Page 5293 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (10.18): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with Mr Humphries when he says that he thinks it is important to maintain protection, but I would look at protection from the other viewpoint. If there is a situation that involves someone with the potential of being injured, or someone has been injured, that needs to be reported. If a person inside the system is not getting the satisfaction that they should, they should have the right and responsibility to go outside the system and talk to whoever they need to. They need to get the message out, be it the newspapers or whatever, and there should be no penalty for that. It could be a matter of health. I think that is the greater protection that is required. I think that the reasonable thing to do is not perhaps to make the changes later on but to delete the clause now and then, as soon as possible, fix it up, but in that time do not prevent someone from blowing the whistle when they should be able to do that.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (10.19): I endorse just about all I have heard, except really it is a question of the process. My colleague Mr Humphries rightly speaks of privacy, but at the same time other Assembly members mention the balance that has to be achieved to allow fair and reasonable access to matters that should be in the public domain.
To my knowledge, the medico-legal committee of the AMA takes a strong interest in this matter, or it did when I was last in practice. You used to find situations where the lawyers would subpoena all of the medical records of someone. Often, say, a woman who was pursuing a personal injuries claim would have all of those personal, private records relating to procedures unrelated to the motor vehicle accident subpoenaed. In the private world, it is very hard to prevent that information from being returned with the subpoena. That is an invasion of privacy that happens constantly in the private arena.
In a public area, at least the public health authorities seek to defeat those fishing inquiries where lawyers instructed by insurance companies go on a fishing expedition to see what the private medical procedures and experiences of persons who otherwise have quite legitimate claims have been. This is a very complex matter that has entertained the medical and legal profession for some time in this city. Members will recall an outbreak of bickering between the AMA and the lawyers of this town within the last year or two.
Essentially, I agree with my colleague, the Minister for Health, in that we should have this matter looked at soon by one of our appropriate reform committees. I do not want to make an immediate decision on my feet as to which is the correct point of reference. Perhaps it is the Community Law Reform Committee. Perhaps it is that this matter be included in our privacy legislation, but I doubt that that would happen unless we have had a consultative base to it. The Criminal Law Consultative Committee is also involved in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .