Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President - ABC Radio 'The World Today', Canberra
HALL: Well, listening to that report was the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Kerryn Phelps, who joins us now from her office in Canberra. Dr Phelps, you were in that meeting with the Prime Minister and the Health Minister, last night, for more than an hour. How would you describe the atmosphere there on the leather chesterfields in the Prime Minister's Office?
PHELPS: I'd have to say it was very constructive. The Prime Minister expressed a very clear intention that the AMA should be involved in all negotiations. And I have to say that the problem certainly well predates the comments that were made by Dr Wooldridge on Melbourne radio It goes right back to the insistence of the Minister that in order for the AMA to be involved in discussions with government, that we had to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on General Practice, which we'd made it abundantly clear did not have the support of our members.
HALL: Given those sorts of things, you must have been pretty tense as you headed in for that meeting?
PHELPS: Look, I went in there with an open mind, and being prepared to listen to what the Prime Minister had to say and being prepared to take a conciliatory view, which I always have done. And so, no, I couldn't say that I was nervous, but I think, on behalf of the medical profession, I knew that there was a fairly heavy responsibility on my shoulders to ensure that we came out with an outcome that would be acceptable to the medical profession.
HALL: Were you surprised to have been called into a meeting with the Prime Minister to resolve your dispute with Dr Wooldridge?
PHELPS: I was actually delighted that the Prime Minister chose to intervene. I had written to the Prime Minister explaining the difficulties that we were having and asking if he would intervene and, in fact, he chose to do that, and I think it was a very responsible decision.
HALL: So you, in fact, initiated this meeting?
PHELPS: We asked for the Prime Minister to intervene. I didn't ask for the meeting itself. But I'm very glad that he chose that particular action to take.
HALL: Prior to the meeting, when was the last time you spoke face-to-face with Dr Wooldridge?
PHELPS: Well, it was a fairly ill fated meeting back at the beginning of March, was the last time that we spoke, directly. Of course, the AMA's officers have had discussions with the department on a range of issues in the meantime, and we, of course, have discussions directly with the Prime Minister's department about issues of concern to the profession. But the last time we had a personal meeting with the Minister would have been early March.
HALL: Well, even with the Prime Minister there brokering the talks between you two, Dr Wooldridge didn't apologise and, as you've just heard, he says he won't apologise for the comments that you're taking legal action over. Can you work with the Minister, if he doesn't?
PHELPS: Yes, I think the AMA Executive is very clear on the distinction between the two issues. One is that we must be involved in consultation on health policy, on all health policy issues, because I think it's important that the Government is in touch with what the medical profession and the patients of Australia see as the problems and appropriate solutions. The issue of the legal action is one that we can treat as a completely separate action. Obviously, our desire would be that that problem were resolved by an appropriate apology. But if that isn't forthcoming we will still be able to work with the Minister for the benefit of the Australian health system.
HALL: It must be pretty difficult, though, someone making disrespectful comments towards you and you taking legal action against him. I mean, how did Dr Wooldridge behave last night?
PHELPS: Well, when you say it's difficult, I mean, I think it's not difficult to rise above that, if you have, at your heart, the problems in the health system and what needs to be done. I would have to say that Dr Wooldridge was polite last night.
HALL: Just polite?
PHELPS: Yes, just polite.
HALL: So, not warm?
PHELPS: Well, I don't think one could expect warmth, under the circumstances. But, I think polite was a good start.
HALL: Was it your impression that the Prime Minister was disappointed Dr Wooldridge didn't just say 'Sorry', and get this sort of thing sorted out?
PHELPS: You'd have to ask the Prime Minister, really, about that. I couldn't really speak for him. But I think I can say that most people would like to see this matter resolved by a simple apology. Nobody wants to have to engage in legal disputes in order to obtain an apology, but the AMA Executive feels quite strongly about this, because GPs' work has been trivialised for a long time. And the notion that a general practitioner is not qualified to speak on an issue on cholesterol-lowering, when it's what we do every day of the week, and GPs having a central role, and being specialists who take ten years to achieve their qualification, on average these days, was an insult to the professionalism of GPs. And the feedback that I've had from general practitioners is that they just didn't want us to back down on that issue.
HALL: Dr Phelps, just finally, is this a little demeaning, a little juvenile even, to have the Prime Minister there in order for you to have a constructive discussion with your minister on health issues?
PHELPS: I think there needed to be a circuit breaker, and I don't believe anything less than the intervention of the Prime Minister would have been adequate in breaking the impasse that had developed. I'm just delighted that, now, we have a clear direction that the AMA will be involved in all discussions on health policy without the requirement of signing the Memorandum of Understanding, which is really all we were after in the first place.
HALL: And without the presence of the Prime Minister?
PHELPS: I don't think that will be necessary.
HALL: Dr Kerryn Phelps, President of the AMA, thanks very much for joining us.
Ends