the government put $35 million in to the short term underpinning of UMP's financial difficulties, that that was a signal that they were going to take the responsibility for that part of the cost of the health care system. Unfortunately, it now appears that that's going to be the limit of their support. And we really need to look to what other solution might curtail this catastrophe. And there is no other word for it. That's what it is.

QUESTION: Are there any other solutions on the table at the moment?

PHELPS: It's over to government. Thank you.

Ends