Peter Kavanagh MLC

"A Story About Life"

2010-11-12T12:53:00.008+11:00

For the purposes of informing the voting public during this election campaign, Pro-Life Victoria has a professionally produced video made. This video features Melissa Ohden, (who survived being aborted at approximately 5 months gestation), and Peter Kavanagh MLC, discussing the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008.

To view this video, please follow this link: http://www.prolife.org.au/videos.php#1

GEELONG RING ROAD: SECTION 4C ROUTE - PETITION

2010-08-18T16:26:00.002+10:00

27 July 2010 COUNCIL

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that as electors entitled to vote for the members of the Parliament, we judge the close proximity to our community of the proposed six-lane Surf Coast Highway connection (Geelong Ring Road, section 4C) to be extremely bad for our community, diminishing our quality of life and devaluing our houses. This proposed highway has not been subjected to community consultation during its planning process which has not been conducted in an honest, open or transparent manner, contrary to the core values of the Geelong City Council and VicRoads.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council of Victoria note that our will is that if the highway is built, we require it to be built south along the Boundary Road alignment which is south of its present planned route, where it would go through as much vacant land as possible, adversely affecting as few residents as possible. If it is build in the currently planned position, the petitioners will hold the state government and VicRoads responsible for any loss of value of our properties and reduction in our quality of life, through increased noise levels and air pollution that will result from the close proximity of the construction of this proposed highway to our homes.

By Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) (894 signatures).

Laid on table.

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: COMMUNIST MEMBERS

2010-08-18T16:23:00.004+10:00

28 July 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Earlier this month Bob Carr publicly praised the Democratic Labor Party as being fundamentally correct in its assessment of the infiltration of the ALP by communists. He wrote:

... the bombshell ... is the system of dual membership of the ALP and the CPA, something long suspected but now spelt out by the ASIO documents ...

The implications are huge.

He added that the revelations vindicate the Democratic Labor Party and said:

... the DLP indictment of the ramshackle Labor Party ... was mostly right.

He says the evidence is that probably two Whitlam government ministers were also members of the Communist Party.

Mr Carr is also reported as saying:

Calwell accommodated himself to the communist-dominated Victorian state ALP executive and finally, absurdly, joined in even while serving as federal leader.

An editorial in the Australian says that Frank Hardy, among other people, was accepting money from the Soviet Union for his propaganda work in Australia, but this is not widely known because of the Marxist domination of history faculties.

By its nature communism inherently means mass murder and an economic backwardness to the point of widespread cannibalism.

For a long time the efforts and concerns of anti-communists have been ridiculed with the phrase 'Reds under the beds', but the truth is that the documents show that Communist Party members were not under the beds but were in the universities and also in the halls of political power, including the party executives, Australian parliaments and cabinet rooms under the aegis of the ALP after 1955.

It is a disgrace that this issue has not been taken up by the press in Victoria; it has been totally ignored.

SMALL BUSINESS: RETAIL LEASES

2010-08-18T16:20:00.002+10:00

27 July 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Small Business, Joe Helper, and relates to the laws that govern leases in shopping centres. I was recently visited in my electorate office by a former lessor of retail premises in a Geelong shopping centre. This businessman in effect had his business and livelihood destroyed by the power of the shopping centre where he had previously leased premises. I use the word 'power' advisedly because there is usually, and there was in this case, a gross power imbalance between the lessors and the lessees in shopping centres.

The businessman and the shopping centre both knew he was being treated unfairly and in a way that constituted a civil wrong. The businessman sued and won an award of damages, which both parties fully expected.

The problem is that Victoria's legislation makes it very difficult to obtain an order for costs even if you are initiating unsuccessful litigation. This deficiency in the laws and regulations has contributed, in the opinion of this businessman, to a decision by the shopping centre to appeal. Even if the shopping centre loses, the businessman's net proceeds are likely to almost disappear through his having to bear his own costs.

The action I am seeking from the minister is for him to review the present legislation and regulations that govern shopping centre leases in Victoria with a view to alleviating the power imbalance between shopping centre lessors and lessees. Specifically I ask the minister to consider possible amendments to relevant legislation and regulations which would allow courts to award costs against unsuccessful litigants where it would be just to do so and thereby prevent the use of raw monetary power in ways that are inconsistent with the attainment of justice.

VIETNAM VETERANS: APOLOGY

2010-08-18T16:19:00.002+10:00

12 August 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Next week, 18 August, is Long Tan Day, and in the lead-up to that occasion I wish to repeat my call for a national

*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***

sorry day for Australia's returned servicemen from Vietnam. These Australians gave great service in the defence of South Vietnam and in the service of Australia during that war. Unfortunately many of them were very badly treated upon their return to Australia. Since I made this call a couple of months ago many of them have written to me and confirmed that some of their problems are the result of the way that they were treated upon their return to Australia, and some of them say that a national sorry day would indeed help to overcome some of the difficulties and challenges that they have faced since their return from Vietnam.

VIETNAM VETERANS: APOLOGY

2010-08-18T16:16:00.002+10:00

24 June 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The triumph of Australia's extreme left in Canberra today raises an item of unfinished national business. With Vietnam Veterans Day looming on 18 August, I call on the commonwealth to institute a national sorry day to apologise to Vietnam veterans for the disgraceful way they were treated after giving valiant service to Australia -- directly to the defence of South Vietnam, and indirectly to the defence of Cambodia and Laos.

On their return from Vietnam, Australian soldiers were not paid the respect that their overwhelmingly honourable and often humanitarian service deserved. In fact they were often treated with derision and contempt, sometimes being returned home to Australia at night to avoid rabid demonstrators -- the political predecessors to our new Prime Minister and her soul mates.

This was not because of the actions of the Vietnam veterans themselves, but because the cause for which they fought, rightly or wrongly, became unpopular. There is considerable opinion that this mistreatment has greatly contributed to post-traumatic stress disorder and other health problems that many Vietnam veterans have had to face in trying to re-establish happy lives.

Yesterday I spoke with a DLP member who is a Vietnam veteran; he is in terrible pain and physical agony from the wounds he received in the Vietnam War. What I am mainly talking about here, though, are the psychological difficulties and other associated obstacles that Vietnam veterans must face. There is reason to believe that a sincere national apology to Vietnam veterans might well, even at this late stage, help those men who served Australia as well. I call for a one-off national sorry day on 18 August, or somewhere around that date, to express an apology to Australia's Vietnam veterans -- they deserve more from this country than they have received.

ENERGY: GHERANG GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

2010-08-18T16:12:00.001+10:00

10 June 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My matter is for the Minister for Energy and Resources and relates to the development of geothermal power and greenhouse gas sequestration, particularly in and around Gherang in my electorate of Western Victoria Region. The majority of residents of Gherang and surrounding areas are not at all enthusiastic about the development of geothermal power around their houses, farms and businesses. Most of them are extremely concerned for the beauty, peacefulness and safety of their homes and neighbourhoods, which are located in some of Victoria's prettiest countryside.

Gherang residents have, however, chosen not to simply oppose the geothermal development. Under the leadership of local resident Daniel Briggs and others, they have developed a series of proposed regulations and safeguards, which, if incorporated into the proposed development, would meet their minimum demands.

The professionally drafted policy briefing package that has been put together by and on behalf of local residents includes 35 policies -- that is, restrictions and safeguards. Most of these suggested requirements seem to be extremely reasonable, such as buffer zones around homes.

I congratulate those involved in developing this policy briefing package and ask the government to seriously consider this document, which I will forward to the minister, and incorporate these suggested safeguards into the regulatory framework that deals with geothermal developments and greenhouse gas sequestration.

ENERGY: GHERANG GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

2010-08-18T16:08:00.003+10:00

10 March 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On the evening of Thursday, 4 March, I attended a community meeting at the Wurdale community hall. At that meeting were a large number of residents of Gherang and surrounding areas. The meeting was organised by Daniel and Matthew Briggs.

The people at that meeting expressed deep concern that their area has been selected to be the site of a major geothermal project. The local residents were outraged that they were never consulted about this and indeed only found out about it through one of the local residents happening to stumble across it on the internet. They were also angry that the responsible minister, the Minister for Energy and Resources, has consistently refused to meet or consult with them.

The residents are concerned about a wide range of risks to their health and to the local environment, including carbon dioxide emissions and, as happened at a geothermal site in Switzerland, man-made earthquakes, ground subsidence, a possible leaching of toxic fluids above the ground, and a wide range of other potential problems.

I urge the government to consult with the local residents around Gherang and come up with plans in conjunction with the developer of this project to ensure that the local environment is protected and respected and that any risks to the health or welfare of local people in Gherang and the surrounding areas are averted.

ABORTION: HEALTH RISKS

2010-08-18T16:06:00.003+10:00

9 June 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health and relates to the apparent link between abortion and breast cancer. During the abortion debate in this Parliament in late 2008 I went into considerable detail, listing some of the scientific evidence which demonstrates that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Even more recent scientific studies released in 2009 confirm such a link.

Concerned Victorians who have some expertise in these matters have reported to me that they have approached various health organisations and health leaders in Victoria to alert them to the latest research, but they have not received any acknowledgement or any other kind of response.

The submitted research includes the following: Ozmen V. and others in 'Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women' in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2009, 7:37; Xing P. and others in 'A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China' in Medical Oncology, e-publication online, September 2009; Dolle J. and others in 'Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years' in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18(4), pages 1157-1166.

Apparently these important warnings are being ignored by the health authorities to which they are being reported. It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that ideological commitment to unrestricted abortion may be preventing a proper assessment of the health risks of abortion.

The action I seek from the minister is that he seek an objective review of the evidence of a relationship between abortions and breast cancer risk, and if such a link is shown to exist, to issue medical warnings along these lines, even if this has the effect of reducing the number of abortions.

FISHING: CORIO BAY

2010-08-18T15:58:00.004+10:00

8 June 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture in his capacity as fisheries minister and relates to Corio Bay. I have recently been visited in my Geelong office by several local fishermen who have decades of experience fishing in Corio Bay. They told me that over recent years they have seen fish stocks almost wiped out in Corio Bay, which is a fish nursery for the whole of the greater bay. These fishermen blame excessive commercial fishing in Corio Bay and state that catches are now a small fraction of what they were around a decade ago. It seems that the permanent ban on line fishing in Western Port may be one factor detrimentally affecting fish levels in Corio Bay.

The destruction of fishing in Corio Bay will have consequences far beyond those to be inflicted on people who make their living directly from catching and selling its fish. It will have knock-on effects for those in a range of industries, such as boat hire businesses, and would be detrimental to tourism generally as well as to the recreational opportunities available to local residents.

I do not by any means seek a permanent ban on commercial fishing in Corio Bay. I am seeking from the minister action to protect and rebuild Corio Bay's remaining fish stocks to ensure they are managed in a sustainable manner.

This would seem likely to involve instituting a temporary pause on commercial fishing in Corio Bay, perhaps requiring compensation for those whose livelihoods would be affected, and regulating future fishing in a way that ensures fish survive in Corio Bay and remain available for future generations.

WIND FARMS: HEALTH EFFECTS

2010-08-18T15:42:00.004+10:00

13 August 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health, the Honourable Daniel Andrews, and it relates to the effects of wind turbines. Yesterday the government announced a new and extremely large wind turbine development in this state. As a member for Western Victoria Region it seems to me that perhaps the government does not understand the extent of hostility and concern about wind turbines in western Victoria about the noise nuisance and even the degradation of the landscape, which comes from dotting the prettiest parts of our state with gigantic pieces of industrial equipment.

The government has already done some perfunctory studies of the health effects of turbines and has concluded that they do not show clear health risks. This is a conclusion inconsistent with some published studies.

*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***

The action I seek is for the minister to commit to reviewing new, just-published studies of the health effects of wind turbines, some of which suggest that there are good reasons to be concerned.

WINDFARMS: PLANNING GUIDELINES

2010-08-18T15:39:00.004+10:00

27 May 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is to the Minister for Planning, Mr Madden, and relates to approval guidelines for wind farms. On 27 April this year, in rejecting The Sisters wind farm proposal near Mortlake, VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) determined that the appropriate standards for making planning decisions on wind farms are the New Zealand standards of 2010 -- an update of the 1998 New Zealand standards. The 2010 standards effectively offer marginally more protection to local residents than the outdated 1998 standards. The minister has called in the Yaloak South project, which is very similar in scale to The Sisters proposal and would probably not comply with the 2010 standard and would therefore probably not have got approval from VCAT. The Department of Planning and Community Development has, however, officially stated, as of two days ago, that, and I quote, 'the DPCD uses the New Zealand 1998 standard for determining wind farm standards'. Would it not be more appropriate in 2010 to apply 2010 standards rather than outdated, 12-year-old standards, even if this means that projects the minister might personally support might not go ahead?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I welcome Mr Kavanagh's interest in these matters.

There is a great deal of interest in the policy positions of parties in this state in relation to wind farms. There is interest on a number of fronts in relation to wind farms, particularly because, as Mr Kavanagh mentioned, of the new New Zealand standards for wind farms that have been introduced this year. We are particularly interested in those new standards, and we are committed as a government to ensuring that the best standards are introduced. We are currently undertaking work at a national level with other jurisdictions to make sure that any upgrade, update or consideration given to improving those standards is done on the basis of a national approach.

I recognise the interest of many people in the community in the introduction of the new New Zealand standards, and I am also very enthusiastic about that being undertaken. But we are committed to a national approach on wind farms and we are committed to having a national standard through agreements with other jurisdictions.

There will always be those who advocate strongly for or against wind farms for various reasons, and there is legitimacy on both fronts as to why people may or may not consider wind farms appropriate for whatever reason. I certainly welcome people's opportunity to have input to that. That is why I recently -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- That is why I agreed to the request of the Moorabool shire to ensure that the cumulative impacts of the wind farm facilities that have been applied for or are being considered in its jurisdiction. I was conscious of the need to have cumulative impacts considered when you have a number of wind facilities located close to each other. As part of that there will be an opportunity for those who feel strongly one way or the other to make their representations to advisory committees in relation to these projects.

Those matters can then be considered in a coordinated manner and in relation to the cumulative impacts.

As a government we have a great deal of enthusiasm for wind projects, but we also recognise the need to have them thoroughly considered, particularly on technical merit and technical grounds. We have also listened to local government, which has said to us -- and said directly to me quite recently -- that, given the technical requirements, the high degree of complexity and the need for significant investment in the assessment and monitoring of these applications and these facilities, it would prefer the government become the relevant authority for all projects, not just for projects of over 30 megawatts.

We have listened to communities and local governments in relation to this. We have certainly listened to the Moorabool shire's request to have these matters dealt with by the government.

As such I have nominated that I will become the relevant authority.

It is also worth considering that there is a significant process by which an independent advisory committee will hear submissions, assess the technical merit on all fronts of these projects and provide advice to me and the department on these projects. I look forward to that. I recognise the issues they may raise may even include those new standards or relevant issues in relation to those standards.

Supplementary question

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I thank the minister for the answer. But is not the real reason that outdated standards are used because it may allow the department to say wind farms are a nuisance and even do damage to neighbouring properties?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I welcome Mr Kavanagh's question. Can I just pick up on Mr Kavanagh's impression that wind farms might do damage to neighbours or to communities. That is a pejorative term that Mr Kavanagh has chosen to use which I do not think complements the needs and the matters that should be considered by communities and by the relevant authorities and the independent process by which these projects are assessed. Any project of any stature in any community that requires a planning permit will allow people to make comment, and I think that comment is a good thing.

Some would say that wind farms are not good; some would say they are fantastic. I have an open mind on all fronts to any project that comes before me and that requires a decision. I would suggest that each project should be considered on its merits, should be considered appropriately by the independent panel and should be considered not only on its technical merits but also the justification in relation to the location and all those other issues that warrant consideration. That should determine whether a project is or is not a good project.

I expect that appropriate decisions will be made, on the basis of that advice.

However, to suggest that all wind farm or wind turbine projects are damaging is one step too far, because at the end of the day, they provide jobs in local communities, they provide cleaner energy and they provide economic development across regional Victoria, not only for those immediate locations but for the other industries that maintain services and complement the industry in regional Victoria.

I recognise Mr Kavanagh's concern, and I realise there are those in the community who feel strongly about these projects. It is important to recognise that. I also recognise that there are people who feel strongly and positively towards these sorts of projects. Both of those positions have to be considered in relation to any project on its merits.

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- It is interesting to hear the comments from the opposition members in relation to these projects. Straightaway they are taking a position where, obviously from the comments I have heard across the chamber today, they do not believe any wind farm project has any merit. We have seen that through the policy announcements made by Mr Baillieu recently, that he would be quite happy to stymie this fledgling industry at a time when it is more important than ever to deliver jobs to regional Victoria and, in relation to energy provision, not only into regional Victoria but more broadly into Victoria, clean energy which complements the traditional energy provision that has taken place in this state.

I recognise Mr Kavanagh's interest in these matters. I recognise that he has a particular view. I do not necessarily agree with that view. I believe that each project should be assessed on its merits and all the technical provisions that need to be considered.

I also recognise from the comments made by the likes of Mr Finn and others on the opposition back benches and front benches that they have a jaundiced view of wind energy in this state. Unfortunately that jaundiced view has informed their policy position, which would kill wind energy in this state overnight.

WIND FARMS: WAUBRA

2010-08-18T15:38:00.004+10:00

27 May 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and relates to wind farms in the Waubra area. The Shire of Pyrenees and others have been calling on the Environment Protection Agency to visit Waubra and conduct an environmental safety study of the wind farms there. The Minister for Planning has recently stated publicly that the EPA will undertake an environmental study of Waubra's wind farms if it is invited to do so. It has been invited to do so many times. The action I seek is that the minister organise for the EPA to visit Waubra and undertake just such a study of whether the environment there is safe or not.

WIND FARMS: HEALTH EFFECTS

2010-08-18T15:33:00.004+10:00

2 February 2010 COUNCIL

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On Sunday I attended and spoke in the tiny township of Evansford, north of Ballarat. The meeting was attended by about 60 people who are all deeply concerned about the health effects of wind farms, which now dominate the landscape. In my address to the meeting I noted the legal principle established in the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher -- that is, that a person is not entitled to do something on his property which adversely affects a neighbour. It seems to me, as I said then, that this principle is applicable to noise as well as to other potential hazards. I noted too the ancient rule in medicine: do no harm. Wisdom dictates that we should not engage in behaviour that is potentially harmful, even if that harm has not yet been proven.

Democratic principles also demand that local people should decide local issues for themselves. Those in Evansford who have dealt with government members of Parliament have been surprised at their indifference and indeed the cavalier attitude they usually take to this issue.

I urge the government to change its attitude and to listen to people who are affected adversely by wind farms and to change the regulations so that wind farms in the future do not cause damage to people near whom they are located.

DRUGS, POISONS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT (PROHIBITION ON DISPLAY AND SALE OF BONGS) BILL

2010-08-18T15:13:00.006+10:00

Statement of compatibility

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (prohibition of Display and Sale of Bongs) Bill 2010.

In my opinion, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (prohibition of Display and Sale of Bongs) Bill 2010 is compatible with the human rights that are protected by the charter.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to prohibit the display and sale of bongs and to limit the display of hookahs.

There is at least one human rights issue addressed in the charter which is possibly raised by the bill. Property rights are dealt with under division 2 of the bill which provides for the seizure of bongs and hookahs and their components in certain circumstances.

Under section 20 of the charter, 'A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law'.

If the bill is passed, any seizure of bongs, hookahs or their components will be allowed only according to law and would therefore would not be contrary to the charter.

Second reading

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Prohibition of Display and Sale of Bongs) Bill 2010 is to discourage the public display and sale of bongs in Victoria. No doubt, even if this bill is passed it will not completely end the sale and display of bongs, but there are still very good reasons for its enactment.

Those reasons include curtailing the harm to physical and mental health done by marijuana, limiting the power of this drug to lead to other even more destructive and addictive drugs and reducing the encouragement that the open display and sale of bongs gives to young people to begin consuming cannabis.

Opponents of marijuana have long been ridiculed by its proponents. Many of us have probably watched the film Reefer Madness at university, for example. Reefer Madness, made in 1936, presented the case against marijuana in ways that seemed absurd to later generations. It has often been shown in more recent times in order to ridicule the film's basic contentions that marijuana is harmful and properly illegal. The style of that film made its warnings appear nonsensical to audiences of the 60s and beyond, but its basic message -- that marijuana consumption is harmful -- is even truer today than it was when the film was made.

The debate in Australia over marijuana has hardly changed in more than 40 years even though, over that period of time, the drug itself has changed dramatically. Marijuana is no longer the relatively mild drug that it was in the 1960s. Its active component, THC, has increased dramatically. Some researchers claim that, through genetic engineering, the THC content of marijuana has increased from about 1 per cent around 1970 to more than 30 per cent in some cases today. During the first quarter of 2009, University of Mississippi researchers reported that the THC content of 'super pot' seized during the period was 27.3 per cent, and some samples had up to 37.2 per cent THC content (quarterly report -- potency monitoring project, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 15 March 2009, page 6). Some dispute this degree of increase in the potency of cannabis, but it is clear that whatever the precise degree of increase, marijuana is now much more powerful than it was a few decades ago, even though the public debate and assumptions about marijuana being a soft drug have hardly changed at all.

Marijuana consumption is clearly very dangerous to physical and mental health. In respect of mental health there is an obvious and very strong link between marijuana use and the development of mental illnesses including schizophrenia and paranoia. This is so easily observed among regular marijuana users that it hardly needs elucidation here.

In the face of a huge preponderance of evidence, those who defend cannabis argue that people who are prone to mental problems are the very people who smoke marijuana in the first place. Some proponents of marijuana argue that cannabis merely brings out mental problems among those who have pre-existing dispositions; but is that not being a bit too clever? Does it not amount to playing with words?

The fact is that many young people who are developing mental illnesses would never have manifested or developed such problems if they had never smoked marijuana. Yesterday three ladies visited me in my office here in Parliament House. They told me that among their children they have a total of four or five sons who now have severe drug dependency problems. Those men are now all aged in their early 30s. Those ladies fear that all of their sons will die very soon as a result of drug addiction. They told me that their sons began their many years of drug abuse by using marijuana in their teens and that the majority of them showed clear signs of marijuana consumption by an obvious deterioration in their behaviour, including uncharacteristic aggression and in some cases violence.

