Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President, Parliament House, Canberra

JOURNALIST: Why do you think that? What assurances were given by either Dr Wooldridge or the Prime Minister?

PHELPS: Well, we had a lengthy discussion about a range of issues of concern to the medical profession and, over the coming weeks, we will be setting in train new consultative processes to ensure that the Prime Minister's wish for the AMA to be consulted on issues to do with the health portfolio will be addressed.

JOURNALIST: Do you still want an apology?

PHELPS: We're still asking for an apology. I think that that is the idea, but the new level of consultation between the AMA and the Government will not depend on that.

JOURNALIST: Does this mean you will sign the MoU?

PHELPS: We will not sign the MoU. In fact, we made it very clear that it is impossible for the AMA to sign the MoU, but that that will not be a prohibitive factor in the AMA continuing to have effective and constructive discussions with government about general practice.

JOURNALIST: Will you still pursue legal action against Dr Wooldridge if he refuses to apologise?

PHELPS: Well, I think that we're really quite determined that unless there is an apology, not just to me, but to general practitioners for the comments that were made, that that legal action will persist, and it will proceed. That will not affect the AMA's ability now to consult with government on issues of importance.

JOURNALIST: At your last meeting, you were having clear concerns about the way Dr Wooldridge behaved. I mean, how did you find his behaviour, demeanour and helpfulness today?

PHELPS: Dr Wooldridge was very polite today.

JOURNALIST: Were you surprised that the Prime Minister did intervene in this way?

PHELPS: I'm very pleased that the Prime Minister intervened, and I think it's a very positive move and I think it's one that signals a government's intention to not only take the health portfolio very seriously but to make sure that the AMA, as the peak medico-political representative body, is included in all discussions to do with health funding.

JOURNALIST: Was it the Prime Minister's intention to get not just a reconciliation between the Government and the AMA, but a reconciliation between you and

Dr Wooldridge?

PHELPS: You'd have to ask the Prime Minister about that. But I think his feeling is that he would prefer to leave that matter between Dr Wooldridge and the AMA.

JOURNALIST: And what was the general mood of the meeting today? What was the mood like?

PHELPS: I think that you could say the mood was very cooperative. The AMA is certainly looking for an appropriate solution to the impasse that we've had over the last few months, and I believe that we have really seen a breakthrough.

JOURNALIST: Does that mean that the RVS is now back on the table?

PHELPS: There's no question that the Government will need to address the implications of the RVS. How that comes about is yet to be discussed.

JOURNALIST: Has the Prime Minister indicated he's prepared to look at some further increase in Medicare benefits for GPs?

PHELPS: Well, I think that we really need to look at the whole Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) in total. You can't sort of 'build Rome in a day', and I think that we made significant progress in this meeting today raising issues of concern. The sorts of issues that we discussed were the crisis in medical indemnity, and I believe we will see some movement in that particular issue within the next couple of weeks, and we talked about the structured settlements issue to do with that. We talked about the implications of the Trade Practices Act in the health sector, and I believe we'll see some action in that area as well. And we talked, also, about issues to do with general practice financing and the whole area of the MBS.

JOURNALIST: Did the Prime Minister say why he'd intervened?

PHELPS: The Prime Minister was concerned at the lack of consultation between the AMA and the health portfolio, and he wanted to improve the relationship between the medical profession and the Government.

JOURNALIST: Would you say there is now a truce?

PHELPS: I think you have to say that we've moved a very long way towards a truce, and I'd like to think that we can now move forward in a very constructive way with government in discussions. I think the proof will be in the pudding, so we'll wait and see.

JOURNALIST: Are you confident this dialogue can stay open without the Prime Minister being present at meetings with Dr Wooldridge and yourself?

PHELPS: Do you think we need a mediator? Well, we will go into any future discussions with the best of goodwill, and we'll have to see how it goes from there.

JOURNALIST: What sort of message did the PM's intervention send to the Minister, do you think?

PHELPS: I think that nobody could be suffering any illusions that the medical profession is extremely important to the process of developing health policy and that the AMA is, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the peak medico-political body to be discussing these matters with government.

JOURNALIST: Has Dr Wooldridge now agreed to actually deal with you?

PHELPS: I think that the message was very clear that the Prime Minister felt that the AMA's involvement in all discussions in the health portfolio was essential.

JOURNALIST: Were you given any particular assurances by the Prime Minister?

