You are soooo smart!

I know I’ve come very late to this party, but it’s an issue I’ve been tracking (I’m the editor of WA’s doctors’ magazine as my ‘day job’).

COAG’s national registration proposal is outlined here: http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/260308/docs/iga_health_workforce.rtf

I’d wager that AMA’s resistance to national registration stems quite considerably from Fed President Dr Capolingua. Not sure if you’re aware, but she is a member of the WA Medical Board (which coincidentally sparked plenty of criticism when AMA(WA) helped her get onto the board of medical defence fund MDA National, seemingly putting her in a potential conflict-of-interest position).

There’s plenty of politics behind the national rego issue, most of it coming out of WA and the grab to retain power for state-based AMA branches. The Federal President has her power base in the WA branch and I’m sure she’s keen to look after the mates that put her into her position of power.

I won’t say more publicly, but if you wanted to chat further, you can drop me a line at shane@jiraiya.com.au or editor@mforum.com.au

And I’m not sure what difference it makes if the medical board is one arm of a general health board. But as I said, I’ve found it impossible to find a good description of the proposal.

” (iii) 2 are to be selected by the Minister from a panel of 5 medical practitioners nominated by the Australian Medical Association (South Australia) Incorporated; ”

Colleagues (non AMA members) who I’ve been listening to on this have been objecting largely on the grounds that they’re above being registered in with physiotherapists, optometrists, and other ‘paramedical’ practitioners. More explicitly, they have been saying that they want to have the right to be “judged by a jury of their peers”, and not by anyone else.