In 2002 the British Medical Journal published the results of a study undertaken on cannabis use and mental health in young people (BMJ volume 325, 23 November 2002). The study was based on a review of 1601 middle school students in 44 schools right here in Victoria. undertaken by a team led by George C. Patton, professor of adolescent health at the Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville. The study showed that some 60 per cent of participants had used cannabis by the age of 20, and 7 per cent were daily users at that point.

Daily use in young women was associated with an over fivefold increase in the odds of reporting a state of depression and anxiety after adjustment for intercurrent use of other substances. Weekly or more frequent cannabis use in teenagers predicted an approximately twofold increase in risk for later depression and anxiety after adjustment for potential baseline confounders.

In addition to problems that we all know about resulting from marijuana use, being schizophrenia and paranoia, depression and anxiety are also long-term problems for marijuana users.

The damage being done by cannabis is not limited to the brain. In 2008 Dr Richard Beasley, director of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, and his colleagues reported their findings on the cancer risk of pot smoking in the European Respiratory Journal. They warned of an impending, 'Epidemic of cancer caused by cannabis'.

Their research showed that each joint had the effective carcinogenic power of 20 cigarettes.

On 23 January 2000 the Observer newspaper in the United Kingdom ran an article by health editor Anthony Browne 'US research says cancer more than twice as likely for cannabis smokers'. It stated that for decades it has been the retort of cannabis smokers that dope is not as bad for you as cigarettes or alcohol. But after years of ambiguous research, US scientists now claim it is worse. Regular smokers of cannabis can be more than 30 times as likely to get cancer of the neck, throat, mouth and larynx as those who have never inhaled. Nor does giving up the weed cut the risk. According to the research, quitting does not reduce the damage. This study, carried out in New York, was the first to definitely link the smoking of joints to full cancers of the head and neck.

There are mixed views about the effects of using bongs compared with consuming marijuana without bongs. It is claimed on the one hand that the water in bongs removes some impurities, making the drug less harmful per puff, but that water in bongs also simultaneously removes some of the THC, causing users to take more puffs to achieve the same high.

It is also often passionately claimed that in some circumstances cannabis can have health benefits. There is some evidence that cannabis can also be used in some forms to treat some diseases. This is possibly true. No doubt the introduction of new, effective drugs would be a very welcome development, regardless of their botanical source. It is also true, however, that passage of this bill would not prevent the medicinal use of cannabis in the event that it is found to have therapeutic value in particular cases.

My main problem, however, is the effect that the open display and sale of bongs in Victoria has on the attitudes of vulnerable people. A young person in this situation will observe that the very implements that are specifically designed and manufactured to consume marijuana are openly sold in shops. Surely teenagers who are tempted to use marijuana by the desire to rebel at their age and by claims that it is fun and pleasurable -- which no doubt it is -- take encouragement to use cannabis from seeing bongs openly displayed in Victorian shops. Who could blame that teenager for concluding, when they see shops full of bongs, that Victoria's laws against marijuana consumption are a joke?

Indeed, from this building one can walk not very far at all down Bourke Street, to the second shop after Russell Street, to see this. Two weeks ago I did this and counted more than 200 bongs in the front window, including probably more than 50 different types of bongs, some of which were in the shape of a human skull, for example.

If that young person is encouraged by the open sale of bongs to use marijuana and goes on to develop some or all of the effects of cannabis use, like addictions to other drugs, mental illnesses and physical problems such as tumours in the head, might he be somewhat justified in feeling that his politicians had let him down? Might he not reasonably feel that by allowing the open display of bongs and sale of bongs, members of Parliament had actually suggested to him that there was nothing harmful or wrong about cannabis?

It was widely argued in the past that marijuana leads to the consumption of other drugs of addiction. The three ladies who visited me yesterday told me that all of their sons who are now addicted to drugs began their lifetimes of addiction to a range of drugs, including heroin and ice, by using marijuana. One of my cousins, whom I loved dearly and who was younger than me, died prematurely after a lifetime of using prescription drugs. His father told me recently that my cousin began his drug problems by using cannabis when he was a teenager. He feels sure that his son would be alive today if he had not begun smoking marijuana when he was a teenager.

I understand the passage of this bill will not suddenly put an end to all our drug problems and it will probably not even have a very large impact on the rate of cannabis use in Victoria. Experience in other states suggests that it is difficult to entirely eliminate commercial bongs. It is also not very difficult to manufacture a homemade bong if commercially made bongs become unavailable. Passage of this bill would nevertheless bring some significant benefits.

Allowing the open display and sale of bongs creates commercial establishments that have a strong financial interest in getting young people to use marijuana. This can obviously lead to a marijuana habit, if not addiction, and a progression to addiction to other drugs.

After announcing my intention to propose this bill, one of my brothers told me a story involving his son that I had never heard before.

When he was about 14 years old, my nephew told his parents that after he had got off the train on his way home from school, while wearing his school uniform, the female owner of a shop in a shopping centre approached him and his friends in the vicinity of the train station. She told them that cannabis was a lot of fun but to really enjoy it, they should buy a bong from her nearby shop. This is what she said to a group of 14-year-olds. My sister-in-law and brother were both furious when they were told what had happened. They are people with resources and of intelligence and determination in unusual abundance. They pursued this matter, which resulted in some, though limited, action against the would-be bong seller. Unfortunately a majority of Victorians whose children are abused in this way -- and I think it is abuse of an under-age person -- do not have the wherewithal to take effective action, even in the fairly unlikely event that they ever find out about it.

The three ladies who visited me yesterday told me something that I have heard from many other people -- their sense of helplessness when they realised that their sons were addicted to drugs. They said they find it outrageous that bongs are sold openly. They are frustrated and angry when they hear people suggesting that marijuana is harmless. One of the ladies said it would be less harmful if heroin were legalised than marijuana. These ladies try to help other parents who are beginning to experience what they have been going through for nearly 20 years. They are angry that although they have been dealing with the effects of illicit drugs for nearly 20 years, they say that there have been no significant improvements in the way we deal with drugs during that whole period.

Clearly there are other actions apart from banning the display and sale of bongs that could be taken to effectively deal with drugs, that we are not doing now.

One of the ladies yesterday suggested that a system of linking databases of pharmacists and doctors is necessary to prevent addicts shopping around for prescription drugs that are provided at no cost or almost no cost to users who have health-care cards -- that is, almost everyone who is unemployed, among others.

In my opinion the system instituted in Sweden that compulsorily detoxifies and rehabilitates those with drug habits is the only effective strategy. In the case of teenagers who are found to be consuming marijuana, attendance at a non-custodial, anti-marijuana course like that provided for drink drivers in America could provide an option for desperate parents who presently feel helpless to help their children.

It would be expensive to introduce such measures but one look at our criminal justice system will immediately reveal the costs of not taking such action.

Compulsory detoxification and rehabilitation are the basis of the correct approach, partly because they involve intervention at the earliest stage possible -- the point in time at which intervention is most likely to be effective. Unlike the banning of the display and sale of bongs, such a systematic change to our approach to illegal drugs would require not merely a single bill. It would require changes to dozens of pieces of legislation and to the policies of varied departments -- clearly a task for a government rather than a private member.

Marijuana consumption is extremely harmful to both the mind and to the body. It not infrequently leads its often young consumers to other drugs. It entices those who may not know much better and ends up killing some and robbing others of their mental health. If we fail in our duty to protect the public, especially the young, do we not share in responsibility for the harm it eventually does, particularly to those who were not yet adults when they began to consume this drug?

It seems to me that a person now in his 30s or 40s, for example, who has been addicted to various dugs since his adolescence might reasonably be able to claim that when he was a teenager he knew there were laws against marijuana, but at the same time he also saw bongs openly and legally for sale. He might feel and indeed contend that in making the laws against this dangerous drug seem like a joke by allowing bongs to be openly displayed and sold, politicians failed him when he was a teenager, just when he needed the benefits of the guidance and advice of those who were older and those who knew better -- when he needed our help and advice and guidance.

Might he not be justified in saying that when he was young and inexperienced and perhaps somewhat foolish, those who were elected to use their experience and their wisdom for the benefit of the community, including his benefit, failed to do so? Could he not reasonably say that leaders of his society declined to effectively warn those in need by banning the public display and sale of instruments that clearly have no other purpose than to facilitate the consumption of marijuana?

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria).

Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 12 May.

Drought: Government Assistance

2010-08-10T14:42:00.004+10:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard 10 March 2010

Raised with: Minister for Agriculture

Raised by: Mr Kavanagh

Raised on: 10 March 2010

REPLY:

I refer to the matter that you raised during the Adjournment Debate in the Legislative Council on 10 March 2010, concerning the cessation of drought assistance in South Western Victoria - which is linked to Exceptional Circumstance (EC) declarations.

Until recently, the majority of Victoria was EC declared. EC events are rare and severe events that are outside those that a farmer could normally be expected to manage using responsible farm management strategies. Drought is an example of an EC event. A range of EC declared areas, including South Western Victoria, were set to expire on 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010.

EC declarations underpin the provision of significant Commonwealth support, including EC Relief Payments and EC Interest Rate Subsidies.

Decisions to grant and extend EC declarations are made by the Commonwealth Government. The National Rural Advisory Council (NRAC) provides independent advice on the need for assistance to the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

A streamlined review process was introduced to make it easier for farmers who have not experienced a break in the drought to have their EC declarations assessed for a possible extension. Under the review process, NRAC reviews EC declared areas before their expiry date to assess whether an extension to the declaration is warranted. As part of the review NRAC assesses information from a number of sources. If NRAC assesses an area as no longer being in exceptional circumstances, and the Commonwealth Government accepts the advice not to extend the declaration, assistance ceases on the date the declaration ends. If NRAC supports extending the declaration, and the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry agrees, assistance continues until the new declaration end date.

With regard to the EC declaration for South Western Victoria, NRAC determined that seasonal conditions have allowed the majority of producers to return to typical farm management practices in the area and on this basis recommended that the EC declarations for South Western Victoria cease on 31 March 2010. The Hon. Tony Burke, commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, accepted NRAC's advice that conditions have improved in South Western Victoria, and on 25 February 2010 announced that EC assistance would not be extended for this area.

The Victorian Premier John Brumby announced a $47 million drought package on 22 October 2009. The three Victorian initiatives that are linked to EC declarations will still be available to eligible farmers when the EC declaration ceases on 31 March 2010. These are the Municipal Rate Subsidy (MRS) 2009-10, Farm Improvement Grant and the Drought Apprenticeship Retention Bonus 2009-10.

There are other Victorian Government programs available to farmers that do not have EC eligibility requirements. The $205 million Future Farming strategy released in April 2008 invests in programs to improve the ability of farmers to be productive, competitive and sustainable in the future. This strategy includes actions that assist farm families and rural communities to manage change, including the AgFutures Initiatives, Sustainable Farm Families, Case Management for Farmers, and the National Centre for Farmer Health.

At the Commonwealth Government level, there are also a range of programs, including Transitional Income Support (TIS) through the Commonwealth Government's Climate Change Adjustment Program. The income support is paid equivalent to the Newstart Allowance, providing a possible income relief substitute to the EC Relief Payments.

Page 2120

The Victorian Government will continue to monitor drought impacts in the South Western area and provide appropriate, targeted support which best meets the needs of affected farmers and their communities.

Thank you for raising this matter during the adjournment debate.

Corio Bay: Pollution

2010-08-10T14:33:00.006+10:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard - 14 April 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and relates to a matter I previously raised in this house with him concerning allegations of extremely high contamination of heavy metals in the beaches around Corio Bay. There is evidence in the form of studies -- undertaken by semi-professional individuals, I might say -- showing extremely high levels of heavy metal pollution in the sands around Corio Bay.

The action I seek from the minister is to review any health data relating to conditions possibly related to heavy metals around Corio Bay and report on the incidence of risks to health from possible excessive levels of heavy metals in the sands around Corio Bay.

Wind Farms - Health Effects

2010-08-10T14:09:00.005+10:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard 24 March 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission in his capacity as minister for workplace safety.

Last year the minister undertook to do a study of the possible health effects of wind farms. Some affected people from my electorate are concerned that this study has apparently been restricted to reviewing literature on the subject. Some of them want on-site investigations. They want investigators to see, feel and hear the effects of the neighbouring wind farms. The action I seek from the minister is an undertaking to have on-site inspections done of wind farms by work safety inspectors.

Launch of Barry Street Names

2010-03-29T09:26:00.008+11:00

1. Moira Kelly making speech

2. Peter Kavanagh making speech

3. John and Peter Kavanagh unveiling street name

4. Mark Poloso (Great Grandson of Bill and Mary Barry) and Moira Kelly unveiling street name

5. Mark Poloso and Moira Kelly ready to unveil street name

Hansard: Geothermal Power

2010-03-23T11:14:00.002+11:00

Title Gherang: Geothermal Project
House COUNCIL
Activity Members Statements
Members KAVANAGH
Date 10 March 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On the evening of Thursday, 4 March I attended a community meeting at the Wurdale community hall. At that meeting were a large number of residents of Gherang and surrounding areas. The meeting was organised by Daniel and Matthew Briggs.
The people at that meeting expressed deep concern that their area has been selected to be the site of a major geothermal project. The local residents were outraged that they were never consulted about this and indeed only found out about it through one of the local residents happening to stumble across it on the internet. They were also angry that the responsible minister, the Minister for Energy and Resources, they say has consistently refused to meet or consult with them.
*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***
The residents are concerned at a wide range of risks to their health and to the local environment, including carbon dioxide emissions and, as in Switzerland, at a geothermal site, man-made earthquakes, ground subsidence, a possible leaching of toxic fluids above the ground, and a wide range of other potential problems.
I urge the government to consult with the local residents around Gherang and come up with plans in conjunction with the developer of this project to ensure that the local environment is protected and respected and that any risks to the health or welfare of local people in Gherang and the surrounding areas are averted.

Hansard: Drought: Government Assistance

2010-03-23T11:12:00.000+11:00

Title Drought: government assistance
House COUNCIL
Activity Adjournment
Members KAVANAGH
Date 10 March 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Helper, and it relates to his recent decision to end drought assistance for the inland parts of south-western Victoria. I have been approached by south-western farmers who tell me that on farms in the inland parts of south-western Victoria, as distinct from the coast, which is very much better, they are still very badly affected by the lack of spring rains last year, which has dramatically reduced their crops. The result is that some farmers are not even attempting to harvest most of their acreage, which is obviously to their very great cost.
I add my voice to the representations made by the local member in the other place, Mr Delahunty.
*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***
The action I seek from the minister is to urgently reconsider his decision to end drought relief for the non-coastal parts of south-western Victoria and to reinstitute drought relief which is very much needed by many farmers in the south-west.

Hansard: Caulfield Racecourse: public access

2010-03-23T10:28:00.001+11:00

Title Caulfield Racecourse: public access
House COUNCIL
Activity Adjournment
Members KAVANAGH
Date 9 March 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, and relates to public access to the Caulfield racecourse. The minister recently promised to improve public access to the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and to develop the centre as a public park -- that is, the land that is surrounded by the racing track.

I ask the minister to expeditiously, firstly, fulfil his promise to develop a park in the whole of the central area of the racecourse; secondly, act to improve access and infrastructure and opening times for that public space; thirdly, to publicly campaign to let the public know that the land is public land and accessible by them; and fourthly, to act to alter the fence along Queens Avenue so that the public can see the property that belongs to them in the hope that they will access it more frequently.

Growth Area Infrastructure Charge

2010-02-28T15:00:00.000+11:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard 23rd February 2010

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I would like to note first of all that the debate on the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) is not beginning tonight in this chamber. Indeed the debate has been going on for quite some time.

One of the most memorable times I recall in this house was a response by the Minister for Planning to a question about the GAIC quite some months ago. There are about 10 000 performers outside Parliament House at the moment, but if they had been here some months ago, they would have seen a performance like no other from the Minister for Planning!

The main problem with this bill is that the timing of the GAIC is extremely inappropriate. That is the main problem so far as most of the opposition is concerned, and it is also my concern with the bill. In spite of claims from the government that the non-government parties have been unremittingly negative about the GAIC bill, from my perspective it seems that the non-government

parties have been prepared to negotiate but the government has shown no interest in that.
Over and again both the coalition and I have indicated that we would be prepared to support this bill if the GAIC were to be made payable not at the time of sale, which the bill currently proposes, but at the time of an application for development. To that end I have proposed some amendments which I seek to have circulated.

Democratic Labor Party amendments circulated by Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) pursuant to standing orders.

Mr KAVANAGH -- Although there are 165 of them, the amendments have only two effects.

The first is to make the GAIC payable at the time of an application for development, and the second is to set the interest rate on staged payments of the GAIC at the total of the bill rate plus 3 per cent.

I understand that my vote on this occasion is unlikely to be critical, but I would like to express my intention. I will vote for the bill only if the payment of the GAIC is made at the point of application for development -- that is, if the amendments pass. However, the problem of timing is not the only problem with this bill. To set a figure of $95 000 per hectare regardless of the value of the land seems to me to be a mistake. It is unfair because the value of affected land is likely to vary greatly. Rather like our land tax situation at the moment, the proposed GAIC has no relationship to the potential profit of the land involved -- that is, even land which may be worth only $95 000 a hectare is still taxed at that rate. Indeed we could have a 100 per cent tax, in theory at least, which I think is entirely wrong.

In my view we should have a constitutional requirement that tax cannot be as high as 50 per cent of profit or income; otherwise people are actually working the majority of their lives for the government.

This figure of $95 000 a hectare is particularly inappropriate in the case of Western Victoria Region, which of course is my electorate. For example, land at Melton is likely to be worth, on average, much less than land in some other parts of Victoria, so the imposition will be much greater in Melton, and indeed Rockbank, than it is likely to be in the far outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

In addition, I am concerned by what Mr Hall regards as a retrospective tax. In general we should avoid retrospective legislation wherever possible. It is occasionally necessary but in general it is a fascist type of measure that should be avoided wherever possible.

Mrs Petrovich -- Did you say fascist?

Mr KAVANAGH -- Yes, I said 'fascist'.

I think Mr Hall explained the objections to retrospective tax very well indeed, so I do not need to speak more about that.

As other speakers have said, the land that would be taxed under this bill represents a nest egg for many people. Indeed some of them have held on to land for decades -- generations -- in the hope that they would make a gain in the future that might provide for their retirement. It seems even cruel on occasion to just come along and take that from people who have worked so hard for so long for that advantage.

Of course taxes like this will affect home affordability, which is a growing problem in Melbourne and indeed throughout Victoria. Not so long ago one of the great things about Australia was that an ordinary family man might provide for his family and put a roof over their heads -- decent accommodation -- with the proceeds of an ordinary job. Unfortunately that no longer is the case. Last month it was revealed that because of changes made by the federal cabinet to visa requirements 40 per cent of the best houses in the best suburbs of Melbourne are now being bought by non-residents, in many cases people who have never even been to Melbourne.

Real estate agents, who do not have a very strong interest in opposing this -- quite the opposite -- tell us that a lot of these people, who are often officials of the Chinese Communist Party, cannot be bothered renting out the properties for what to them is a rather paltry amount of money and they leave the houses locked up, empty, for years on end in the hope of getting a big capital gain at the end. It is absolutely outrageous in my opinion that people who have never even been to Australia are speculating on our homes at the expense of Australian families. I believe that should be changed.

I did consider perhaps giving the government political advice on this bill, but I am sure it knows politics much better than I do so, I suppose, it would be rather impertinent of me to offer it that advice. No doubt the government knows its interests very well indeed.

But it does seem to me it is probably creating a problem for itself in the long term, because if this bill continues and this issue is still live at the time of the next state election, there are very many people in the far outer areas of Melbourne who will be extremely upset and concerned, and I do not think that will do Mr Brumby's government very much good at the polling booths.

In conclusion I just say that if by any chance my amendments were to be accepted, I would vote for the bill. The amendments have the effect of making the GAIC payable at the time of development rather than sale. Otherwise I do not see how I could support the growth areas infrastructure contribution.

Coptic March

2010-02-28T14:18:00.000+11:00

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On 14 January I joined the march of about 6000 Coptic Christians through the city. The march was organised to mourn and protest the murder of six Coptic Christians in Egypt at the beginning of the year. Mrs Peulich and I both addressed the march on its conclusion at the front steps of the Parliament. I told the marchers that we had emphatically, if implicitly, supported a fundamental principle that people are entitled to peacefully practise any religion of their choice or no religion, without fear of being bombed, burned, bashed or murdered.
I further observed that this principle will become ever more important in the future as people of different religious traditions live together in Europe and Asia as they never have before.
Respect for the religious freedom of others is the only basis for peaceful coexistence and I call on every government, political party and individual to emphatically support and emphasise this principle at every opportunity.

Wind Farms: Health Effects

2010-02-15T10:13:00.000+11:00

Title Wind farms: health effects
House COUNCIL
Activity Members Statements
Members KAVANAGH
Date 2 February 2010
Page 20

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On Sunday I attended and spoke in the tiny township of Evansford, north of Ballarat. The meeting was attended
by about 60 people who are all deeply concerned about the health effects of wind farms, which now dominate the landscape. In my address to the meeting I noted the legal principle established in the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher -- that is, that a person is not entitled to do something on his property which adversely affects a neighbour. It seems to me, as I said then, that this principle is applicable to noise as well as to other potential hazards. I noted too the ancient rule in medicine: do no harm. Wisdom dictates that we should not engage in behaviour that is potentially harmful, even if that harm has not yet been proven.
Democratic principles also demand that local people should decide local issues for themselves. Those in Evansford who have dealt with government members of Parliament have been surprised at their indifference and indeed the cavalier attitude they usually take to this issue.

I urge the government to change its attitude and to listen to people who are affected adversely by wind farms and to change the regulations so that wind farms in the future do not cause damage to people near whom they are located.

