Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President - Sydney

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: ……

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