PHELPS: We were given a number of undertakings. I can't really reveal those now, but I think it would be important for you to ask the Prime Minister that yourselves. But we certainly discussed issues of major importance, like the Trade Practices Act in health, medical indemnity, public hospital funding, and general practice and the issues around the morale in general practice. So, I think we have made some significant progress, today, on those issues, and we will continue those discussions.

JOURNALIST: And do you think further meetings, such as today, are needed to try and keep that dialogue open and try and improve your relations even further?

PHELPS: I'd like to think that they weren't necessary, because I know that the Prime Minister has a very busy schedule, as we all do. But I think it's very important that this has been, to my mind, a breakthrough, and that we will be looking forward to further constructive discussions with the Government on issues that are of concern to the medical profession.

JOURNALIST: So, no campaign by the AMA before the election?

PHELPS: I've said all along that there will be an educational campaign by the AMA in all seats around the country, and we certainly have already set up a network to do that. It's not going to be a party political exercise, but it will be, very much, an educational exercise to ensure that all prospective MPs are very well informed about what is important in the health portfolio to the medical profession.

JOURNALIST: Doctor, could you clarify something. Did the Prime Minister come to you or did you go to the Prime Minister or did you go to some others within the Cabinet? How did this intervention come about?

PHELPS: I initially wrote to the Prime Minister and indicated our areas of concern and, then, the Prime Minister made a decision to intervene to ensure that the AMA was again, involved in constructive dialogue with the Government.

JOURNALIST: Is Dr Wooldridge still on the nose, though? I mean, you're still going to sue him. Is he on the nose?

PHELPS: To whom?

JOURNALIST: To you.

PHELPS: We recognise that Dr Wooldridge is the Health Minister and, as such, he is the person that we have to deal with with government, and I think that what we need to do is to look forward to the future and to really look at a clean slate and see if we can make sure that the dialogue with the Health Minister is constructive. That will certainly have a lot of goodwill on our part.

JOURNALIST: So, it's all in the past, but you still want to sue him?

PHELPS: We indicated that we would be instituting legal action and proceeding with it unless there was an apology to me and to the general practice community generally. And I believe that we owe that to the general practice community to continue with that unless there is an apology for the comments that were made, which were quite insulting to GPs.

JOURNALIST: Was the apology discussed at the meeting today?

PHELPS: It was discussed, yes. And the Prime Minister indicated that he would like Dr Wooldridge and I to talk about that privately.

JOURNALIST: If he apologises to the GPs, generally, you drop the legal action, don't you?

PHELPS: We'd have to see what form that apology took. But we have been asking for an apology all along, and that's still our bottom line.

JOURNALIST: If he apologised to GPs, generally, for those insulting comments, you'd stop legal action, personally?

PHELPS: I'd obviously have to discuss it with the AMA Executive, but that would be our aim, yes.

JOURNALIST: Has Dr Wooldridge given any indication whether he would apologise? Did he say 'I'm thinking about it'; 'I'd consider it'; 'No way!'?

PHELPS: No, he didn't.

JOURNALIST: When do you next talk to Dr Wooldridge?

PHELPS: We'll see.

JOURNALIST: Did the PM give any indication that he was really happy about the fact that you won't be campaigning in marginal seats, that that was important?

PHELPS: I didn't say we wouldn't be campaigning in marginal seats. That matter didn't come up…

JOURNALIST: …Sorry, an a political…

PHELPS: That didn't come up in the meeting today. But I've consistently said that the AMA is not a party political organisation, and we'll be talking, as we do now, to all parties.

JOURNALIST: But there might have been a misunderstanding that he was thinking you were going to run a marginal seats campaign against the Government. Was there any suggestion that was the case?

PHELPS: Well, I think if doctors are angry enough about what's happening and don't feel as if we're being heard, then they'll make their own decisions about which party they choose to support in their local electorate. But they will certainly go well informed by the AMA.

JOURNALIST: But you seem to be saying that your campaign is an educational campaign as such, and I just thought there might have been a misconception about that part of it.

PHELPS: Well, I think it's important that doctors are involved in this campaign, and they will be at very much a grass-roots level. And doctors talk to a lot of patients - millions of patient consultations every year - it's a very powerful political force. And we will be making sure that the AMA's message is getting out to the public and to the MPs in the lead up to the next election.

JOURNALIST: Do you feel that you can now pick up the telephone and call

Dr Wooldridge direct?

PHELPS: As I said, it's early days, and we'll move forward. I think we've made a giant leap forward today, and then we'll just have to see what happens as the weeks and months progress.

Ends