Corio Bay: Pollution

2009-12-21T16:57:00.005+11:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard

Title: Corio Bay: pollution
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 November 2009
Page: 5309

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, and relates to pollution and contamination in and around Corio Bay. A Geelong resident, Mr Stan Taylor, has been concerned for a long time about apparent contamination in and around Corio Bay. With few resources, he has been collecting samples of sludge and having them analysed at his own expense. As I speak he is displaying some of those samples on the steps of this building. The initial scientific analysis suggests rates of contamination, including lead and mercury, that are very many times higher than recommended limits. I ask the minister: what does the most recent data available to the government show about the levels of contamination in and around Corio Bay?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) -- I thank Mr Kavanagh for the question and the opportunity to talk about the program that is coordinated through the Environment Protection Authority in Victoria to monitor water quality right around Port Phillip Bay, and in this context that includes Corio Bay. This program has been intensified in the last two years due to the increased monitoring associated with the channel deepening program to provide confidence to the Victorian community about the condition of these important parts of the marine environment in Victoria.
I have not been privy to the private research that Mr Kavanagh refers to from Mr Taylor, but I would be very happy to receive any advice and evidence he can bring to bear for us to take account of and compare with the knowledge that has been compiled through the EPA's programs.
I am advised that none of the heavy metals Mr Kavanagh has referred to in his question are evident in quantities that would trigger any environmental alarm or concern within the community. However, I am very happy to have a look at the material Mr Taylor has provided. Heavy metal analysis is part of the program the EPA undertakes on behalf of the Victorian community, and I have received some advice recently about recent monitoring in which the heavy metals Mr Kavanagh refers to have not been evident. Indeed the only elevated feature of analysis that I have been referred to relates to oxidised nitrogen. This information is something that has probably been available in the public domain through the public release of the EPA's material, but whilst there is a heightened level of this element within the monitoring regime it is not at a level that would warrant further examination. However, it is certainly something that warrants our taking note of to be sure that we are mindful of these levels into the future.
I am told that this does not necessarily relate to the channel deepening program because heightened levels of oxidised nitrogen were discovered back in 2002 and they subsequently subsided, so I am happy to share across the chamber with Mr Kavanagh publicly, but also privately, what information we may have available to both of us.
Supplementary question
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I thank the minister for his answer. He referred to the program being undertaken by the EPA and to the study of water quality. What about the foreshore and areas near the foreshore of the bay, not just the water itself?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) -- In terms of the absolute technique and the method and whether it relates to foreshore sludge, as Mr Kavanagh has described it, that may be evident along the foreshore, I am happy to take advice on the technique and the method, and perhaps we can compare notes about the best way we can compile evidence to provide some degree of confidence into the future.

Children First Foundation: Conjoined twins

2009-12-21T16:46:00.001+11:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard

Title: Children First Foundation: conjoined twins
House: COUNCIL
Activity:Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 25 November 2009

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I pay tribute to members of the 16-member medical team at the Royal Children's Hospital who recently separated Bangladeshi conjoined twins, Trishna and Krishna, in a 32-hour operation.
I also congratulate my cousin Moira Kelly and my aunt, the senior Moira Kelly, who have been looking after Trishna and Krishna for two years, along with some helpers. For that entire period they have been giving them tender, loving care. I was in hospital in September and had the privilege of being visited by the junior Moira, together with Trishna and Krishna. On that occasion the twins were full of energy and love of life.
I express my thanks and admiration to the medical team, to both Moiras and to all those who helped the twins.
All Victorians have contributed, through their taxes at least, to the extraordinary medical skills that have added so much to the lives of these two little girls. All Victorians can therefore feel not only joyous but also proud of their contribution.

Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution

2009-12-21T16:41:00.002+11:00

Victorian Parliament Hansard

Title Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 26 November 2009

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Planning and relates to the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC). The minister has recently announced a change to the proposed GAIC so that this tax will be payable on the next sale of a piece of land by the land purchaser rather than by the present landowner. Will the GAIC tax still not effectively be paid by the landowner, if only in the form of receiving a lower price for the land that is sold, even in cases where, contrary to the minister's repeated assertions, there will not be a great uplift in price due to the fact that the land cannot be developed perhaps for decades?
Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I welcome Mr Kavanagh's question and I welcome his interest in these matters, as I welcome the interest of members of all parties in this chamber in the impending introduction of the growth areas infrastructure contribution. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and a lot of it is based upon contradictory views about to what extent a value uplift will occur around the adjustment to the urban growth boundary. We still stand by our view that in adjusting the urban growth boundary you will get a significant uplift in the value of that land just by changing the vast majority of that land from land which is basically not currently developable to land that is developable, so there is a very significant uplift.
I have heard various contradictory remarks from a range of individuals, who on the one hand are saying, 'With this we will be rated off the land' and on the other are saying, 'With this, though, we will not be able to get any uplift'. There is a direct and stark contradiction there.
I heard it yelled from the opposition earlier in question time that they will be rated off the land. Why would they be rated off the land? They could not be rated off the land, because first of all for their rates to go up there has to be a very significant value uplift. That is of critical importance here. You cannot have the value uplift through coming into the urban growth boundary but then say, 'There is no uplift of value on my land'. That is a contradiction. What is very important here is that there is a very significant uplift in the value -- very significant.
I have no doubt that later on as the land moves through its development steps there will be additional uplift, but the most significant uplift occurs when land is brought into the urban growth boundary.
Honourable members interjecting.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I take up Mr Guy's point that you have to have the cash to do it. The issue here is that there is very significant uplift in the adjustment to the urban growth boundary that is captured in the value of the land. When that land is next turned over, we will seek to capture some of that uplift through the growth areas infrastructure contribution.
I have gone through a lengthy dissertation. I expect we will hear even more about the merits of that, and I know we will hear from members of the opposition why they do not believe it is appropriate. At the end of the day the government has a commitment to building vibrant, strong communities with good infrastructure, particularly good transport infrastructure. We believe this is the most appropriate mechanism to see this through.
I have suggested, and I continue to suggest, to the opposition and other parties that if they have a different view, they should put it to this chamber in the form of an amendment and we will consider it on its merits. Labor is not the only party that will vote on these matters. Mr Kavanagh will vote on them, members of the Greens will vote on them, and from time to time the Liberal-Nationals coalition splits on things when it comes to matters of conscience. If there is a strong view from the parties on the other side of the chamber about these mechanisms, if they believe they are currently not right -- as we believe they are -- I would welcome them coming up with a solution or suggestion and letting this house of review debate it and try to work through the issue before they rule the legislation ineffective by voting against it outright.
Supplementary question
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The objections to the GAIC are largely based on the timing -- the imposition of the GAIC at the point of sale rather than development. In other states the tax is imposed at the point of development, unlike what the minister is proposing in Victoria. Is the real reason for imposing it at the point of sale not to get the money now rather than leaving it to future governments?
Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I welcome that point. There are two issues here. As I have said before, one issue is getting the money sooner rather than later so that we can get the investment -- we do not steer away from that -- but the other issue is a technical one that the opposition seems oblivious to. I know Mr Kavanagh and members of the Greens would be interested in it because they seek to be interested in these matters rather than form a position that rules out alternatives outright.
What we do know is that sometimes when development occurs the developer never owns the land. He develops it all the way through the sequence and it is not until late in the development cycle -- with title exchange at a very late stage -- that there is a turnover of title. The misnomer -- --
Mr Guy -- But approval has nothing to do with the title.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I take Mr Guy up on that. We are talking about the transaction and the title exchange; you are talking about approval.
Mr Guy -- That's right.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Yes. Some developers take up the option and do not take up the land until it reaches that point anyway. It will most likely occur there anyway, because the vast majority of developers -- --
Honourable members interjecting.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I know Mr Kavanagh is interested in my answer. The vast majority of developers come up with some option or arrangement anyway. What we are conscious of is that the later you push it into the cycle, the more we will have another argument. We will have another argument with developers.
They will say, 'I did not get the best deal on the land'.
Honourable members interjecting.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I am trying to answer Mr Kavanagh's question, even though the opposition does not want me to give information to Mr Kavanagh. The issue here is that if you push it later into the development sequence or cycle, we will end up having another argument with the same industry representatives and the same developers.
Honourable members interjecting.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I know Mr Barber and the Greens are interested in this.
We would have developers saying at the end of the precinct structure planning process, 'That developer got the retail area, which is great value; another got the residential area, which is not such bad value; and I got the industrial land, which does not hold the same value'. We know, and Mr Guy knows, we would end up with the same argument all over again with the same developers but around a different set of issues.
Mr Guy interjected.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- I know Mr Kavanagh is interested in my answer. At the end of the day the issue is, as Mr De Dominico of the Urban Development Institute of Australia said the other day -- and he expressed it quite holistically -- that taxes suck. I know that is the view of Mr Guy and Mr Finn. We end up in the same position time and again. No matter where we define it, no matter where we set it at, we will end up having the same argument.
Mr Guy does not have an argument about where it should occur; we know that. He is consistently shifting the argument in order to again have the same argument about no tax. He would prefer to side with the development community to stop it paying tax, to get significant uplift, to delay the infrastructure, to delay the transportation -- --
The PRESIDENT -- Order! I believe Mr Kavanagh asked both the question and the supplementary question. I suggest the minister might like to concentrate on his answer and not debate Mr Guy.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Thank you for the guidance, President. To sum this up for Mr Kavanagh: we end up shifting the argument along the development sequence.
I know many people in this chamber are committed to seeing families -- the new home owners -- supplied with the right services, the right infrastructure and particularly the right transport infrastructure at this point in time, particularly if the most affordable housing option for them is a long way from the centre of the city. Our commitment is to try to do that in a way which we believe not only does justice to the infrastructure and to the new communities but also and in particular balances the needs of the building and construction industry in a measured and sensitive way that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No doubt Mr Kavanagh will see people who want to lobby him on their respective views, as we all will in this chamber. I look forward to the consideration of this bill being a measured consideration -- --
Mr Guy interjected.
Hon. J. M. MADDEN -- Not on ideological grounds, Mr Guy, but on views which are about what is best for these new houses, what is best for these new householders and what is best for these new families -- the people who are settling in these new growth areas -- in years to come; not in years a long way out but years just shortly down the road, when we will need to provide them with the right service.
I look forward to that support. I look forward to any suggestions as to how we can improve. I look forward to a sensible consideration of these matters when the bill comes to this chamber.

MARCH FOR THE BABIES

2009-12-21T15:46:00.008+11:00

Protesting on Behalf of the Unborn

Thousands of pro-life Victorians attended a "March for the Babies" rally in Melbourne on Saturday, October 10, to protest against their state’s radical abortion laws passed a year ago. Eight political and religious leaders addressed the crowd from the steps of Victoria’s Parliament House.

One of the speakers was Peter Kavanagh MLC, the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) state upper house MP for Western Victoria. Here is an abridged version of his speech.

We are here today to commemorate the first anniversary of the most extremist pro-abortion legislation that has ever been passed in a Western democracy.

Under this Victorian legislation, not only was protection for the unborn eliminated, but doctors nurses and other medical professionals who know that the unborn victims of abortions are human beings, are forced to facilitate abortion and even, in some circumstances, to perform abortions. It is no surprise then that a leading academic has labelled this legislation "fascist".

But the debate over this legislation was even worse than that.

One year ago today I proposed several amendments to the Abortion Bill 2008. The first was to require, as in Arkansas for example, that the foetus about to be aborted be given pain relief. It has been shown beyond doubt that many unborn suffer excruciating pain during an abortion to an extent that is beyond our comprehension. A majority of members of Victoria’s Legislative Council voted against it.

Sometimes babies who are aborted survive the abortion and are born alive. The two formal investigations of such situations that have been done in Australia show that the abortionists do exactly what you would expect — they simply leave such babies to die. One of my proposed amendments would have required the abortionists to give medical assistance to such babies. A majority of members of the Legislative Council voted against abortionists being required to assist babies who are born alive after "failed" abortions.

I also proposed an amendment to prohibit partial-birth abortion in Victoria — the turning of a baby around within the womb and dragging her feet first almost to the point of birth with only her head still in the birth canal (this is done because if her head came first she might be born too quickly to kill her before she is fully born) and then gruesomely killing her while her head is still in the birth canal. A majority of members of the Legislative Council voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Considering such irrational lengths to which many will go in their support of abortion, it is easy to become disheartened.

There are however, good reasons to be optimistic. For example, more Americans now say they are pro-life than at any time since surveys have been taken. We all know of course that as America goes, we in Australia usually follow.
But there is a more fundamental reason for being confident that we will eventually win, or, rather, that the unborn will win and that ultimately, one day be granted justice under law and treated with respect. The reason we can be sure of that is that our cause, which is also their cause, supports and is supported by the truth.

The truth is that the unborn baby is enveloped by and dependent on, but not a part of, another body. The unborn baby is just like all of us here. We got our DNA from our mothers and our fathers. But our DNA is different and separate from the DNA of both our mother and our father. The DNA that characterises and demonstrates the humanity of the unborn baby belongs to the baby and to nobody else.

The truth is that the destruction of another innocent, non-threatening human life is never a legitimate choice for any person.

The truth is that there is no inherent contradiction between the interests of a mother and her unborn child — it is in the interest of both of them that the woman is able to give birth to a healthy son or daughter.

The truth is that our decisions and our options properly stop and are properly stopped for us by the law, the government and our society at the point where harm to another person begins — and who could deny that taking the life of an unborn baby in an excruciatingly painful way before he or she can see the light of day is doing the most harm that we could do to anybody?

The truth that the primary object of any legal system is and should be the protection of all innocent people.
The truth is that although the unborn baby is immature, undeveloped and dependent, these are not reasons to take away his or her right to life. To the contrary — the truth is that his or her very vulnerability demands extra protection.
The truth is that effective protection for everybody requires attempting to protect everybody and that taking away protection for some, weakens protection for everybody.

NEWS WEEKLY, OCTOBER 31, 2009 — PAGE 15 VICTORIA

Israel: Missile Attacks

2009-12-21T11:48:00.001+11:00

Title:Israel: missile attacks
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 26 November 2009
Page: 5663

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As Mrs Kronberg did yesterday, I would like to express my admiration for the people of Sderot, Israel, which is a town we visited last week. The people of Sderot have been victims of almost daily missile attacks from the Gaza Strip over several years. None of us would be surprised by deplorable acts committed in the course of the Middle East conflict, but, in the case of Sderot, some acts in civilian areas are targeting civilians. The people who are forced to allow their backyards and neighbourhoods to be used as missile launching places are secondary victims, but the primary victims are the people who are being fired at. We saw primary schools which have had huge concrete structures built over them in an attempt to protect children to some extent from missiles. Kindergartens are built from missile-resistant materials. Even playgrounds have bomb shelters in them that are virtually disguised as children's toys.
I express my admiration for the people of Sderot and their tenaciousness.
No doubt any appeal to the people firing the missiles would be futile. But I ask my fellow Australians to understand that Israel is likely to have to respond and in that circumstance to ask themselves what they would do if their neighbouring property was being used as a place from which to fire missiles at them and their families.

Hansard 2009-03-11 Barwon Heads Bridge Amendment

2009-03-27T10:25:00.006+11:00

BACKGROUND:
Preceding the following debate in Parliament, there had been community opposition to a Vic Roads proposal to build two bridges at Barwon Heads instead of replacing the existing bridge with a single bridge.
On 11th March 2009 Ms Colleen Hartland MLC for Western Metropolitan Region moved the following motion:
"That amendment C118 to the Greater Geelong planning scheme be revoked".
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 March 2009
Page: 1376

...
Page 1376
...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The Barwon Heads bridge definitely needs to be replaced or radically rebuilt.

Two or three weeks ago I inspected the bridge quite carefully from underneath and found there were shards and lumps of rust that used to be big bolts. You only knew what they were because of the position they were in under the bridge. There were rough-hewn logs that looked more like they belonged to a 19th century bridge than even a 20th century one. Although there has been a lot of talk today about how beautiful the bridge is, a lot of the old wooden pylons have been replaced over decades in different styles. There is a hotchpotch of concrete blocks and concrete pipes as well as the wood that supports the bridge.

It seems quite clear to me from discussing the issue with locals, from looking at the petition of around 3500 people and from the very large number of people who attended a rally in January, and also from the decision last night by a large majority of the City of Greater Geelong, that the local community does not support the two-bridge option.

In terms of the merits of the case against the bridge, there is the possibility of damage to the spit through erosion caused by the construction of a second bridge. We do not know for sure because there has not been the environmental study on the area that we would expect, but we do know for certain that parts of the beach would in effect be lost. It would be small parts of the beach, but it is a very beautiful beach and something precious that we should be preserving if possible.

Considering the matter generally there seem to be contradictory principles involved. The first is that government should normally be left to decide issues such as this one. That principle, however, has been mitigated by the fact that the government has changed its mind. The option it is putting forward now was not the option that it put forward before the last election.

Furthermore the coalition has made it clear that the passage of this motion would be an exception rather than a general rule -- that this should be considered to be rare in the future.

More important than that principle, however, is the longstanding principle of my party, the Democratic Labor Party, that wherever possible local people should decide local issues. When you think about it, that is an important principle if we are going to have a genuine democracy, because it is only when local people decide things for themselves that a large number of people actually get what they want. The alternative is tyranny by the majority. Wherever practicable, a decision should be made at the lowest level, whether that is a state government, a local government or a local community, as in this case. As a representative of western Victoria, which includes Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove, I feel obliged to respect the wishes of the local population.

Ms Tierney said people tell her to get on with it. We all want to do that, but the question is: what is 'it'? Is 'it' an infrastructure proposal that is environmentally dubious and contrary to the wishes of the local people, or is it something that is likely to be sounder from an environmental point of view and something that complies with what local people want?

I hope the government does get on with it soon and provide the bridge the local people want -- one that will not damage the beaches or the spit at Barwon Heads.

...
Page 1379
...

House divided on motion:

Page 1380

Ayes, 21
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...
Noes, 19
...

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2009-02-24 Bushfires: Victoria

2009-03-11T16:56:00.011+11:00

.
Click here for the same article at dlpwestvic.org

BACKGROUND:
On 24 February 2009, the Treasurer Mr John Lenders MLC for Southern Metropolitan Region moved the following motion:
"That this house:
(1) extends its condolences and deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those killed in the recent bushfires;
(2) grieves for those who suffered injury and who lost their homes, property and personal possessions;
(3) praises the work of firefighters and emergency services personnel from Victoria, other parts of Australia and overseas for their courage and sacrifice in fighting the fires and protecting our community;
(4) expresses its deep gratitude to the many volunteers and community members who have supported friends, neighbours and communities at this time of great need;
(5) sincerely thanks the people of Australia for their incredible generosity and support to the affected communities, particularly through the bushfire appeal fund; and
(6) pledges to work with communities and all levels of government to rebuild fire-affected communities at the earliest opportunity."
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: Bushfires: Victoria
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Condolences
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 24 February 2009
Page: 897

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On behalf of the Democratic Labor Party and the people of Western Victoria Region, I rise to support the sentiments expressed by other members on this condolence motion today.

Recently there have been quite significant fires in western Victoria, including those at Daylesford yesterday and today; however, our primary focus is naturally on the fires of Black Saturday, due to their sheer scale.

Victoria has suffered a terrible loss from this natural disaster, on a scale previously unknown in Australian history. We have lost vast tracts of forest and millions of animals. We have lost businesses, 2000 houses and entire towns. Most tragically, hundreds of our fellow Australians have died, many in horrific circumstances, and others have been seriously injured. Today we should particularly consider two categories of people: firstly, the victims of these tragedies, and secondly, the many people who have helped, particularly emergency service workers.

It is one of the great frustrations of life that we cannot help the dead, but we can all do things to honour those who perished and perhaps give meaning to their deaths. It is often said that we do not know what we have got until it is gone, and it is a true claim. My experience is that the death of another person brings with it a sudden realisation of the great value of that person. It is often only when we know that they are gone forever that we see the uniqueness of that person and how irreplaceable he or she was and how the world is poorer for his or her loss.

We have lost hundreds of our fellow countrymen and women. It seems to me that if we could take from their loss a profound understanding that each person is unique and irreplaceable and from that a determination to try, in spite of all our flaws, to be kinder, more generous and more patient with others, even strangers, that that would be doing genuine honour and paying appropriate tribute to the hundreds of Victorians who have lost their lives.

We have obligations not only to the dead but also to the living. This is a time of mourning, so blame and recrimination is inappropriate, but we must do all that we can to prevent such disasters happening again. We need to learn from this disaster, minimise the chance of fires happening again and mitigate the loss and impact if they do occur.

The loss of homes, personal property, cars and businesses is devastating, but at least those things are replaceable. A range of charities, organisations and agencies and the commonwealth and state governments have been active and generous in helping victims in this respect. I applaud the Treasurer's recent announcement of providing land tax and stamp duty relief to those who have lost property.

The Australian people have reacted generously in all kinds of ways to help their fellow Australians.

The amount of money that has been raised to help victims is unprecedented. From all parts of Australia around $150 million has already been raised and an ocean of household and personal goods has been given. Mr Lenders mentioned that donations of blood have surged as Australians have rushed to give this precious part of themselves to burns victims. These responses from millions of individuals around Australia warrant not only gratitude for but pride in our fellow Australians.

A vast range of individuals who are not members of agencies or organisations have made contributions -- often heroic contributions -- to fighting bushfires or providing relief to victims. They cannot all be mentioned here, but, like Mr Jennings, I would like to refer specifically to a couple of them.

Mr Peter Thorneycroft, who was still recovering from serious injury himself on Black Saturday, stood on the roof of Kinglake's National Park Hotel.

With the inferno raging around him, flames on all sides, houses in the immediate vicinity bursting into flames and almost engulfed in smoke, Mr Thorneycroft poured water from buckets onto spot fires as they broke out in the hotel beneath him. Mr Thornycroft's heroism probably saved the lives of 20 people sheltering in the hotel beneath his feet.

Mr Ranald Webster was badly hurt in the Ash Wednesday fires of a quarter of a century ago. Photographs show that after those fires he was very badly scarred. Now, thankfully, his face shows few

Page 898

signs of burns or scarring. He is 87 years old, but he has been visiting victims of this fire in hospital to show them that there is hope, by demonstrating that many injuries can heal and that their scars may not be terrible.

In the context of efforts made by individuals, like Ms Pennicuik I would like to recognise the Premier and to acknowledge how he has been supported and assisted by the Treasurer and other ministers. In my opinion the Premier has done as well as any leader could have done in giving comfort and support to the survivors of this tragedy.

