Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

As I've said, the fact that we're having this debate is a real demonstration of the difficult exercise in balancing the quite self-evident competing interests here, but the amendment that the member for Goldstein has moved would impose obligations on those issuing subpoenas or seeking to have documents produced to them, which would greatly increase the administrative burden on the court and on parties. That is why we've opted for the setting that appears in the bill that's now before this House. As I've said, there will be an opportunity for further examination in a committee in the other place and there will be an opportunity for review of this in three years time. We've struck a balance that we think is appropriate.

In answer to the question raised by the member for Goldstein as to how parties will be aware, on something like this the court will make sure that parties are aware. I appreciate there is a problem about not every party in the court receiving legal advice, but the court is already highly sensitive to the problems, intrusion and distress that can be caused by the subpoenaing of therapeutic records. It's a matter on which the court is already fully engaged, and I would expect it will continue to be.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context