Cynicism about politicians, as we all know, is rife throughout the community, but I am absolutely sure there is not one of us in this entire Parliament who would not be genuinely and profoundly moved by coming face to face with any of the victims of this tragedy, particularly those who are burns victims.

Doctors and nurses have gone beyond the terms of any contract of employment in treating the injured. It is apparent to any observer that medical staff are doing everything they possibly can for victims and that they are giving not only their professional expertise but loving care, compassion and dedication. This was epitomised for me by the photographs of a burns victim who was bandaged from head to toe, with only his eyes visible -- I say 'his', but it could have been a woman -- and he or she was being cared for with obvious tenderness, compassion and love by a nurse.

All the medical personnel, including ambulance drivers and other ambulance personnel, who were involved in the treatment of burns deserve thanks and admiration not only from the victims and their families but from every one of us.

Similarly many police officers went beyond the call of duty in rescuing people during the fires and protecting communities in their aftermath. Many police officers from New South Wales have volunteered and are volunteering to come to Victoria to assist recovery efforts and to relieve Victorian police officers; also, forensic experts have come voluntarily from the Northern Territory. I thank all police involved, and I thank the governments of New South Wales and the Northern Territory for facilitating this assistance.

Of course our firefighters, particularly the volunteers, are true heroes of this disaster. A recent letter to a Melbourne newspaper editor said it very well. It was written by an American immigrant. He wrote that the volunteers of the Country Fire Authority made him proud to be an Australian. Many of us, whether born locally or overseas, would wholeheartedly share his sentiments.

We often admire stars of the screen, sporting arena or stage for their great accomplishments, but the volunteer firefighters and State Emergency Service workers are our genuine heroes. Without financial reward, they train over extended periods to develop firefighting skills. In the most difficult and dangerous conditions, they give their all in their struggle to protect lives and property. Their sacrifice, dedication and courage are an inspiration to, and an icon of, our nation.

Two particular groups of firefighters warrant special mention. First are those who have volunteered from other states and territories to come to battle the fires in Victoria. They have come from Tasmania, New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia, and Queensland. From every part of our island continent, people have volunteered to come to Victoria to give their skill, their strength, their courage, their expertise and their extraordinary effort.

Every single one of them knew that they were volunteering for dirty, dangerous, gruelling and exhausting work, battling infernos. Unfortunately, as recognised by Mr Jennings, one of these volunteers, Mr David Balfour of the Australian Capital Territory, has been killed helping us. We honour his memory and express our deepest sympathies to his wife and three children.

Even from beyond Australia volunteers have come to help fight Victoria's fires. From across the Tasman Sea and from across the Pacific Ocean -- from New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America -- heroes have come to Victoria to help us in our hour of need. We should never forget them and always be thankful for their heroic contributions.

I am sure that I represent the vast majority of people in this state when I offer condolences to all those who have lost loved ones in these fires.

May we find some solace and comfort in the generosity, the efforts and in many cases the heroism of those who have helped. To all those who fought the bushfires or helped its victims, I offer sincerest praise, deepest admiration and gratitude from the bottom of my heart.

Hansard 2008-12-02 Ukrainian holocaust: ceremony

2008-12-19T18:27:00.009+11:00

BACKGROUND:
On 29th November 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region attended a commemoration event for the Holodomor -- the starvation of Ukraine.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below.

HANSARD:
Title: Ukrainian holocaust: commemoration
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 2 December 2008
Page: 5254

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- On Saturday I had the honour of attending a commemoration event for the Holodomor -- the starvation of Ukraine; I was accompanied by Mr Guy and Mr Finn. The Holodomor was the deliberate theft of food from Ukraine with the intention of starving to death millions of people. Unfortunately between 7 million and 10 million people -- men, women, children and babies -- starved to death as a result of those actions conducted by the Soviet Union.

The ceremony on Saturday was at the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in North Melbourne and was presided over by Bishop Peter Stasiuk. Also represented there by Reverend Vasyl Kasian was the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. It was

Page 5255

organised by Stefan Romaniw and Victor Rudewych, who represent Ukrainian organisations.

It seems to me that a crime like that against humanity needs to be acknowledged and remembered. Perhaps even more importantly, the only honour we can do such victims is to take from their suffering and deaths a dedication that such a horrific crime against humanity will never happen again.

Hansard 2008-12-03 Skills Training: Reform

2008-12-19T18:10:00.005+11:00

BACKGROUND:
On 10th September 2008 Mr Hall MLC for Eastern Victoria Region moved the following motion:
"That, in respect of the recently announced skills reforms, this house calls on the government to explain to the Parliament and the people of Victoria the following --
(1) the number of Victorian students that missed out on a funded training place last year;
(2) how increasing student fees will attract more people to participate in vocational training particularly at the diploma and advanced diploma level;
(3) how much revenue is expected to be raised by increased fees and the purpose to which that revenue will be put;
(4) whether the $139 million designated as 'contestable funding' is new money or whether it is a transference of current money already allocated to the delivery of diploma and advanced diploma places;
(5) how an income-contingent loan system will encourage more students to take up training;
(6) how the government intends to address the predicted shortfall of 123 000 diploma and advanced diploma qualified workers by 2015;
(7) how the government expects to find an additional 900 TAFE staff and 500 non-teaching staff when TAFE teaching salaries are almost $20 000 lower than their counterparts in NSW and well below that of teachers in the schools sector;
(8) how a competitive training system will work and its impact on training providers;
(9) why the cost of training is being transferred from the state to the student;
(10) why the government continues to underfund training in Victoria by 15 per cent compared with the Australian states average;
(11) why those who have to retrain will be ineligible for a government-funded place;
(12) why the government is abolishing concessional fees for diploma and advanced diploma courses; and
(13) how much is being spent on television advertising to promote the reform package".
The debate continued and concluded on 3rd December 2008.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: SKILLS TRAINING: REFORM
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members:
Date: 3 December 2008
Page: 5320
3 December 2008 COUNCIL

...

Page 5330

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As a person with some experience of teaching in the TAFE sector I feel obliged to say a few words about the motion. Although I only taught in TAFE for a short time it was clear to me that TAFE students were extremely well motivated and were at a surprising level of academic ability.

Perhaps people do not realise -- I did not assume -- that people who may have left

Page 5331

school earlier than some others are often nevertheless very good at studying academic subjects. TAFE catered to those students well as well as offering a large number of practical skills to young people. It was quite inspiring to look at a lot of people who went to TAFE after work -- they did a full day at work and then went and studied at night to improve their skills base. I felt admiration for them, and I thought the TAFE system catered to their needs well.

I also noticed at the time and have noticed since that TAFE jobs seem to be conspicuous by their absence in terms of advertisements and so forth. Looking through newspapers you rarely see a job in TAFE, because there are not many available. TAFE seems to be treated as the poor relation in the education system of Victoria. Although many TAFE teachers are well skilled and experienced, they receive a rate of pay which is much lower than that of those who teach in secondary schools, even though their skill level and expertise in particular subjects is probably often higher.

It seems to me that this government undervalues, and has undervalued for a long time, practical skills in education. This is perhaps demonstrated by what the Kirner government did to technical schools in Victoria, which was to abolish them -- much to the great cost of many young people, particularly those who were not especially academically oriented. TAFE does a great job imparting practical skills to many Victorians, and it deserves a lot better from the government than it has been getting.

...

Page 5333

...

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...

Noes, 18
...

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-10-09 Abortion Bill 2008

2008-12-19T16:12:00.012+11:00

BACKGROUND:
Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region took a leading role in the Legislative Council in opposing the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 to decriminalise abortion and he received a thunderous standing ovation from the public gallery unprecedented in the recent history of the Victorian Parliament at the conclusion of his exceptional speech opposing abortion which took approximately three hours. The President of the House complimented Mr. Kavanagh on the amount of effort he put into the speech.

The Abortion Bill 2008 allows abortions up to 24 weeks for any reason and for no reason. Beyond 24 weeks, two abortionists merely need to say that an abortion is “appropriate”.
This legislation further requires doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion to nevertheless refer pregnant women to other doctors who are “known not to have a conscientious objection” and even to perform abortions in some circumstances.

A majority of MPs, including Members from every political party (except the DLP) supported this legislation. A majority of Upper House MPs also voted against amendments which Mr Kavanagh proposed in Parliament, to:
1. Ban partial birth abortion - the killing of babies as they are being born (illegal throughout the USA),
2. Require pain relief for babies being aborted (there is overwhelming evidence that abortion is excruciatingly painful), and
3. Require abortionists to care for babies born alive after “failed” abortions.
Mr Kavanagh supported other amendments proposed by other Members such as allowing conscientious objection for medical practitioners though none of these amendments gained majority support.

Mr Kavanagh is disturbed that Victorian MPs supported the killing of the unborn and the partially born, opposed assistance to those born alive after unsuccessful abortions and even voted against pain relief.

Below is the last part of Mr Kavanagh’s speech in Parliament on Hansard during the second reading. The bill was later passed unamended at the third reading after all amendments failed during the committee phase of the debate.

The full text of Mr Kavanagh’s speech in Parliament on Hansard during the second reading and committee phases of the debate before its passage at the third reading can be found by entering the relevant search criteria at: http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.adv.

HANSARD:
Title: ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 9 October 2008 P
age: 4093

...

SECOND READING

Debate resumed.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria)

…

Page 4116

...

…We might consider the point of conscientious objection or the removal of conscientious objection rights with an analogy. Imagine, for example, that we lived in one of the states of the United States in which there is legal execution of prisoners. We might consider what our reaction would be in the event of a person being asked by a state official, a doctor, to participate in the execution of a convicted felon. I think we would all be horrified. The situation is indeed analogous, except for one thing: it is much worse in Victoria, because we know the victim will be entirely innocent. There is nobody more innocent than an unborn person. In the

Page 4117

state in America where that might happen the victim would have to be convicted first of a very serious offence of taking other people's lives. This situation in Victoria is much worse than the one I suggest might be analogous in the United States, and it applies not only to physicians and medical practitioners but also to nurses, pharmacists and other health professionals.

This bill would allow even partial-birth abortions, a gruesome form of homicide that is illegal throughout the United States. The constitutionality of this law in America has recently been upheld in the United States Supreme Court, in spite of a general prohibition on laws against abortion, as determined in the infamous case of Roe v. Wade.

Partial-birth abortions are committed late in a pregnancy. They involve almost removing the baby from the mother with forceps, feet first.

It is done this way, feet first, because if the baby were to be born in the normal way, head first, she would be born too quickly to kill her before she was fully born. While her head is still in the birth canal an instrument is inserted into her brain through her upper neck and her brains are vacuumed out through the incision. The baby is then fully removed from the mother's body, dead. Such a procedure, it has been declared by the United States Congress, is never medically necessary, but it is already being carried out in Victoria. Passage of this bill would increase the frequency of this practice and lend to it the authority of the state of Victoria.

This bill offers no protection to the woman or the unborn. There is no cooling-off period, no counselling, no warnings of the harm that is done, not only to the unborn, but often to the women as well and also to the babies they have later, after the abortion. There is no provision for pain relief for the unborn, though there is evidence that many of the unborn feel the pain of an abortion to an extent that we cannot understand because they develop the ability to feel pain before birth but do not develop the capacity to express pain until after birth.

There is no restriction in this bill on sex selection abortions, which the United Nations says, together with infanticide, have recently killed 60 million unborn girls because they were female. Most of them have been in East Asia and far eastern parts of Europe. However, it is also already happening in parts of the United States, and we can be confident that it is also happening in Australia, including in Victoria.

I would like to propose some alternatives to the present bill. In present circumstances a program of effectively implemented criminal sanctions against abortion would indeed face formidable obstacles.

These include parts of the profits of the lucrative abortion industry which are being directed into political donations for the purpose of freeing its practitioners of restraints. Such obstacles would also include, above all, the profoundly misguided but vehement denials of the humanity of the unborn, contrary to all scientific evidence, and a belief by many that a right to life of the unborn is a matter of choice by others, even though the exercise of such a choice takes away every choice from somebody else.

Nevertheless, there are actions which the government can and should take to address this problem. The first is to retain in-principle legal protection for all people, including the unborn. Although by no means sufficient, it is necessary. Instituting a program of counselling and intervention by state agencies and support for non-government organisations would help women who need it to allow their children to stay alive. It would also be a very appropriate response to the problem.

We should consider clearly informing all women considering abortion of the option of open adoption, which exists in Victoria. This would allow them to give birth to their baby and allow other people to care for their baby most of the time, but also enable them to retain a relationship with that baby for the rest of their life. This is an attractive option that women who are considering an abortion should be told about.

Furthermore, we should consider a public education program which demonstrates the humanity of the unborn and which adequately warns of the dangers of abortion to women. A public education campaign that makes it clear that the unborn are human beings is also a necessary response to the present situation.

If you go into a government office in Victoria you will see posters about such campaigns for lots of people, such as the campaign asking us to see the person, not the disability. Why not have such a campaign for the unborn also?

It would not require criminal prosecutions or putting people in jail, but it would be likely to have an effect. If such programs have no effect, why do we have the programs that exist already for other people?

Young women who have nowhere to go should be offered accommodation and help. We have programs already for women who are victims of domestic violence. Why not provide a similar sort of help for women who are in search of the help needed for them to keep their baby instead of aborting their baby? We should also ban partial-birth abortion. In respect of this particular bill proponents might well claim that the situation is now so bad from the unborn's

Page 4118

point of view. They might ask: what is the point of opposing the legalisation of abortion? It is a reasonable question to which there are several answers. Firstly, passage of this bill will cause even more unborn people to be aborted. I hope Mr Hall, in particular, pays attention to these points, because he claimed that he was voting for the bill on the basis that it will not cause more abortions.

Existing laws, though frequently flouted, provide a last line of defence for those women attempting to resist pressure from their mothers, husbands, boyfriends or others to have an abortion. Our current laws allow such women the powerful defence of correctly asserting that abortion is illegal.

The VLRC was charged with recommending decriminalisation in a way that would not increase the number of abortions in Victoria.

Its greatest failure is in recommending three options, all of which would remove the prohibition on abortion inherent in our current in-principle legal support for the unborn while doing nothing whatever to replace that deterrent effect of the authority of the letter of the law with anything else at all. Any attempt at balance aimed at not increasing the number of abortions in Victoria would surely include measures such as cooling-off periods, counselling and at least a prohibition on partial-birth abortion. Where are such balancing measures in the VLRC recommendations? They do not exist in those recommendations or in the bill that is before us.

The VLRC was asked to recommend laws consistent with public opinion. Public opinion overwhelmingly wants fewer abortions. What provision in this bill will mean fewer abortions?

Mr Drum -- None.

Mr KAVANAGH -- No provision whatsoever. This bill will encourage more abortions.

Interjections from gallery.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mrs Peulich) -- Order! There will be no interjections from the gallery. It is disorderly.

Mr KAVANAGH -- This really is extremist legislation. By any standard, by any measure, this is extremist legislation. I understand these provisions abolishing the right to conscientious objection appear almost nowhere else in what we might call the Western world. There were claims that such provisions abolishing the right to conscientious objection exist in Britain; however, research has indicated that that is not the case. In Britain there is actually a legislative right to conscientious objection.

We have legislation explicitly taking away the right to conscientious objection in Victoria, and of course it is the bill before us.

The law does more than simply put people in jail or fine them. The law expresses principles, and those principles are important. One of the reasons they are important is that they have a deterrent effect, independent of legal punishments. Removing those legal principles, even if not supported by criminal consequences, will lead to more abortions than would otherwise happen.

It would be difficult to construct a plausible argument that support for this bill will not entail personal responsibility for the extra abortions that would result from its passage. Some members have suggested that legalisation allows regulation. There is nothing in the retention of the in-principle restrictions on abortion which exist under our present law that prevents effective regulation. This bill would legalise abortion for any reason or for no reason. It does not even seek to regulate abortion, only to facilitate abortion.

What effective regulation of abortion would follow if this bill is passed? Members know that the honest answer is none. Furthermore, retaining the in-principle support for the unborn under our existing law would not preclude effective regulation in any way, if that were desired by the Parliament. On the other hand, abandoning even in-principle protection for the unborn would make effective regulation even less likely. Other examples, such as the growth of the commercial sex industry, which has boomed in size since legalisation of prostitution in Victoria, also demonstrate that the claim that legalisation means effective regulation is false. Ms Pulford said that the bill would not increase the number of unplanned pregnancies. I agree with that; it will not increase the number of pregnancies, it will only increase the number of pregnancies that end in abortion.

They are two quite different things
.
The bill offers no protection to the woman or to the unborn person. There is no cooling-off period, no counselling, no warnings of the great harm that is done not only to the baby but to the woman as well. There is no provision for pain relief and no restriction on sex selection abortion.

Over approximately the last 40 years, since the late 1960s when prosecutions for abortions virtually ceased, there have been close to 4 million abortions carried out in Australia, most with the financial support of the taxpayer, willing or unwilling. As a teacher I often looked at empty chairs in classrooms, and I looked out

Page 4119

over quiet corners of schoolyards, and I wondered how different Australia would be if not for this epidemic of abortion over the last 40 years.

The oldest of those who were aborted at the beginning of this process, about 40 years ago, would now be becoming grandparents for the first time. Their grandchildren, of course, do not exist and never will, nor will their children or any other descendants. In the film Gladiator the main character, Maximus, says, 'What we do in life echoes in eternity'. What echo will each one of us leave? Will it be life reverberating through the ages or will we vote for painful death wantonly inflicted on the youngest and the most vulnerable, bequeathing an echo of death, a legacy of silence resounding long after every one of us is dead? It is ironic that this bill proposes to remove from the Crimes Act and put into the Health Act the facilitation of abortion.

It is ironic because abortion is not consistent with health; abortion is destructive of health. Removing abortion from the Crimes Act is something that many members have already spoken about in an emotional way; they have said it is terrible that women have been subject to the Crimes Act. First of all there is no realistic risk of prosecution, and there has not been for four decades.

The passage of this bill, however, will make criminals of doctors who know as a matter of medical fact that the unborn are human beings. It would also make it a criminal offence for a doctor in some circumstances to refuse to refer his patient whom he believes will be harmed by a referral to an abortionist. Technically it will be an offence under this act not to send a woman to an abortionist even when the doctor knows that in his professional medical opinion it will harm the woman. That is, it makes it an offence for a doctor to exercise his medical judgement in the interest of his patient.

What advantages could this bill have? It seeks to advance medicine, but in my view medicine is about saving people's lives, extending their lives, improving their health. Simply because something is done in a clinical environment does not make it medical any more than is the execution of prisoners in the United States, which involves medical personnel and doctors checking that the executed person is dead. That is not a medical procedure, nor is taking the life of an unborn child. It does not make it medical to stab someone just because you use a scalpel rather than a switchblade.

What advantage would passage of this bill bring? No doubt some members will continue to talk, as some already have, about backyard abortion and its consequences, but that is certainly not what this debate is about. The alternative to the passage of this bill is not a return to backyard abortions and a regime of criminal prosecutions.

The alternative to passage of this bill is the retention of in-principle legal protection for all people, including the unborn. It is a principle, as I said, which was hard won but could be easily destroyed. It is a principle that protects us all and which we abolish or diminish at the peril of every single Victorian.

The bill's proponents will see vindication if this bill becomes law. There may even be champagne and strawberries on the steps of this Parliament to celebrate that apparent vindication. Such a celebration, however, would be based on false assumptions. The passage of this bill will not mean that abortion is right, justified or properly legal. If this bill is passed, it will simply mean that a majority of members of this Parliament are profoundly misguided about abortion. The passage of this bill will not end the debate in Victoria about abortion any more than the case of Roe v. Wade ended the debate in the United States, which is much hotter than the debate in Australia.

There will be no final solution to the question of abortion even if this bill is passed. The government has proclaimed that this is a conscience vote for all ALP members. If that is true, then its members will vote according to the merits or otherwise of this bill. Members of Parliament from all sides share at least one characteristic -- ambition. Ambition is not a bad thing at all when it spurs us on to do our best. Supporting the removal of in-principle legal protection for any category of person, however, cannot be best -- not for the particular victims, the baby and the mother, not the best for our society generally and not for any member supporting such a measure.

Some members have already declared they will support this bill. I ask such members to change their minds.

I know it is a difficult thing to do once you have stated in public that you will vote one way, but I ask them to consider the evidence again, to maybe look at it with fresh eyes and not be prejudiced by the fact that they have heard certain slogans over and over again.

There is a story that is apparently true about the sinking of the Titanic. Apparently as it sank some of the people jumping onto lifeboats looked up and saw some people standing up on the deck, not wanting to move. The people in the lifeboats said, 'Come on, jump into the lifeboats -- the ship is sinking'. Some of the people on the deck said, 'No, this ship can't sink. We're all right'. The people in the boat said, 'The water is up to the bulkheads. There's 3 feet of water in the ballroom. Come on -- the ship's going down'. Apparently one of

Page 4120

the people on the deck pulled out the brochure about the Titanic and said, 'This ship can't sink. See? It says --unsinkable!--'.

When people are told something over and over again, sometimes it is very difficult to change their minds, no matter what the evidence. I ask those members who said they will vote for this bill to reconsider and to look at the evidence -- not to be like the people on the deck of the Titanic, believing something because they have heard it so many times that it must be true. I ask them to show courage, change their minds and vote against the bill.

I am certain this bill is a grave mistake; I know it. It represents a danger to all Victorians, particularly, but not only, the unborn. I ask all members to vote for the interests of women and especially for the lives of the most vulnerable and most defenceless -- those who most need their protection. The victims of this bill will be real. Their pain will be real. These real victims are real people. I implore every member to vote against this bill.

Interjections from gallery.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) -- Order! Clear the gallery, please!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -- Order! This is a debate in which everybody holds a very strong position. Mr Kavanagh has made a significant contribution to the debate, and that is acknowledged by all sides of the house. His was certainly a heartfelt contribution. The reality is that that display by the gallery was improper in terms of the procedures of the house. Whilst we understand the support that a number of people have for Mr Kavanagh's position, we must maintain the decorum of the house down here.

Members of the public have been warned throughout the day that it is not acceptable for people in the gallery to engage in the debate, and that includes by way of applause or other participation in terms of members' contributions. My predecessor in the Chair rightly suggested that the gallery ought to be cleared on that basis. Mr Elasmar and I both take the view that we do not want to take that action. I suggest that people restrain themselves, listen to the debate and accept the fact that the contributions on the floor need to proceed without participation from members of the gallery.

…

Date: 10 October 2008

…

Page 4206

…

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 23

Barber, Mr
Lovell, Ms
Broad, Ms (Teller)
Madden, Mr
Coote, Mrs
Mikakos, Ms
Darveniza, Ms
Pakula, Mr
Davis, Mr D.
Pennicuik, Ms
Davis, Mr P.
Pulford, Ms
Eideh, Mr
Scheffer, Mr
Hall, Mr
Tee, Mr
Hartland, Ms
Thornley, Mr
Jennings, Mr
Tierney, Ms (Teller)
Koch, Mr
Viney, Mr
Leane, Mr

Page 4207

Noes, 17

Atkinson, Mr
O'Donohue, Mr
Dalla-Riva, Mr
Petrovich, Mrs
Drum, Mr
Peulich, Mrs
Elasmar, Mr
Rich-Phillips, Mr
Finn, Mr (Teller)
Smith, Mr
Guy, Mr
Somyurek, Mr
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
Theophanous, Mr
Kronberg, Mrs
Vogels, Mr
Lenders, Mr

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Interjections from gallery.

Persons escorted from gallery.

Hansard 2008-12-04 John Valves Pty Ltd in Ballarat

2008-12-17T11:18:00.006+11:00

BACKGROUND:
John Valves Pty Ltd, a manufacturing company operating in Ballarat since 1896 and employing 120 to 130 workers, had been placed into administration.
Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region asked the minister to assist the affected workers in receiving due payment and take action to prevent a repeat occurance.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: John Valves Pty Ltd: government assistance
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Adjournment
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 4 December 2008
Page: 5501

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My adjournment matter is for the Acting Minister for Industry and Trade and relates to the closure of John Valves in Ballarat. Former workers at John Valves have told me that although payments for salary sacrifice, superannuation and even for maintenance were deducted from their wages, at least some of those payments were never forwarded to the appropriate funds. I ask the minister to investigate and, if these claims are correct, take action to see that these workers are expeditiously compensated from the proceeds of the liquidation without having to take legal action. I also ask that he take action to prevent such a situation happening again.

Hansard 2008-11-11 Water Commonwealth Powers Bill

2008-11-27T16:04:00.005+11:00

BACKGROUND:
The government introduced the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill to hand over control of the Victorian part of the Murray-Darling River system to the Federal Commonwealth Government.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 November 2008
Page: 4865

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL
Second reading

...

Page 4878

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I have only a few words to say about this bill.

Of course the Murray-Darling system represents the most precious asset we have in this country; indeed it is the most valuable resource we have on our continent. It is an asset and a resource that, of course, crosses state boundaries, and that is a situation fraught with some difficulties. We all know that with any water resource like this those downstream can easily be held hostage by those upstream and by whatever actions they take in removing water. The fact of the matter is that basically Victoria is downstream in the system, so it seems to me that Victoria has quite a lot to win from a situation where power over the river is transferred to an independent superstate authority -- in this case, of course, it is the commonwealth of Australia. It seems quite appropriate that a national government should have control over a national resource, particularly one that crosses borders between different states.

Hansard 2008-11-13 Manufacturing: regional Victoria

2008-11-27T15:22:00.006+11:00

BACKGROUND:
On 13 November 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria asked in Parliament Mr Lenders the Acting Minister for Industry and Trade about government action that had been taken in recent weeks to ensure the survival of manufacturing in regional Victoria
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: Manufacturing: regional and rural Victoria
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH; LENDERS
Date: 13 November 2008
Page: 5014

Manufacturing: regional and rural Victoria

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question without notice is for the Treasurer in his capacity as Acting Minister for Industry and Trade, and it relates to manufacturing policy. Recent closures, including partial closures, in Ballarat and Geelong indicate that, partially due to the current global economic climate, regional manufacturers in Victoria are under unprecedented stress. I ask: while we await the government's manufacturing strategy, what actions, such as innovations or changes to policy, has the government taken in recent weeks to ensure the survival of manufacturing in regional Victoria?

Mr LENDERS (Acting Minister for Industry and Trade) -- I thank Mr Kavanagh for his question and his interest in regional manufacturing. Mr Kavanagh's question was: while awaiting a manufacturing statement, what is the government doing in the short term, in the interim, in regional areas?

The actions we have been taking in manufacturing for a period of time -- what we have done and what will be put into place -- have been specifically directed towards regional Victoria. I will be very brief on this.

Victoria was the first state to bring in a Regional Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF), and it was brought in by this Labor government. It was opposed in this house by the Liberals and The Nationals in the first instance, and it was only passed when it was introduced a second time. The significance of the fund is that in Mr Kavanagh's electorate and in all other regional electorates there is now the capacity for the state government to work with local government and with industry to build on infrastructure to assist in manufacturing. I could give numerous examples across the state of where that sort of infrastructure has been the key for new manufacturing to be able to come into an area.

Secondly, the Victorian industry participation policy that we were discussing before in this house was brought in by this government to assist manufacturing. There are ongoing examples of this: reductions in payroll tax which came into effect on 1 July, helping manufacturing; reductions in land tax which came in on 1 July, helping manufacturing; and the cut to WorkCover premiums which came in on 1 July, helping manufacturers. In addition to that -- and this is obviously nothing to do with the government -- for those manufacturers relying on exports the Australian dollar has gone from around US98 cents, I think the

Page 5015

figure was, in late May down to the high 60s now. That is obviously assisting regional manufacturers.

More immediate than that is the investment the government has made in infrastructure in some industries in regional Victoria. This is not in Mr Kavanagh's electorate, but as an example, investment in infrastructure has meant that concrete castings for some road projects are being built in the Latrobe Valley. It is a $4 billion infrastructure project, and much of that money goes into manufactured products. That is happening now.

Mr Koch interjected.

Mr LENDERS -- Mr Koch interjects about John Valves in Ballarat. Yesterday the head of Regional Development Victoria was there. We are in ongoing dialogue in the area to find a buyer for that company and work it through.

These are not easy times, and Mr Kavanagh is certainly not implying they are. What he is saying is: what are we doing in the interim? In the interim we are working with companies and we are working with their workforces. Those policies relating to RIDF, WorkCover, policies land tax, stamp duties and payroll tax are all assisting manufacturing. Many of these things are only kicking in now; these policy initiatives are just coming into place. There is a lot more to be done. The manufacturing statement will articulate a lot of the things we are doing and the things we will do. Mr Kavanagh and I both share a great regard for manufacturing, particularly in regional Victoria. This state has a great future, and this government will work with manufacturing to deliver on that.

Supplementary question

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Of the changes the minister just outlined, I ask: which of them represent responses to the new international environment in finance and the economy that has developed in the last couple of months?

Mr LENDERS (Acting Minister for Industry and Trade) -- All of them. There is not a single item that alone assists an individual manufacturer -- it is a collection. All the things I mentioned in relation to the budget -- land tax, stamp duty, payroll tax and WorkCover premiums -- assist in reducing the burden on manufacturers. The single largest issue for a manufacturer who relies on exports is the fluctuating dollar, and the government can claim no credit for that -- that is obviously an international factor.

The other thing I did not mention which is making a significant difference to manufacturers now is the intervention of the national government along with most other G20 governments in stabilising the banking system.

Banks are now lending to banks again, and banks are lending to customers again. We are seeing the effects of that guarantee flowing through. Similarly share markets are partly stabilising. The share market has gone down a long, long way, but we are seeing governments attempting to address that volatility at a national and international level with the freeze on short selling and a range of other things.

Together, all these are necessary for business confidence and consumer confidence, which will assist manufacturing. There is no single answer, as Mr Kavanagh well knows, and he is not implying there is. All of these measures come together to assist manufacturing. I think anybody who believes a single manufacturing statement or a single action by a government will make a difference is ignoring the fact that there are multiple factors coming together.

We have strategies and they are all coming together, but we are working with individual manufacturers in what are, particularly for those who do not export, trying times in the current environment.

Hansard 2008-10-16 John Valves Pty Ltd in Ballarat

2008-11-13T17:07:00.007+11:00

BACKGROUND:
John Valves Pty Ltd, a manufacturing company operating in Ballarat since 1896 and employing 120 to 130 workers, had been placed into administration.
Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region called on the government to assist the affected workers and industries in Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: John Valves Pty Ltd: government assistance
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 16 October 2008
Page: 4461

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I referred yesterday to John Valves Pty Ltd, which has been placed into administration. The company has been operating since 1896. I support many of the comments made by Mr Vogels this morning. Like Mr Vogels, I visited John Valves in the middle of this year and was told by company representatives that they felt it was not getting a fair deal from the Victorian government. Neither was it getting fair treatment from the commonwealth government, because protection at that level is very low -- much lower than that provided in other countries that give protection to their industries.

In addition, the company felt it was not given fair consideration by the Victorian government for many projects in Victoria. Mr Vogels referred to a long list of them. Although the company was supplying other states, it had not won a contract in Victoria.

On behalf of John Valves Pty Ltd I asked the minister at that time to give the company better consideration.

I call on the government, firstly, to do what it can for the 120 to 130 workers whose future is now in jeopardy; secondly, to do what it can to guarantee better consideration in the future so that a new buyer may be found for the company; and thirdly, to provide better treatment of all industries in Victoria, especially in rural and regional Victoria.

Hansard 2008-10-29 Innovation: stem cell research

2008-11-13T14:48:00.009+11:00

BACKGROUND:
Professor Martin, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, had recently written a letter showing that cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and has become completely redundant.
Mr Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region, asked Mr Jennings the Minister for Innovation about changes that have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: Innovation: stem cell research
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 29 October 2008
Page: 4611

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for Mr Jennings, the Minister for Innovation. It relates to a topic that was raised yesterday in the house regarding cloning for stem cell research. I refer to a letter written by an emeritus professor of medicine, Professor Martin, at the University of Melbourne. It was a letter that I think was received by most members, and it shows that already, over the last 12 months, cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and is now completely redundant. It concludes:

"As it stands now, there is no basis for any further efforts to achieve therapeutic cloning using the transfer of adult cell nuclei to human eggs. Indeed it would be irresponsible to attempt this."

I ask the minister: what changes have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I am happy to answer the question from Mr Kavanagh. Every time I talk about stem cells I pre-empt the eventual arrival of his question and probably matters that he will raise in consideration of a matter that I will not pre-empt by talking about what is on the notice paper. I am well aware of Mr Kavanagh's enduring interest in this matter.

When I talk about the funding that has been provided by the state of Victoria and joined in a collaborative effort by the New South Wales government in recent times in supporting stem cell research, I take the opportunity to talk about the parallel stream of embryonic stem cell research with induced pluripotent stem cells, which is the alternative stream that Mr Kavanagh and other members of the community have a greater degree of confidence in because it is derived from other forms of tissue rather than through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). I have taken the opportunity to reflect on the intention of the government through its funding arrangements to test the validity and the application of these various forms of stem cell research.

I understand Mr Kavanagh is not alone in having ethical considerations about SCNT stem cell research; others in the community share his concern. However, what Mr Kavanagh purports to be the accepted scientific wisdom is an assertion which I refute.

That it is well established and recognised and that there is no longer a valid reason to pursue SCNT stem cell research are assertions I reject.

Part of the scientific research program that we have in Victoria, part of what is happening around the world and part of the collaboration between ourselves and the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is to test what is the appropriate application of that field of scientific endeavour and what benefits the community may derive from it.

I am happy for us to be tested in this field and I am happy for us to see the relative effectiveness of these two forms of the significant streams of stem cell research, but I do not accept that there has been unequivocal scientific evidence to fall on one side or the other.

I will assert in this place, in the public domain and in subsequent debates, in terms of providing support for research into the future, that there are still many reasons why we should continue with determination to explore the application and effectiveness of stem cell research.

Supplementary question

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- If the obsolescence of cloning as a research technique can be shown to the satisfaction of the minister, would that not warrant, indeed necessitate, a change in government policy?

Page 4612

The PRESIDENT -- Order! In my opinion Mr Kavanagh is asking for an opinion, which is contrary to the standing orders.

Mr Jennings interjected.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I am sure the minister can answer, but the question is whether the Chair will allow it to be answered. I will allow Mr Kavanagh the opportunity to rephrase his supplementary question.

Mr KAVANAGH -- If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the minister that the cloning technology is now obsolete, does he intend to change government policy?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I thank the President for the opportunity to allow Mr Kavanagh to ask his question because it still warrants some personal opinion of mine and in terms of my responsibilities, but I am happy to outline what the sequence of events would be. In terms of the evidence and in terms of the commitment to research, I do not desert for 1 second from what I have said in my substantive answer. There are still many reasons for us to pursue with vigour the potential for SCNT research.

If the hypothetical situation of Mr Kavanagh's assertion came to be the scientific opinion that I would accept, then subsequently I, as a part of the government, would have some opportunities and obligations to share that with my colleagues and, with the collaboration within the policy development process of the government, to determine what the appropriate policy framework may be, and then, if necessary, to lead to legislation.

But at this point in time the Victorian government absolutely reaffirms its commitment to the legislative framework that we have in place in Victoria, to support the scientific research that we have in place and to consider -- on the basis of the best evidence, the best science and the best ethical considerations -- our position going forward. At this point in time we have got a lot of work to do.

Media 2008-10-15 DLP on Government Services

2008-10-17T17:34:00.008+11:00

Press Release
15 October 2008

DLP Pressures Government on Services

At the regional sitting of Victoria's Legislative Council held at Lakes Entrance today, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh succeeded in having a motion passed expressing concern at the state of government services in Victoria.

Mr Kavanagh's motion was largely a consequence of the report into Victoria's health services that was released in early October. The report showed that the quality of services to many patients in Victoria has recently deteriorated.

Mr Kavanagh also said "public transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services in Victoria are also in a sad state."

Mr Kavanagh also said "that last week's passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 will further threaten the availability of GP's and other medical services in Victoria. Hundreds of doctors have said that they will resign as a result of the passage of this Bill and Catholic Maternity and Emergency wards are also under threat as a result of the passage of this Bill."

Mr Kavanagh's motion was passed 18 to 17 votes.

For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.

Hansard 2008-10-15 Victorian Services Deterioration

2008-10-17T15:14:00.013+11:00

BACKGROUND:
On 15 OCtober 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria Region moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --
(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;
(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;
(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and
(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".
Mr Evan Thornley MLC for Southern Metropolitan Region was absent from the chamber for the vote.
Nonetheless the motion did pass on its merits as outlined in Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard below:

HANSARD:
Title: GOVERNMENT: SERVICES
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 15 October 2008
Page: 4414

GOVERNMENT: SERVICES

Page 4414

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I move:

"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --

(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;

(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;

(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and

(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".

The motion standing in my name proposes that the house express concern about the quality of services now available to Victorians. It refers in particular to an overloaded and degraded public health system, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria, and to a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.

This motion was prompted by reports on Victoria's hospitals released only a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of October. There are reasons to be concerned not only about hospitals but about a range of services in Victoria, including transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services.
In addition to the general quality of services to be concerned about there is the discrepancy between inner and outer Melbourne and indeed the difference between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.

The first point is that the situation is probably quite a lot worse than has been reported by the government. The Age of 22 September reported:

"Victorian hospitals have been warned not to admit emergency patients to 'phantom wards' or falsify data to secure funding, despite health minister Daniel Andrews' insistence that these practices do not exist.

...

A survey showed that 19 emergency department directors ...

found that almost 40 of them had been 'admitting' patients when they were still in waiting rooms, corridors or on trolleys.

The 'virtual wards' --"

which do not actually exist --

"were used purely for 'creative accounting' to receive funding and avoid 'performance watch', the doctors said".

Page 4415

The situation is probably quite a lot worse than is admitted by the government report. But even before the release of the report it was reported that more than 1500 people have been dying unnecessarily every year in Australian hospitals -- not Victorian hospitals but Australian hospitals -- because of overcrowding. Furthermore, for example, as reported in the Herald Sun of 24 September, a man in his 60s suffering from pneumonia had to wait three days in the emergency ward of a Melbourne hospital because of a lack of beds.

The government's report reveals disturbing information about Victoria's hospital system. The way of reporting has been changed. The Sunday Herald Sun complained about this on 5 October. It said that the previous way of reporting on hospitals in Victoria was clearly understood and was easy to understand, but a few years ago the government changed its system of reporting to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to read, let alone understand.

According to the report that was released a couple of weeks ago, waiting lists for cancer patients and other seriously ill Victorians have more than doubled in the past six months. This raises an extremely challenging situation for many people who know that they have cancer and yet they are being forced to wait for long periods before they can obtain treatment. It is bad enough to be in that situation of having an illness without having to worry about receiving any treatment for it.

The Age reports that more than 100 000 patients were not treated within target times in Victorian emergency departments last year and that the system struggled to cope with soaring demand. It breaks down those figures: 20 000 emergency patients, including stroke victims and those in severe pain and struggling to breathe were not treated within the set time of 10 minutes and so on; 98 000 urgent patients were not seen within 30 minutes; and 85 000 patients were waiting longer than 8 hours due to a lack of emergency beds.

The president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association said the hospital system in Victoria is drowning in patients. It does not have the facilities, it does not have the staffing and it does not have the equipment to look after Victorians. This is a dire situation indeed but the situation with services in Victoria is not restricted to hospitals. Public transport, roads, dental services and the ability to get a consultation to see a GP is deteriorating in Victoria. We all know about the chronic overcrowding on Melbourne's transport system with people unable to get a seat, the risk of cancellations and so on. This is repeated throughout regional Victoria. Not only is the situation in Melbourne bad but it is even worse in regional and rural Victoria.

We know from newspaper reports that inferior health care, transport and facilities for the cities north and west have been left behind.

The report shows how much worse the situation is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne than the better-off parts of Melbourne. Melburnians living in the western and northern suburbs of Melbourne are second-class citizens, starved of access to health care, transport links, public services and facilities. It is worse outside Melbourne than it is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne.

To substantiate this, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne only about 1 per cent of people are able to take public transport to work as compared with an average in greater Melbourne of 6.9 per cent. We all know that the facilities in outer Melbourne are not good enough, and this figure underlines that with startling clarity. We know that what happens in Melbourne is worse in Geelong, for example, where people cannot get onto a train and are subject to cancellations. If they can get on the train, they cannot get a seat.

The timetable itself is not a convenient one and does not seem to have been intelligently designed for the people of Geelong. It is similar in Ballarat, which I have talked about in the house before. People are quite often forced to stand on high-speed trains from Ballarat to Melbourne. This is a situation that many people find intolerable. Meanwhile the highway system throughout Western Victoria Region is not up to scratch. There are vast improvements needed throughout the region.

Last year we talked about dental services throughout Victoria in a debate about fluoridation. Mr David Davis, I recall, stood in the chamber and spent hours going through the data on dental services throughout regional Victoria, and the figures were terrible.

Although there have been improvements in certain respects -- I understand Portland, for example, has recently had a big improvement in the quality of dental services available through public facilities -- on the other hand the most recent report in Ballarat says there is an average wait of 52 months for public dental services in Victoria.

Ms Hartland this morning spoke about ambulance services and the pressure they are under throughout Victoria. It was also revealed just yesterday or the day before in Ballarat that home nursing visits have been reduced throughout that area because of funding pressures and deficiencies in resources.

Page 4416

I would like to speak mostly about the availability of the services of doctors, particularly throughout Western Victoria Region. Many doctors throughout western Victoria and I guess the whole state have recently closed their books. Many GPs will no longer see new patients unless they have seen them in the past. We are told that Victoria is facing a deficiency of 1000 medical staff, mostly doctors, by 2009. At the same time Queensland is actively recruiting Victorian doctors. For each doctor who leaves Victoria, the situation, especially in regional Victoria, will become much worse.

The government has taken some action. It has attempted to recruit doctors from the United Kingdom. However, the most recent report says that of the 2500 sought by 2014, so far only 35 doctors have been obtained from the United Kingdom. At the same time the doctors who are in Victoria are being recruited by other states and are leaving.

A lot of these problems require large amounts of money, but I would like to make the point that it seems to me that they are not all about money. There are other policies that can be initiated and adopted that would have a big impact on the availability of GP services throughout Western Victoria Region and would not cost extra money.

Last week we debated the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008. Unfortunately that bill legally forces doctors and nurses to participate in abortions, in spite of warnings from hundreds of doctors in Victoria that if the bill were passed, they would leave Victoria or take early retirement. More than 200 of them signed documents to that effect, and other individuals have been quoted in the press saying that they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed. Of course the bill has been passed, and in my view it is probably contrary to the government's own Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, the point for the purpose of this debate is that that was done despite knowing that it would cause even further damage to the ability of people throughout regional Victoria to see a GP. The government deliberately and with full warning, for ideological reasons, proceeded with a measure that will further degrade the provision of medical services, especially in regional Victoria. In addition we had statements that the passage of the bill would endanger the ongoing work of Catholic maternity and emergency hospitals in Victoria. Nevertheless, the bill was passed.

The government collects huge revenues from the people of Victoria; I think they are now almost double what they were when this government came to office less than nine years ago. It spends huge amounts of money on the sorts of services I have been talking about, but there are good reasons to believe that the Victorian taxpayer is not getting very good value for money.

The motion does not use excessive or florid language; it is worded in measured and moderate language. It is merely a motion to express concern about the state of services in Victoria, particularly in regional Victoria, and I ask all members to support the motion.

...

Page 4436

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- During the course of this debate Mr Viney described my speech as a rant. Neither my speech nor the words of the motion can fairly be described that way. The words of the motion are measured, balanced, fair and moderate. They do not ask for the condemnation of the government, but merely for an expression of concern by this house at the state of services in Victoria. The facts concerning services in Victoria fully warrant such an expression of concern. We have just received news about John Valves in Ballarat; it has unfortunately announced that it is closing with the loss of 130 jobs in that city.

But apart from that, and more explicitly on the theme of services, earlier this month a report on the state of Victoria's hospitals and health care system justifies an expression of concern. There is a wait of up to three days for a bed in an emergency room for people who are in a critical condition. The time patients suffering from cancer are required to wait for treatment has doubled. Throughout Melbourne and regional Victoria the transport system is in obvious crisis. The availability of services is insufficient and the quality of those services that exist is very bad indeed. That is shown by chronic overcrowding not only in Melbourne but also, for example, in Ballarat and Geelong. As I mentioned and as Mr Koch went into detail about, the state of highways in western Victoria is sadly lacking and they need a lot of work.

We have heard of ambulance services in crisis, and we have heard in the last day or two of nursing services in Ballarat being cut back because of insufficient resources.

People in Ballarat are waiting on average 52 months to obtain dental services from public clinics. Doctor services are already under threat throughout Victoria. Earlier this year it was predicted there would be a shortfall of 1000 doctors throughout Victoria by next year. However, what has happened since that prediction was made has made the situation even worse. That includes, for example, the aggressive and successful recruitment of Victorian doctors to Queensland. Also, as I said before, the passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill last week will make the situation much worse than it would otherwise have been because of the threat of at least 200 doctors in Victoria saying they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed, and it now has been. There is of course the threat to maternity and emergency services that are presently provided through Catholic hospitals.

Page 4437

Mr Viney and Ms Pulford's contributions had a common theme, which was how much the government has spent. That was the main point they made: it was about the government's spending of huge amounts of money on services in Victoria. But that misses the point. The point is not how much has been spent but how much has been achieved. There was very little information from government members about what was achieved. There was an indication of train services that were restored, but that was as close as we got to an indication of what has been achieved.

I note that those train services went over budget by what I think was 1100 per cent or 1250 per cent -- something of that order. Neither Mr Viney nor Ms Pulford mentioned those, but they do seem to be relevant facts in the course of this debate. Ms Darveniza talked about the north-south pipeline. I believe most people who are affected regard that not as a government service but a government disservice.

This motion is not an extreme one. It is not a rant. It is an expression of concern. There are reasons to be concerned about the quality of services in Victoria at the present time. Is the government saying that it is not concerned by what is happening to hospital services in Victoria? Is the Australian Labor Party not concerned about the quality of dental services in regional and rural Victoria? Is it not concerned about the quality of transport that is offered to people throughout Victoria, not only in Melbourne but in Geelong, Ballarat and other places? The conclusion is inevitable that, if the government votes against this motion, it is saying that it is not concerned about things that it ought to be concerned about.

...

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 18
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...

Noes, 17
...

Motion agreed to.

Media 2008-10-14 DLP Asks Governor Stop Abort Bill

2008-10-15T17:00:00.008+11:00

Press Release
14 October 2008

DLP Asks Governor to Stop Abortion Bill

DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh has faxed the Governor of Victoria Professor De Kretser, asking him to withhold Royal Assent for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, on the basis that it was not properly passed by the Victorian Parliament.

"There are good reasons to conclude that the Abortion Bill contravenes Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Furthermore passage of this Bill through the Parliament did not comply with requirements specified in the Charter. The Charter requires certain procedures before a bill that affects rights guaranteed under the Charter can be properly passed by the Parliament. The Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 did not comply with those requirements. On the basis of this deficiency I have asked the Governor to withhold Royal Assent for the Bill", Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.

Media 2008-08-19 DLP Questions Abortion Report

2008-08-20T16:40:00.004+10:00

Press Release
19 August 2008

DLP Questions VLRC Abortion Report in Parliament

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MP for Western Victoria, today gave notice of a motion expressing "deep concern" at the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Report on abortion.

Mr Kavanagh said, "the Report is clearly not the result of honest attempts to find the truth. For example there is overwhelming evidence that abortion is agonisingly painful to many fetuses and is also harmful to women. The VLRC report ignored the preponderance of evidence and accepted dissenting, minority opinions on these important topics".

Please find copy of the Notice of Motion below.

For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.

----------------------------------------------------------------

MR KAVANAGH - NOTICE OF MOTION

I give notice that, on the next day of meeting, I will move —

That this House notes with deep concern the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Final Report on the Law of Abortion, in that the Report either ignored or dismissed a large volume of cogent, valuable scientific evidence showing physical and mental health risks of abortion to women and took no adequate or appropriate steps to provide the Government with that information, and further notes that the deficiencies in the Report include —

(1) the failure to acknowledge the risks of psychological damage, depression, suicide, the abortion breast cancer link, infertility and damage to the cervix and uterus resulting in pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies with concomitant problems including cerebral palsy;

(2) opposition to mandated information provisions;

(3) opposition to mandatory counselling;

(4) opposition to any anti-coercion legislation thereby leaving women vulnerable to pressure by husbands, partners, family and others to have abortions which are not genuinely of their own choosing;

(5) the failure to recommend banning partial-birth abortion, now banned in the United States of America;

(6) the failure to seriously address the issue of fetal pain; and

(7) the failure to address the role of abortion in destroying evidence of the sexual abuse of young women and the obligation of all medical practitioners to report evidence of child abuse.

Hansard 2008-07-30 Physician Assisted Dying Bill

2008-08-06T14:20:00.014+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, on 30 July 2008 led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.

"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said in a press release the following day.

The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is below:

HANSARD:
Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2802

Page 2802
...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.

I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.

The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.

Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.

The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is

Page 2803

temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.

This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?

Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.

In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.

The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.

It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.

It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.

We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.

This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.

The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.
Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new

Page 2804

wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.

Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.

The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.

In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.

The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.

Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.

A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.

As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.

This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.

This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.

It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.

The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.

This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.

Page 2805

Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.

The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.

Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.

Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:

"The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients".

Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.

Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.

The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:

"Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ..."

This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.

There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.

Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:

"... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death".

What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.

The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a

Page 2806

situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.

The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.

There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.

Media 2008-07-31 Government Questioned on Fluoride

2008-08-01T17:55:00.003+10:00

Press Release
31st July 2008

DLP Questions Government Over Fluoride Objectors.

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, asked the government in Parliament today, what it intends to do about the more than 1,000 residents of Castlemaine, who, in June, signed and witnessed statements delivering their non-consent to treatment for dental decay. These notices included declarations that there is evidence that fluoridation may be unjurious to health.

Mr Kavanagh succeeded late last year in passing a Bill in the Upper House to prevent the government fluoridating new parts of Victoria unless it were to first receive approval from a majority of voters at a plebiscite of affected citizens.
"The government did not allow that Bill to even be debated in the Legislative Assembly. Passage in the Assembly is required for any Bill to become law." Mr Kavanagh said.

"Unfortunately the relevant Minister is in the Assembly so it will take some time for a reply, which I do not expect to be satisfactory" Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.

Media 2008-07-31 DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge

2008-08-01T17:37:00.006+10:00

Press Release
31st July 2008

DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge.

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, last night led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.

"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.

The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is attached below:

VICHANSARD
Whole Speech
Member Selected - KAVANAGH

Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008

Page 2802
...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.

I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.

The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.

Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.

The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is

Page 2803

temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.

This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?

Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.

In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.

The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.

It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.

It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.

We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.

This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.

The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.

Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new

Page 2804

wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.

Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.

The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.

In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.

The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.

Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.

A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.

As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.

This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.

This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.

It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.

The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.

This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.

Page 2805

Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.

The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.

Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.

Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:

The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients.

Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.

Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.

The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:

Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ...

This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.

There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.

Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:

... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death.

What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.

The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a

Page 2806

situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.

The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.

There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.

Media 2008-07-31 "Compressed Natural Gas?" DLP

2008-08-01T17:26:00.006+10:00

Press Release
31st July 2008

"Compressed Natural Gas the way to go?" DLP

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria in Parliament yesterday, encouraged the Victorian government to consider promoting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

Mr Kavanagh observed that :
-CNG cars are being sold in the US and distribution networks there are being expanded rapidly.
-Australia has huge resources of natural gas which are being exported at very low prices.
-Natural gas produces almost zero emissions.
-Australia's balance of trade could benefit enormously from replacing oil imports with CNG.
-Unlike LPG, CNG is not derived from oil.
-CNG has the potential to dramatically cut fuel costs for motorists.

Mr Kavanagh's speech in Parliament follows:

VICHANSARD
Title: Motor vehicles: alternative fuels
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2787

Motor vehicles: alternative fuels

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Industry and Trade and relates to innovation in alternative fuels. Of the many possible alternative sources of energy for cars, compressed natural gas (CNG) seems to be ideally suited to Australia because we have vast reserves of natural gas which we are exporting at very low prices. CNG, unlike liquefied petroleum gas, is not oil or petroleum dependent. The technology has been proven and is growing rapidly in the USA, where Honda is providing a CNG-dedicated car. CNG has almost no emissions, and its widespread use would greatly benefit our balance of trade by replacing oil imports. Of course, CNG also has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of fuel for motorists in Australia.

I ask the minister: as Victoria is the centre of Australia's car building industry, does the government have any plans to encourage car producers here to build CNG vehicles or to spur, or even help, distributors to establish networks for the retailing of compressed natural gas?

*******************************
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.

Media 2008-06-10 DLP Blocks Police Integrity Bill

2008-08-01T17:21:00.001+10:00

Press Release
10th June 2008

DLP Blocks Police Integrity Bill.

The Legislative Council at 4.20PM today delayed voting on the Government's Office of Police Integrity Bill on a motion by Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Western Victoria.

Mr Kavanagh argued that the Bill, which the Government was very anxious to have passed as ASAP, deserved more consideration because:

(1) The report by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee was only published today;

(2) Irregularities in the Committee's hearings and processes have been alleged; and

(3) The Bill seems to be inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and with general principles of human rights.

In short the Bill deserved further consideration. With Coalition and Greens' support, Mr Kavanagh's motion passed 21 to 19.

For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria on 03 5222 1503.

Media 2008-06-05 Fetal Photo - Permission to publish

2008-08-01T17:10:00.006+10:00

Press Release
5th June 2008

Controversial Fetal Photo- Permission to freely publish.

The temperature in Victoria's abortion law debate spiked yesterday, when a storm of protest was raised after Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Victoria's Upper House, emailed all state MPs an image of a 21 week old fetus holding a surgeon's finger after life saving surgery.

Some MPs immediately emailed and phoned expressions of their extreme offence at Mr Kavanagh's email of "A telling image".

The image shows Samuel Armas, who is now 7 years old, when he was a 21 week old fetus. Just after the surgeon had completed pioneering fetal corrective surgery, the unborn fetus was photographed holding the surgeon's finger.

An episode of the TV drama "House" shown in the US last year centred around this event captured by Photojournalist Michael Clancy.

If you would like to publish the photo, copyright holder Michael Clancy has communicated his permission to Australian newspapers to do so freely (see below).

Controversial picture is also attached below. The picture contains an image following surgery and is not suitable for children.

For more information contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.

Permission from Michael Clancy to Publish Picture
"The attached copy of the picture, Samuel reaching from his mother's womb during a surgical procedure to correct spina bifida in the womb, is a file large enough for print reproduction.

I, Michael Clancy, as photographer of the attached image and sole copyright holder of the picture, give my permission for any newspapers in Australia to reproduce the image in their publication. The picture was taken at Vanderbilt University Medical Centre on August 19th 1999. Samuel Armas is holding the finger of Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, the pioneer of the surgical procedure."

Source of below attached photo:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children - http://www.michaelclancy.com

Media 2008-06-04 Fetus Grasping Surgeon Image Stir

2008-07-23T16:04:00.009+10:00

PRESS RELEASE

04 June 2008. Wednesday.

DLP SENDING IMAGE OF FETUS GRASPING SURGEON'S FINGER CAUSES STIR

Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria, ignited indignation this morning when he sent an email to other Members showing a picture of a fetus reaching out to grasp a surgeon’s finger.

The picture was taken after the surgeon had successfully operated, saving the life of the fetus.

A copy of the email with the photo attached follows:

"Subject: A telling image
For your information, find attached a telling image."

The image sent to the other Members can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.

Mr Kavanagh received angry responses from some other MPs - some assuming, at first glance, that the image was of an abortion.

"I would not send pictures of an abortion, mainly because I suspect that such images could be counter-productive. The image I sent actually follows a miraculous, healing operation," Mr Kavanagh said.

I suspect some were actually offended because the image makes it clear that human life does not suddenly begin at birth," Mr Kavanagh said.

A copy of Mr Kavanagh’s email response follows:

"Dear Members,

Following the sending of an image by me this morning, some Members have expressed offence on the assumption that the picture shows an abortion. The image does not show an abortion. It shows a scene following wondrous, life saving surgery on a fetus. The picture was taken at the end of the operation and shows the fetus grasping the surgeon's finger.

I am not upset by the image of one person, however young, touching another's hand.

The image has been published in newspapers around the world, including "USA Today" and was the basis of an episode of the TV series "House". Of course, the newspapers did not include "warnings".

The baby in the picture, Sam Armas, is now a happy, healthy boy ( I can send further images taken throughout his life, including others of him before birth, if anyone would like them).

Peter Kavanagh"

For further comment please contact Mr Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.

The image at the centre of this press release can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.

WestVic Report June 2008 Available Online

2008-07-23T14:26:00.003+10:00

Available online is the WestVic Report newsletter published by the Office of Peter Kavanagh to inform people of Western Victoria about the work and initiatives of Peter Kavanagh MLC, for the people of Western Victoria and the State.

CONTENTS

* ABOUT WESTERN VICTORIA

* THANK YOU WESTERN VICTORIA

* COMMITTEE WORK
- Gaming Committee
- Public Land Committee

* EVENTS IN WESTERN VICTORIA
- Deakin Medical School

* ABOUT PETER KAVANAGH MLC

* WORK IN PARLIAMENT
- Maiden/Inaugural Speech - 13 Feb 2007
- 15 April 2008: Holding the International Remembrance Flame (Torch)
- Media Commentary on Peter Kavanagh in Parliament
- Cloning Bill - 2nd May 2007
- Relationships Bill - 8th April 2008
- Manufacturing Industry
- Local Medicos oppose fluoridation
- Genetically Modified Crops

* ACTION ON WESTERN VICTORIAN ISSUES
- Water
- Goldfields Superpipe
- South-West Helicopter
- Budget Reply Speech
- June 6 2007
- Support for Other Projects

* FUTURE CHALLENGES - MORE TO COME FOR WESTERN VICTORIANS
- Life Issues
- Drugs
- Problem Gambling
- Taxes
- Local Decision Making
- Water and Pollution

* PETER KAVANAGH'S CONTACT DETAILS

The link to the full report is:
http://www.dlpwestvic.org/pdf/westvic_report

Hansard 2008-06-12 Auditor General Report - Pipelines

2008-06-17T13:44:00.006+10:00

BACKGROUND:
On 12 June 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria commented on the Auditor-General Report on the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe.
Mr Kavanagh expressed concern that other superior alternatives to supplying water to Bendigo and Ballarat were not pursued by the government and detailed some of the adverse affects on the property of the farmers located on the pipeline route.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Statements on Reports
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 12 June 2008
Page: 2270

Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The goldfields super-pipe was constructed to avert the prospect of Bendigo and Ballarat running out of drinking water. It seems to me that there were superior alternatives available, which included the construction of dams or at least a weir in the Otways with a view to using some of the 93 per cent of the most reliable water supply in Victoria that now flows into the sea. These options and others were rejected -- largely, it seems to me, because of a misplaced ideological opposition by the government to new dams.

Although it has been alleged in public that the Democratic Labor Party was trying to stop the construction of the super-pipe, this was never the case. The truth is that I put a lot of effort into getting the best deal possible for affected farmers.

These efforts met with some success and the pipe was laid deeper than was originally intended. This is important to allow

Page 2271

farmers to use heavy equipment over the pipe with confidence. Finally a much better insurance deal than was originally intended was offered to the farmers. I think it is fair to say that, as a result of vigilance and frequent complaints and requests for action to ministers, more care was expended to meet farmers' concerns than would otherwise have been the case.

The Auditor-General's report Piping the System concluded that the goldfields super-pipe has been well managed. While this may be the case in general, there were a considerable number of instances of mismanagement in the installation of the pipeline by contractors. In at least one case, to gain access to a farm contractors simply cut the electric fences, allowing cattle to escape and wander the district. This caused great distress and worry to the farmer concerned and necessitated the loss of days of work time in rounding up his cattle.

In spite of repeated, explicit demands by farmers that construction equipment not be taken between properties without it being thoroughly washed down, this was not always done. Some farms were needlessly exposed to the spread of weeds and other contaminants onto their properties. In a similar way, soil profiles were not always restored as they should have been. Farmers demanded the restoration of soil profiles and in a majority of cases this was done. In some cases, however, it was not done and some farmland has thus been degraded through the replacement of topsoil with subsoil.

There was at least one oil spill on farmland. Installation of the pipe also caused damage to pre-existing old pipes, causing flooding of crops on at least one farm and in another case cutting the supply of water essential to crops. This happened when temperatures were over 40 degrees and the crops were at real risk of being ruined. In both cases, repairs to pipes were not begun until more than 10 hours after the damage was first reported.

There are reasons to suspect that the amount of compensation being offered to each farmer depends more on the amount of noise that he makes rather than on the real cost to the landowner. Whilst the temptation is understandable, it is obviously bad policy.

Australia comprises many things -- its spirit and its people. Undoubtedly Australia is also the land on which we stand. We have the responsibility to preserve and protect our country, and this must surely include the land that is beneath our feet. The world is experiencing a sharp rise in food prices due to a shortfall in crop production. I do not believe this will prove to be a long-term crisis, but it emphasises the need to conserve farmland. The land adversely affected in the laying of the goldfields super-pipe included some of the best farmland in Victoria.

I express the hope that in implementing future projects, including the north-south pipe, the government will ensure that contractors act with more respect for the land and for landowners than was shown in some instances by those who installed the goldfields super-pipe.

Hansard 2008-06-11 Reporting Date/Interim Report

2008-06-17T13:29:00.010+10:00

BACKGROUND:
On 11 June, Mr David Davis MLC for Southern Metropolitan moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the resolution of the Council on 2 May 2007 requiring the Select Committee on Public Land Development to present its final report to the Council no later than 30 June 2008 be amended so as to now require the committee to present its final report by 11 September 2008”.
And concurrently sought to move:
“That the Council take note of the second interim report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: Reporting date and second interim report
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2197

Reporting date and second interim report

Page 2197

…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Having spoken about the work of the Select Committee on Public Land Development on the tabling of its first interim report, I do not intend to speak at length on today's tabling of the committee's second interim report. There are two points, however, that seem to me to deserve emphasis and are therefore worth repeating. The first is that the government has maintained its hostility and obstruction to the committee's work. This can be seen rather clearly from the speech given earlier today by Mr Thornley and by the extravagant attacks on the committee by its deputy chairman, Mr Tee, when the first interim report was tabled. One expects possibly to hear similar remarks from Mr Tee a little later today.

The extraordinary attacks included a greatly exaggerated claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on the committee. There has been some spending, no doubt, on the committee's work, including photocopying, postage and so on, and there have been two assistants employed for a total of a few months, not throughout the entire length of the committee's work. I do not believe that the amount of money spent on the committee amounts to anywhere near $100 000, let alone the hundreds of thousands of dollars that has been alleged by the government members of the committee.

This hostility and obstruction falls into a pattern that is familiar to members and observers of the gaming committee also. The government has continued to do its best to prevent the committee doing its work. This house specifically authorised the land committee to investigate the alienation of public land. The government relies on an obscure administrative order to continue to insist that public land means land that cannot be alienated.

The government's logically untenable position has, as obviously intended, limited the investigations of the committee.

Our adversarial parliamentary system is built on the assumption that competition enhances performance or, to put it another way, that scrutiny is conducive to good government and indeed is good for the government ultimately. The people of Victoria should be concerned that the government has continued to express determination to avoid scrutiny.

The second point I would like to emphasise is that the way that the government deals with land is a matter of keen interest to a very large number of people. Dealings with public land is the point at which community interest intersects with government policy for many people. The committee has heard from large numbers of passionate, interested people.

It is important that governments develop and implement the best policies possible on the uses and sale or other alienation of public land. The committee's work could assist the government to fulfil this obligation.

Hansard 2008-06-11 Water: Plug the Pipe Protest

2008-06-17T13:24:00.008+10:00

BACKGROUND:
On 11 June 2008, Ms Wendy Lovell MLC for Northern Victoria moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the Legislative Council expresses its disappointment at the Premier's intemperate response towards the Plug the Pipe organisation and their peaceful protest which was held on the steps of Parliament on Tuesday, 3 June 2008”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2238

WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST

Page 2238
…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- It seems to me that the origin of the dispute that has led to an unfortunate remark by the Premier was in the government's misguided hostility towards dams and weirs. For centuries dams and weirs have been used to protect countries and cities against drought, and they have proven their worth. It has previously been argued by me in this house that the government should seriously consider, for example, the scheme that Mr Vogels referred to: a weir in the Otways. At present 93 per cent of the water runs into Bass Strait, and I do not see the advantage in that at all.

So the government is now left with proposing running pipes that will crisscross throughout Victoria to bring water from one area which may not have an abundance of it to other areas which have even less water, plus constructing an extremely expensive desalination plant.

Many in northern Victoria resent water being taken from their area, and indeed they have expressed that anger on the steps of this building. The Premier's response was a very uncharacteristic failure of intelligence by someone who undoubtedly is an extremely intelligent man. The Japanese refer to an uncharacteristic failure with the expression 'Even monkeys fall out of trees'. We all make mistakes, and this is probably one by the Premier. We have all done things that we regret, and I suspect that the Premier will regret this momentary failure of his intelligence. The response by the Premier was disappointing, so I feel I have no alternative but to vote for the motion.
…

House divided on motion:
Ayes, 21
…
Kavanagh, Mr
…
Noes, 19
…

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-06-10 Police Integrity Bill

2008-06-17T13:16:00.009+10:00

BACKGROUND:
On 9 May 2008, the Legislative Council voted 20 to 18 to decline to pass the Victorian government's Police Integrity Bill and voted to refer it to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee for further investigation and consideration.Peter Kavanagh’s support for referral to Committee motion for was crucial to its passage.
Mr Kavanagh moved and, with other MLCs, passed a motion for more time for consideration of the Bill as detailed below:

HANSARD:
Title: POLICE INTEGRITY BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 10 June 2008
Page: 2133

POLICE INTEGRITY BILL

Committal postponed

Order of the day read for committal.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- President, I move:

"That the consideration of order of the day, government business, no. 1, be postponed for one week".

The committee's report on this bill, which includes the Hansard transcript, was only published on Friday, which does not give adequate time for consideration of the bill. It is my opinion that further time is warranted for a bill of this significance.

That is particularly so given the irregularities in the committee process that have been referred to today by several members and also because passage of the bill would seem to do injury to the government's charter of human rights and responsibilities. Even apart from the black letter of the law in the charter, the bill could be seen to be unfair to members of the police force, and on that basis I urge that more time be provided for consideration of the bill.
…

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21
…
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
…

Noes, 19
…

Motion agreed to.

Media 2008-05-27 DLP Causes Euthanasia Bill Delay

2008-05-27T17:29:00.008+10:00

PRESS RELEASE: DLP Causes Euthanasia Bill Delay
27 May 2008

Attempts to accelerate debate on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 were defeated today at 3.20PM when Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria, refused leave for the Bill to be brought forward.

"Passage of this Bill would necessarily result in the deaths of vulnerable people including those who do not genuinely consent to being killed. I vetoed this proposal to 'jump the queue' on the basis that this Bill deserves ample consideration by the Parliament and the community", Mr Kavanagh said.

Ms Hartland will "first read" (ie introduce) the Bill tomorrow but it is likely now that the Bill will not be fully debated until 25 June.

*********************************************************
For further comment please call Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria, on 03 5222 1503.

Hansard 2008-04-09 Health

2008-05-27T17:19:00.003+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Mr David Davis MLC for Southern Metropolitan moved the following motion in the Legislative Council on 9 April 2008:
“That this house expresses its concern at the state government's failure to adequately manage the Victorian public hospital and health system on which Victorians depend when requiring necessary and often urgent health care and specifically expresses its concern at the inadequate management of the health needs of ill Victorians…”
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: HEALTH: SERVICES
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 9 April 2008
Page: 979

…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Health care is one of the major responsibilities of state governments. We should always be concerned about the state of health services in Victoria. The government says that it is spending much more money than its predecessor, the former Kennett government, on public health, while the Liberal opposition responds that during the Kennett years cuts in spending were necessitated by the incompetence of the governments of John Cain, Jr, and Joan Kirner. Both sides are correct. It strikes me as superficial, however, to equate public health care with expenditure.

More important than the dollars spent are the results achieved.

The amount of time we have spent on this debate would have been better used in considering ways to improve our health system. I am not yet sure how to vote on this motion.

…

Page 995

...

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 16
...

Noes, 19
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...

Pair
Dalla-Riva, Mr
Pulford, Ms

Motion negatived.

Hansard 2008-04-09 Hepburn Springs Bathhouse

2008-05-27T17:13:00.003+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria said that the government was responsible for unnecessarily withholding information about the Hepburn Mineral Bath House.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: HEPBURN MINERAL SPRINGS BATHHOUSE: REDEVELOPMENT
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 9 April 2008
Page: 925

Page 925
…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I rise to make some comments on the motion, which concerns a major development in my electorate. The motion has two limbs. The second limb acknowledges the Hepburn Mineral Springs Bathhouse as an icon of Victoria's regional tourism industry and, in particular, acknowledges the importance of the redevelopment to the business community in the Daylesford-Hepburn region. There is nothing controversial about that, and it is obviously true. Further comment is not required beyond that except to emphasise that many businesses in Daylesford and the Hepburn Springs area depend on the bathhouse and its redevelopment.

I have recently discussed the progress of redevelopment with Cr Bill McClenaghan, who is a ward councillor and chair of the Hepburn Shire Council's Bathhouse Business and Community Liaison Group. I have got to know him over the last year or so. In my opinion he is fair-minded; he is a straight talker, a man of sound judgement and worthy of respect.

Cr McClenaghan informs me that the bathhouse has taken a lot longer to complete than was expected. He also informs me that the reasons for this are that the builder has been determined to do an excellent job, meeting unexpected challenges in the innovative design of the building, which has required the sourcing of specialised materials, some of which need to be specifically manufactured for the project; and this was referred to by Mr Theophanous yesterday and by Ms Tierney a little earlier today. The result is very beautiful. The fastidiousness of the builder has paid off in what is obviously a high-quality building that is innovative and extremely attractive.

There is widespread concern about the detrimental effects that the delays have had on businesses in the Daylesford-Hepburn Springs area. Cr McClenaghan, as chairman of the bathhouse business and community liaison group, does not blame the government for the length of time the development has taken. He is very concerned, however, about the way information about the project has been withheld by Major Projects Victoria. He alleges that up until February-March

Page 926

Major Projects Victoria was extremely reticent about releasing information on the project, and that reticence has needlessly exacerbated the harm done to businesses dependent on the bathhouse in the Hepburn Springs-Daylesford area.

The motion refers to mismanagement. If this refers to the delays in building, then in my opinion, from the information I have, that is a false premise. However, on the understanding I have that Major Projects Victoria has quite needlessly withheld information from the community to the wanton detriment of local businesses, I will support the motion.

I understand the lessee has not yet been announced. The government needs to do this as quickly as possible, because other businesses are dependent on knowing when the bathhouse will be up and running in order to take bookings for their own businesses, for example. The bathhouse will be beautiful.

More importantly it and ancillary businesses will generate and contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful part of Victoria.

Hansard 2008-04-10 Carlton Gardens Bill

2008-05-27T17:08:00.004+10:00

BACKGROUND:
The Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show is held annually in the world heritage listed Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens in Melbourne.
The show has been held at this venue for 12 years and attracts more than 100 000 visitors.
Melbourne City Council had decided it will no longer allow the show to be held at the gardens because of concerns about its environmental impact.
The bill amends the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. It enables the Governor in Council to make a special event declaration if the minister responsible for that act considers that an event such as the flower and garden show is of state significance and should be held at the Carlton Gardens.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: CROWN LAND (RESERVES) AMENDMENT (CARLTON GARDENS) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 10 April 2008
Page: 1071

Page 1071

…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I have been told that about 60 years ago a sporting event was held in a marquee in the Carlton Gardens.

I think it was a boxing match. The then member for Carlton, my grandfather, wanted to attend, but he did not want to buy a ticket because he wanted to make a point. He was denied entry and made the biggest fuss that he could, saying, 'I am a member of the public; these gardens are public so they belong to me. You should not stop me going in here'. That principle was correct, but of course there are exceptions. My grandfather was largely responsible for locating the children's hospital in Royal Park, for example. As a ward councillor and local member he paid a high price for that, but he thought treating sick children was more worthy than watching people punch each other.

There are other exceptions. This chamber is part of a public place, but it is not open seven days a week, every week of the year for people to wander in and out whenever they like. In general, it would seem desirable that a council's permission should be a prerequisite to allowing any groups to temporarily usurp the public's right to access public land.

Unfortunately that is not the case with this example. On the other hand, the flower and garden show is a huge event of great benefit to Melbourne and to Victoria, which puts me in something of a dilemma because of the competing interests and principles involved. I will just have to think between now and when the vote is taken as to how I should vote.

…

15 April 2008 COUNCIL

…

Page 1209

…

House divided on motion:

Page 1210

Ayes, 34
...

Noes, 4
...
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
...

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-04-10 Building Warranty Insurance

2008-05-27T16:58:00.004+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Homeowners currently have a complicated legal process to go through in order to recover on an insurance claim against a builder.
Builders and homeowners have asked for this to be simplified.
Mr Kavanagh asked the Minister for Planning, Mr Madden a question on this issue in Parliament.

HANSARD:
Title: Building industry: warranty insurance
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 10 April 2008
Page: 1052

Page 1052

Building industry: warranty insurance

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Planning, Mr Madden. It relates to an issue that I understand is relevant to his own portfolio and also to consumer affairs. It concerns home builders warranty insurance. Victoria's compulsory home building warranty insurance offers extremely limited coverage in a narrow range of circumstances. This insurance can be obtained only if a builder first shows that he or she has sufficient assets or a bank guarantee to cover likely claims. To obtain a payout from the insurer, however, the homeowner must have sued the builder and obtained a favourable judgement but been unable to recover on that judgement against the builder because the builder is dead, has disappeared or is insolvent.

In 2007 the Australian Consumers Association labelled the current mandatory privatised last-resort builders warranty insurance as 'junk insurance'.

Home builders warranty insurance is currently being investigated by a Senate committee. I understand Queensland has a vastly better system than Victoria, and Tasmania has just announced its intention to replace its scheme, which is like Victoria's scheme at the moment. I ask the minister when Victoria will require that builders warranty insurance offer consumers genuine protection on reasonable terms.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I compliment Mr Kavanagh on his question. It is worthy of recognition that it has probably been a long time since I have had a genuine question on either the building or the planning front from the opposition which has been of significance and not about fear and loathing. It is about a significant public issue, and I compliment Mr Kavanagh on the question.

In relation to builders warranty insurance let me say, first of all, that in 95 per cent of domestic building works consumers do not have any disputes and that in the vast majority of cases builders are doing the job they need to do. They do that job particularly well, and only a very small number -- a niche, in a sense -- involve disputes in relation to building works. What we have seen with the changes to insurance issues over

Page 1053

recent years is a qualification of the desirability for warranty insurance of all sorts, and right across the country it is being redefined and recalibrated.
What is particularly important in this instance is that we have seen two different strategies followed by two different states. New South Wales and Tasmania have headed in slightly different directions. I understand in New South Wales they have sought to strengthen those arrangements and in Tasmania they have sought to remove those arrangements and give clarity to what has been the traditional model of last resort, insurance. In many ways builders warranty insurance is probably best described as insurance of last resort.
Mr Kavanagh's question is a very appropriate one. There is currently work being undertaken within government in relation to these matters to give more clarity and more certainty in terms of what the insurance will and will not do.
I think it is also a worthy intent that consumers be informed of what is and is not their entitlement in relation to this insurance. I suspect that any further work in this space and any further announcements will relate not only to a redefining of what the insurance should or should not be but also and in particular to making sure that consumers are well aware of what that means.
I am currently working on this matter in collaboration with my ministerial colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the other place, and I look forward to making further announcements in the not-too-distant future.

Supplementary question

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I thank the minister for his answer and the kind comments, but the question came not from the opposition but from the Democratic Labor Party.

On behalf of the government, can the minister assure the consumers of Victoria that the government's policies on this matter will be unaffected by any political donations to any political party?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) -- I can absolutely guarantee Mr Kavanagh that any decisions in relation to this matter will be determined by a full, thorough and frank process on the advice of my department, working in collaboration with my ministerial colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the other place, as are all the matters decided within my portfolio and all the responsibilities that I undertake. They are always determined in the best interests of the broader, general public.

Hansard 2008-04-16 Political Donations

2008-05-27T16:53:00.003+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Mr Greg Barber MLC for Northern Metropolitan moved the following motion in the Legislative Council on 16 April 2008:
“That this house requires the Electoral Matters Committee to inquire, consider and report no later than 30 April 2009 on --
(1) whether the Electoral Act 2002 should be amended to create a system of political donations disclosure and/or restrictions on political donations; and
(2) the outcome resulting from similar legislative reforms introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom and other relevant jurisdictions”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE: POLITICAL DONATIONS
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 16 April 2008
Page: 1268

…

Page 1268

…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I would like first to congratulate the Greens on initiating this motion, which strikes me as being both important and timely. It is important because of suspicions that political donations have the potential to corrupt our political system. It is timely, particularly this week with the Four Corners story on the influence of political donations in New South Wales. If the suspicions about the potential of political donations to corrupt are misplaced, the reference to the committee will still be useful, because, as we know in law, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Perhaps in government we could say that political processes must not only be clean but must be seen to be clean, if we are to have a healthy democracy.

Mr Barber expressed concerns about the lack of a requirement for small parties, such as Country Alliance and People Power, to report donations to the Australian Electoral Commission. I would be fairly confident in guessing that those parties, like the Democratic Labor Party but unlike the ALP and the Liberal Party, do not receive corporate donations, particularly not from developers in search of rezoning. Relatively recent legislation has made things very difficult for small parties in Australia -- and, I have to think, intentionally so. The DLP objects to requirements that it provide lists of 500 members to be checked by the electoral commission in order to remain registered.
In practice, to have 500 people write to the electoral commission requires you to have probably 1000 names to send to the commission, because so many people will be away, will move house, will forget to send in their form on time or will not do so for other reasons.

This has relevance to the present motion about political donations, because a requirement for small parties to regularly disclose donations is likely to place an unfair administrative burden on those parties. It seems to me that, without discriminating between different parties, it would be possible to address this potential problem by limiting reporting requirements to fairly substantial donations -- for example, if a party received less than, say, $20 000 a year in donations, it would not be unreasonable to not require it to report in the same way as large political parties, which receive millions of dollars in donations a year, are required to report.

As a matter of fairness to small parties and to serve the interests of political diversity I think allowances should be made by the committee in its recommendations for small political parties.

…

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-04-16 Peter Randles

2008-05-27T16:41:00.004+10:00

BACKGROUND:
Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria paid tribute in parliament to Peter Randles former MLA for Brunswick who passed away last Saturday 12 April 2008.

HANSARD:
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 16 April 2008
Page: 1254

Page 1254

Peter Randles

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I rise to pay tribute to a former MLA, the late Peter Randles, who passed away last Saturday at the age of 84. He was a hero in more ways than one.

During World War II, from the age of 18, Peter Randles served with Australian forces in New Guinea -- the time and place of Australia's most desperate need. In my opinion all those who served Australia in that theatre of war are true heroes of Australian history.

From a union family, he was elected Labor member for Brunswick at the age of 26. As an MLA he fulfilled the promise made in his maiden speech to represent Brunswick 'with zeal and enthusiasm'. He opposed extremist attempts to take over the Labor movement.

Along with a majority of ALP members in Victoria who resigned or were expelled, Peter Randles joined the Anti-Communist Labor Party, later called the DLP (Democratic Labor Party), even though it was unlikely to be personally advantageous.

In 1955 Mr Randles's seat of Brunswick was abolished and he stood as an Anti-Communist Labor Party candidate for the new seat of Brunswick West. He lost by only 82 votes and would surely have won except for the redistribution. In the circumstances the narrowness of his loss was a personal tribute. Of course his judgement and sacrifice have been vindicated by history.

Peter Randles then studied law at Melbourne University and had a long and successful legal career. More importantly, Peter Randles and his wife, Pauline, successfully raised a family of seven children.

I offer my sincere condolences and those of the DLP to Pauline and to their children, particularly their son, Paul, who I am proud to call a friend.

Hansard 2008-05-09 Police Integrity Bill

2008-05-26T16:11:00.005+10:00

BACKGROUND:
The Legislative Council voted 20 to 18 to decline to pass the Victorian government's Police Integrity Bill and voted to refer it to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee for further investigation and consideration.
Peter Kavanagh’s support for referral to Committee motion for was crucial to its passage.
Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria expressed concern in Parliament that the aims of the Bill do not go far enough - that an Anti-Corruption Commission is needed. Mr Kavanagh also expressed concerns about two particular aspects of the Bill as detailed below:

HANSARD:
Title: POLICE INTEGRITY BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: Peter Kavanagh
Date: 9 May 2008
Page: 1665

Page 1665

POLICE INTEGRITY BILL

Second reading

…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I want to mention a few concerns about the bill and support its referral to the committee. The Police Integrity Bill is intended to improve measures that can be taken against police corruption in this state. The main general concern of the community is that perhaps the bill does not go quite far enough, and many people support the establishment of a broader anticorruption commission.

Indeed even in hearings of the Select Committee on Public Land Development we have had people calling for a broader commission because of concerns about some dealings at local council level about public land.

In addition to that, I have two particular concerns about the bill which I would like to state for the record. They are about the bill's provisions requiring self-incrimination in certain circumstances and the restrictions on the ability of accused persons to cross-examine on documents that are being used against them.

In respect of self-incrimination, such a provision would be prohibited in the United States by the fifth amendment to the constitution, which prevents any court or similar body from requiring people to incriminate themselves in any criminal matter in the United States of America.

While we do not have such a constitutional provision in Australia, traditionally it has been regarded as an important aspect of our civil liberties that people should not, generally speaking, be forced to incriminate themselves except in particular circumstances -- under for example, the .05 blood alcohol level legislation and commonwealth tax law.

In respect of cross-examination, this is a primary means that we have in our legal system of testing prosecution evidence. Indeed in many circumstances it is the only means we have of testing evidence. It would be a grave step to withdraw the right of cross-examination from a defendant, and we should be loath to do so and very careful in taking such a step. For both of those reasons -- concern over self-incrimination and cross-examination -- I will support the motion to have the bill considered in detail by committee.

…The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee in this case, and I request that it gives its opinion on these aspects of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Referral to committee

House divided on amended motion:

Ayes, 20
...
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
...

Noes, 18
...

Pair

Drum, Mr
Pulford, Ms

Amended motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-05-08 South-West Helicopter

2008-05-26T16:06:00.003+10:00

BACKGROUND:
The State Government finally agreed to the provision of a dedicated medical evacuation helicopter based in South-West Victoria. This follows sustained lobbying efforts by many citizens in Western Victoria and of a number of Western Region Members including questions in Parliament from Mr Kavanagh to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, calls for its funding in other speeches and letters to the Premiers (both Bracks and Brumby) and relevant Ministers.

HANSARD:
Title: Emergency services: south-western Victoria helicopter
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 8 May 2008
Page: 1570

Page 1570

Emergency services: south-western Victoria helicopter

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I would like to express thanks and congratulations to the government for its decision to fund an emergency helicopter in south-western Victoria. As noted by a lot of observers, it has been a long time coming. But I would also like to express the hope that funding for the helicopter service will not be at the expense of funding for the Warrnambool and District Base Hospital, to which the government has promised $90 million.

In addition to congratulating the government, I would also like to congratulate the community of south-western Victoria on its successful efforts. In particular I thank and congratulate Dominique Fowler and Keith Meerback. They were very effective lobbyists in this good cause. I have been especially moved and inspired by Mr Meerback's loyalty to and affection for his sister-in-law
.
In thanking the government I will not emphasise that it took a long time to secure the service, because I, with many other people, asked the government to do something, and I think it would be very unappreciative to then criticise the government for the time taken. I thank the government for this correct decision.

Hansard 2008-05-08 Final Report - Gaming Licensing

2008-05-26T15:58:00.006+10:00

BACKGROUND:
In May of 2008 the Select Committee on Gaming Licensing established in 2007 tabled its final report. The report recommended several measures at Mr Kavanagh’s initiative including the introduction of mandatory warnings at the entrances of pokie venues and on the machines themselves. The Committee’s report did not go far enough however and therefore Mr Kavanagh added his own report suggesting further measures including a requirement that venues be required to discourage patrons from simultaneously drinking alcohol and playing pokies.

HANSARD:
Title: Final report
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 8 May 2008
Page: 1560

Page 1560

Final report

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The Select Committee on Gaming Licensing was established largely because of concerns held by the opposition and speculation in the media about the lotteries licensing process. In general terms it seems to me that the evidence before the committee of any irregularities in the licensing process was very weak and inconsistent and was indeed contradicted by other evidence.

In Australian culture we naturally tend to sympathise with the underdog.

It is a part of who we are. That is not a bad characteristic to have. However, I think in defending the low we should also bear in mind that we have responsibilities of fairness and justice to the high. I have to agree with the members of the government who consider that finding 3.24 and paragraph 191, although technically correct, do not fulfil our obligation to Mr Bracks or other people to be fair and just.

However, our commitment to the truth means that we should emphasise and underscore the government's hostility to the committee and its lack of cooperation throughout the 15 months of the committee's investigations. From the beginning the government, it seemed to me needlessly and wantonly, interfered to prevent the committee uncovering evidence. Indeed in the process it ignored independent legal evidence obtained on behalf of this house.

Victorians should be concerned about this, because if this attitude towards investigations by the government is to continue, it will mean that the role of this house in reviewing and scrutinising the government will be diminished. That should be a matter of concern for all Victorians.

In addition to the investigation of the licensing processes, the committee considered, among other things, problem gambling and methods of minimising the harm done by problem gambling. It seemed to me that that was an extremely important aspect of the committee's work. In the course of that investigation we heard testimony from people who have had problems with gambling. The evidence they gave us was quite harrowing. It pointed to personal despair of a profound nature.

In addition to hearing from the sufferers of the problem, we also heard from experts who spoke about their efforts to treat and help people with this problem. We found that particular problems included financial, health, social and personal aspects. We heard, for example, of a family whose members did their grocery shopping for the week, after which they went off to play the pokies. They came back later to the supermarket saying, 'We have lost all our money at the pokies. We want a refund. We want to cash our groceries in'.

We also heard from one problem gambling help organisation that its staff hear about six times a year of someone they have dealt with killing themselves. These people commit suicide because of problems arising from the use of EGMs (electronic gaming machines). That organisation covers a small part of Victoria, and indeed probably only deals with a small part of the problem within that particular region. The problem is huge and profound. I think it justifies the conclusion that pokies really are a scourge in our society.

The committee considered measures for dealing with problem gambling and to address the harm done by it. It seems to me that while there are worthwhile measures in the report, they do not go far enough. The state profits from this dangerous activity, and it seems that we are obliged to do everything we reasonably can to warn people so that Victorians who use EGMs do so after being warned soberly and on the understanding that they are very unlikely to win money in the long term.

The committee considered the introduction in the near future in Victoria of precommitment technology, as announced by the government. The government has not announced whether that will be optional or mandatory, and it seemed to me -- though not to a majority of the committee -- that the government should work towards making the technology mandatory. We also heard from a leading problem gambling expert from New Zealand whose evidence was very powerful. It showed us that Victoria has a lot to learn from New Zealand.

I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips, who did a really great job for the whole 15 months. He was fair, he kept the process moving and did a pretty good job of preventing some of the disputes degenerating to an unseemly level. Thanks also to Mr Richard Willis and Mr Anthony Walsh, both of whom at all times were helpful, courteous, cheerful and professional in everything they did for us.

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-05-07 Genetically Modified Crops

2008-05-26T15:46:00.003+10:00

BACKGROUND:
The government has not yet announced details about the regulations it intends to introduce about ‘quarantining’ GM seeds from other seeds.
It seems however that the government is intending to put the onus of keeping GM seeds out of non-GM crops on the non-GM farmer. Mr Kavanagh feels that this would be very unfair on non-GM farmers and has encouraged the government to take a different approach to this problem.
In Parliament Mr Kavanagh asked the government the following questions:

HANSARD:
Title: Agriculture: genetically modified crops
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH; THEOPHANOUS
Date: 7 May 2008
Page: 1471

Page 1471

Agriculture: genetically modified crops

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question without notice is for the Minister for Industry and Trade, the Honourable Theo Theophanous, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and it relates to regulations concerning GM (genetically modified) crops in Victoria. Why is the government imposing the burden of preventing the spread of genetically modified crops onto non-GM farmers' land, putting that burden on the non-GM farmer; and why has the government not released the details of regulations on the separation of GM and non-GM crops both on farms and in transportation?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Industry and Trade) -- I thank the member for his question. This is not my portfolio area, although I represent the Minister for Agriculture in this house.

Page 1471

I acknowledge also the concerns of the member in relation to GM (genetically modified) crops, which he has expressed on a number of occasions in the house. I acknowledge that concern and his ongoing interest in this.
What I can say to the member is that the government very carefully considered this issue in making its determinations in relation to allowing GM crops in Victoria. As he is aware, it is under fairly strict conditions that that is to occur. We acknowledge there is considerable debate in the community about it, but on balance the government made a decision about the benefits of those crops in relation to a lower use of pesticides and a range of benefits that have been canvassed in the house in the past.
With respect to the specific question about the detail of the regulations about which the member has asked me, I will seek to get a response from the agriculture minister in relation to that specific detail and inform him of that.

Page 1472

Supplementary question…..

Mr KAVANAGH -- How does placing the burden of preventing the spread of GM crops on non-GM farmers not contradict the principle established in Rylands v. Fletcher and common understandings of rules of fairness?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Industry and Trade) -- Again I will pass that question on to the agriculture minister, and the only other element I would add is that there is an assumption in the member's question that non-GM farmers are being required to do the things that he says. That is a matter I am not across the detail of. Obviously it is a matter which the agriculture minister would be, and I am sure he will respond to the claims of the member as well as to his question.

Media 2007-11-22 Fluoridation Bill

2008-04-29T13:19:00.004+10:00

PRESS RELEASE: DLP Fluoride Bill Passes Upper House
Thursday 22 November 2007

The DLP initiated Health (Fluoridation) Amendment Bill 2007 was passed by the Victorian Legislative Council late last night. This is the first DLP Bill ever to pass either House of the Victorian Parliament. The Bill requires the government to obtain the approval of affected citizens at a plebiscite before it may add fluoride to any previously unfluoridated part of Victoria.

The Victorian government' s plans to fluoridate new areas is highly controversial in parts of the state.

The debate became quite emotional with the government resorting to name calling in the end. When the government saw that it was going to lose the debate, its main speaker called the case against fluoride "voodoo". In fact the case that was presented against fluoride was based on research by Harvard University and by scientists published in the British Medical Journal and by the 2000 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, Dr Arvid Carlsson. Mr Kavanagh, Member for Western Victoria, responded," if these people are practitioners of "voodoo' then who in the world is not?".

"There is scientific evidence that drinking fluoridated water is of only marginal benefit to teeth and that it may be harmful to other aspects of health", Mr Kavanagh said.

In addition to the DLP, the Bill was supported by the Greens and Nationals and the Liberal Party. ALP members have alleged to journalists that there was a deal done between the DLP and the Liberal Party to exchange votes. "These allegations are not true", Mr Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria and sponsor of the Bill, said, "I do not engage in such deals because it would mean that I would be voting for things that I do not believe in".

"The Bill will also need to be passed by the Lower House to become law. That is unlikely to happen because the ALP is so opposed to this Bill, Its passage by the Upper House last night is likely, however, to force the government to reconsider and perhaps modify its policy of fluoridating new parts of Victoria, regardless of the opinions of affected citizens" Mr Kavanagh said.

"This is a win for democracy and for local people deciding local issues- an ideal central to the DLP's values", Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on (03) 5222 1503.

Hansard 2007-11-21 Fluoridation Bill

2008-04-29T12:29:00.008+10:00

Title: HEALTH (FLUORIDATION) AMENDMENT BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 21 November 2007
Page: 3568

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I would like to explain in some detail why I believe it is wrong, regardless of the opinions of affected people, to fluoridate new areas of Victoria and therefore why all members should vote for the Health Fluoridation (Amendment) Bill. I will argue that the efficacy of fluoridating water supplies to prevent tooth decay is actually dubious, that it is very possibly harmful and that the democratic principles to which we all aspire demand that this mass medication should not proceed against the wishes of affected people.

There is very strong opposition to fluoridation throughout western Victoria, and not just by a small vocal minority. I have attended some very large meetings throughout western Victoria, including one with 800 people about six weeks or so ago in Warrnambool -- the largest public meeting ever held in Warrnambool.

Yesterday I tabled in this house a petition signed by 2543 people from western Victoria urging all members to support this bill. On Friday I was sent a letter, which was described by Mr Vogels, which was signed by 21 medical practitioners, including specialists, in Warrnambool. They were all opposed to fluoridation. Their opposition to fluoridation is expressed on the basis of scientific evidence suggesting that fluoridation may be harmful. I am not a scientific expert, but I will attempt to outline some of the scientific concerns over the possible effects of fluoridation.

It is often assumed that proponents of fluoride represent modern scientific thinking, that fluoride is the norm in advanced countries and that its use is growing around the world. None of that is true. Fluoridation is common in North America, Australia and New Zealand; however, less than 6 per cent of the world's population drinks deliberately fluoridated water.

Several advanced countries have stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies, including Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden -- not Alabama, Mr Pakula. I have a reference from the British Medical Journal of last month. Parts of Canada have also recently decided to stop fluoridating their water supplies.

Fluoride, or more accurately fluorosilicic acid, also known as hydrosilicofluoric acid, which is actually the fluoride compound added to Victoria's water supplies, is toxic even in very small doses. Indeed fluoride is a prescribed poison under the national drugs and poisons schedule, and I have the Australian government internet site reference for that schedule. The fact that something is very toxic does not necessarily mean that it can never be consumed by people under any circumstances. Sometimes even poisons can be beneficial in their effects -- for example, radiation treatment.

Inherent toxicity surely does demand, however, that any benefits must be demonstrated before it is used on human beings, particularly when it is proposed to be used on people who are not sick, when it is intended to be distributed to tens of thousands of people whether they want it or not and will continue to be given to them for the rest of their lives.

It seems to me very clear that the onus of proving that a poison is beneficial and not otherwise harmful is on the proponents of the practice -- those who want to add fluoride to our drinking water -- and not on those who would oppose it. In that context Ms Pulford quoted something which she assumed supported her argument -- that there is insufficient evidence to draw

Page 3569

conclusions about other possible negative consequences of fluoridation. She said it is impossible to prove that fluoridation is harmful and that therefore is an argument for adding it to the water supply. I think the onus should be the other way around. The onus should be on those who are wanting to add this poison to the water supply to show that it is not harmful.

Not very long ago my main interest in requiring referendums as a prerequisite to fluoridation was based on democratic principle. I thought that fluoridation was probably quite beneficial to teeth and otherwise harmless but that people should have a say in whether their water supplies would be fluoridated. I have been surprised to learn that the benefits of fluoridating water supplies are actually very to extremely limited, that mildly adverse effects are common and that severely harmful consequences are, on the basis of the scientific evidence, entirely possible. I found that the opponents of fluoridation are not a lunatic fringe; they include some of the world's finest scientific minds.

The average standard of dental health of children varies greatly within fluoridated areas such as Melbourne.

The average standard is much higher in, say, Brighton than in, say, Sunshine. This difference in standards between different parts of fluoridated areas would not negate the case for fluoridation if it could be shown that fluoride significantly increases average standards and that it is clearly not harmful to other aspects of health. There are reasons to seriously doubt both of these propositions.

What do the proponents of fluoridation argue? David Davis quoted rather old figures for fluoridation -- 48 per cent and 36 per cent. In fact the Victorian government no longer claims even that fairly modest improvement in dental health.

According to the most recent documents it claims a 36 per cent reduction in caries for children who are six years old and a 22 per cent reduction in caries for children who are -- --

Mr D. Davis -- It was a 2006 document I quoted from.

Mr KAVANAGH -- This refers to the figures Mr Davis gave and says they are basically obsolete. They are from Dental Health Services Victoria's school dental service for 2002. The better figures, it says, are 36 and 22 per cent respectively. For 12-year-olds -- a more important sample group because it includes children who have been six years old and includes a study of permanent teeth, not baby teeth -- it claims that fluoridation reduces caries by 22 per cent. These claims are much lower than the claims made in the recent past, including those of 60 per cent put around not very long ago by the Victorian government. It is a big decrease from 60 to 22 per cent.

Even these modified claims, however, are at the higher end of estimates.

According to an article in the British Medical Journal, or BMJ, of October 2007, 3200 studies of the effects of fluoridation claim on average that the proportion of children in fluoridated areas with no caries is 15 per cent higher than the proportion of children in non-fluoridated areas. Even this modest claim is doubted by the authors, because in the studies reviewed 'potential confounders were poorly adjusted for', and I have an academic reference for that. In this context the confounders they refer to are factors besides fluoridation that contribute to the average dental standards in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. This claim is undoubtedly true. It is often claimed that the prevalence of caries in Victoria is higher in unfluoridated areas -- that is, there is more decay in unfluoridated areas. That is undoubtedly true. It is also true that confounding factors may well explain this.

These confounding factors include higher average incomes in areas that have long been fluoridated, principally Melbourne, which has a higher average standard of living than areas that have not yet been fluoridated. Along with income disparity of course come differences in nutrition and different abilities to pay for dental services. Furthermore, it is also obvious that dental services are less widely available and accessible in many parts of Victoria outside Melbourne -- that is, those areas that are largely, though not entirely, unfluoridated. If, for example, fluoridated areas tend to be wealthier areas of a country, state or province, then this claim of 15 per cent is very dubious indeed. It is reasonable to believe that the 15 per cent so-called improvement is even more dubious if dental services are more plentiful and if nutrition tends to be better in fluoridated areas. In the case of Victoria all of these factors are true.

It is relatively easy to compare average standards of health in any two populations. It is much more difficult to account for these confounding factors. The BMJ refers to reviews of the effectiveness of fluoridation by the Medical Research Council and the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines, which were based on the York study to which David Davis also referred. It says of those findings that along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation. Studies concluded that the efficacy of fluoride in preventing dental decay in preschool children could not be determined because

Page 3570

of factors such as the use of fluoride toothpaste, socioeconomic status and sugar consumption.

The BMJ authors added:

We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty.

In Warrnambool it takes at best two weeks to see a dentist if you are in pain. If you are not in pain and you go to a private dental practice, it takes about six to nine months. The situation in Ballarat is not much better and David Davis referred to many areas in Victoria where the wait for public dental services is not of the order of weeks or months but years.

Regardless of fluoridation, would it be any wonder if the standards of dental health were found to be lower in Warrnambool and Ballarat than they are in Melbourne? It would not be, would it? If you have to wait nine months to see a dentist, even if you are paying, and five years if you are not in a position to pay, it would not be surprising if dental standards were not very high!

Dental health has improved dramatically in fluoridated areas in recent decades. Dental health has also improved dramatically in unfluoridated areas. Some studies have shown that in every fluoridated capital city of Australia the incidence of caries among children has declined to a fraction of what it was decades ago. In Brisbane the incidence of caries in children declined by around 65 per cent between 1977 and 1987, an improvement of the same order as the improvement in every other large Australian city. Brisbane's water has never been fluoridated, yet in one 10-year period dental cavities decreased by 65 per cent.

Even this field study on a mass scale is superseded by studies in the United States. Comparisons in American states, some of which are fluoridated and some of which are not, showed no discernible difference in the rates of improvement in dental health. The same is true of the European Union. The dental health of children in European Union countries has increased very sharply over the last 30 years. These improvements have occurred in countries that are or have been largely fluoridated, such as Germany, and those which are not fluoridated, such as Sweden. I have academic references for that proposition.

Fluoride can be beneficial to teeth, but its effect, it now seems quite clear, is topical -- that is, its benefits are achieved like an antiseptic, by contact with affected body parts, in this case teeth. Fluoride in toothpaste is extremely effective at avoiding or preventing dental caries.

Little benefit is achieved from drinking it, however, because the prevalence of fluorides in saliva is only about one-sixtieth to one-hundredth of the ratio that is in the water that is consumed. As Mr Vogels said, you would not drink iodine or something like that, but that is what is happening with fluoride. The benefits are topical, achieved by contact, but the method of dispensing it is by drinking it.

The proponents of fluoride claim there is no proven case of fluoride doing harm. This depends on what is meant by proof. It is true that even in pro-fluoride publications, the government admits to dental fluorosis, a very common condition of discoloration of the teeth, staining of the teeth, and in severe cases pitting and mottling of teeth.

General practitioners and patients in western Victoria have told me of people who react very badly to fluoride, even at very low levels.

They break out in rashes and asthma can follow. Indeed some people moved to Geelong from Melbourne decades ago to avoid fluoridation in Melbourne's water. They tell me that if they ever come to Melbourne they bring their own water with them so that if they want a cup of tea they can have one without breaking out in an adverse reaction.

In some parts of the world, particularly China and India, high levels of fluoride occur naturally in water, not by addition but because rocks have fluoride in them. Those levels are admittedly much higher than the levels the Victorian government intends to fluoridate our water. In those places skeletal fluorosis, which is a deforming condition something like arthritis throughout the body, is common, and not just dental fluorosis which occurs at lower levels.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I advise Mr Kavanagh that he has a right of reply and is able to sum up the points raised in the second-reading debate.

I refer to a passage from the House of Representatives Practice on speaking in reply, and I want Mr Kavanagh to think about it:

The mover of a substantive motion of the second or third reading of a bill may speak on a second occasion in reply, but must confine any remarks to matters raised during the debate.

I have to say to Mr Kavanagh that I think he has gone beyond that on numerous occasions in extrapolating points that he has made, to the extent that in my opinion it is another crack at his initial contribution to the debate. I want Mr Kavanagh to think about that. His summary has been going for 17 minutes, which I have to say by any stretch is a long time.

Mr KAVANAGH -- Many comments were made that fluoride was not harmful. Therefore, I thought it was relevant to respond to those comments. Some of the contributions were much longer than I have been going so far.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Mr Kavanagh's contribution is a summary.

Mr KAVANAGH -- I refer to a study by the American National Research Council where some of the greatest minds in the United States reviewed the evidence last year.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! As an example, I am not able to remember that study being raised during the debate by any member who made a contribution to the debate. That is my point exactly.

Mr KAVANAGH -- What if someone had mentioned that there was no evidence of fluoride harming people's mental capacity?

Page 3571

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I remind Mr Kavanagh that during his contribution he had the opportunity to make reference to those very remarks that he wishes to make now. If they were not raised by anyone during their contribution, he really is on thin ice in trying to get them in now. I am reminded that he cannot introduce new material in his summary.

Mr KAVANAGH -- Thank you, President. To summarise, there is considerable evidence of a decrease in IQ in fluoridated areas and, among other things, a sharp increase in osteosarcoma among young males in areas that have been fluoridated.

To refer only to the points that have been made specifically, I will say that while Mr Davis suggested there is no proven link of bone cancer resulting from fluoridation, in fact evidence of that has been printed recently in 2006 or 2007.

It was pointed out that standards of dental care are very poor in Victoria and should be improved. The point of those who do not support fluoridation is that there are better and safer ways to achieve that.

To just finish on one point, there have been a lot of comments made that the bill does not provide for compulsory voting. In fact there has been no reason given for that by speakers who have reached that conclusion. It is not a conclusion that I would reach on the basis of the bill. In summary, there is good evidence that fluoride is harmful to people's health, and that it is of minimal help in avoiding or preventing tooth decay. The bill seeks to invoke our democratic principle of people deciding for themselves whether substances which are of dubious benefit should be added to their water supply.

The PRESIDENT -- Order!

On a further point, the last three points Mr Kavanagh raised were well within the bounds of his ability to summarise the debate which has just taken place, because he referred to contributions that people had made. The concern was that he was introducing new material. As I say, that is for future reference.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21
...
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
...

Noes, 19
...

Motion agreed to.

Media 2008-04-22 South-West Helicopter

2008-04-22T16:08:00.010+10:00

PRESS RELEASE: South-West Helicopter - DLP thanks Govt

22 April 2008

Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria said today, " I congratulate and thank the Victorian government for finally agreeing to implement a rescue helicopter service for Western Victoria."

"Congratulations are also due to all those who worked successfully for this outcome. Keith Meerbach and Dominique Fowler are among many people who devoted great time and effort to introduce this essential service," Mr Kavanagh said.

"Denis Napthine, John Vogels, David Koch and Hugh Delahunty were all active in the campaign. Over the last year and a half I have also worked to achieve this outcome," Mr Kavanagh said. (please see Hansard reports attached below)

"The rescue helicopter service will benefit the sick and injured in Western Victoria. By decreasing the time required to obtain specialist care it will save lives and reduce pain and suffering. As I have pointed out many times, Western Victoria should never have been the only region of the state to be without a dedicated rescue helicopter service," Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment please call Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria, on 03 5222 1503.

Hansard 2008-03-12 South-West Helicopter

2008-04-22T16:03:00.007+10:00

Title: Emergency services: south-western Victoria helicopter
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 12 March 2008
Page 641

12 March 2008 COUNCIL

Page 641

Emergency services: south-western Victoria helicopter

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Planning, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, and relates to a rescue helicopter for western Victoria. On Thursday, 28 February, representatives of the south-west, led by Dominique Fowler and Keith Meerbach, came to the steps of Parliament. They provided evidence that a rescue helicopter

Page 642

is needed in the south-west more than 400 times a year. They also movingly and powerfully recounted experiences of illnesses and injuries being exacerbated by delays due to the lack of a dedicated emergency helicopter service. Will the government now reconsider its position and take action to ensure that western Victoria does not remain the only region of the state which does not have its own rescue helicopter service?

Hansard 2007-09-20 South-West Helicopter

2008-04-22T15:59:00.005+10:00

Title Keith Meerbach
House COUNCIL
Activity Members Statements
Members KAVANAGH
Date 20 September 2007
Page 2851

20 September 2007 COUNCIL

Page 2851

Keith Meerbach

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I wish to take the opportunity to commend the actions of Mr Keith Meerbach of south-western Victoria, who has been organising support for a south-west-based emergency helicopter service. Recently Mr Meerbach's sister-in-law was injured in a road accident. Due to the lack of a south-west-based emergency helicopter service, the injured lady was forced to wait for 4 hours before being airlifted to Melbourne for emergency brain surgery. Her Melbourne surgeon observed that the delay in treatment was detrimental to her health. Unfortunately, this lady was only one of many in similar situations.

I understand that local member Denis Napthine, the member for South-West Coast in the other place, is to present a very large petition calling for a south-west-based emergency helicopter service. That

Page 2852

petition was organised by Mr Meerbach. I commend Mr Meerbach on his initiative, concern and loyalty, not only to his sister-in-law but to all the citizens of the south-west.

Hansard 2007-06-06 South-West Helicopter

2008-04-22T15:55:00.004+10:00

Title: APPROPRIATION (2007/2008) BILL and BUDGET PAPERS 2007-08
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 6 June 2007
Page 1581

………………….Although I have raised this matter in the past, Western Victoria Region remains the only region in the state to lack an emergency helicopter service.
I thank the Premier, Mr Bracks, and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, Mr Cameron, for their correspondence on this matter, but I urge the government to reconsider its position. Early treatment following a serious injury is vital. Western Victoria
Region needs an emergency helicopter service. I ask the government to be a leader in this matter and address the issue as a matter of priority. ……………….

Hansard 2007-04-19 South-West Helicopter

2008-04-22T15:50:00.006+10:00

Title: Emergency services: Warrnambool helicopter
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 19 April 2007
Page 894

19 April 2007 COUNCIL

Page 894

Emergency services: Warrnambool helicopter

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is to the Minister for Planning representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place. Western Victoria needs an emergency helicopter service. It is the only part of Victoria not to have one. In view of the capacity of an emergency helicopter service to rescue people and to convey them to specialist services, thereby preventing deaths and minimising the impact of injuries; the potential for alternative uses, like helping to fight bushfires and maybe even helping the police; and the demonstrated willingness of companies to massively subsidise the cost of such a service, will the government change its position of requiring proponents in western Victoria to develop a business plan, and will it assume the mantle of leadership that the people of Victoria expect from it and take action to develop an emergency helicopter service for western Victoria?

After all, would that not make western Victoria a better place to live, work and raise a family?

Hansard 2008-04-08 Relationships Bill

2008-04-22T15:26:00.007+10:00

BACKGROUND:
In April 2008 the Legislative Council considered a Bill to officially recognise a range of “domestic” relationships other than marriage.
Mr Kavanagh spoke against the Bill on the basis that marriage deserves a unique place in our legal system because it is conducive to committed fatherhood which is to the very great benefit of children and to our society generally. Mr Kavanagh was at pains to emphasise the freedom of people to form relationships outside of marriage but also the need to protect marriage as an institution.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:

HANSARD:
Title: RELATIONSHIPS BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 8 April 2008
Page: 29

Page 29

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The bill before us has often been referred to in the press as a 'gay bill'. In fact it has application to heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships. All of us here aspire to a free society which surely includes the individual pursuit of happiness. In a free society there is no compulsion to marry and those who choose single life or relationships outside of marriage are entitled to fairness and respect. Those in relationships outside marriage are also free to seek to be seen as committed couples by friends, relatives and acquaintances, if that is their desire.

In late 2006 I was interviewed by a leading Melbourne newspaper. I responded to questions on this topic along the lines of the sentiments just expressed. The newspaper published an article with a heading which said that the DLP (Democratic Labor Party) supports civil unions. This conclusion did not logically follow, however, from the comments I had made.

The DLP's position is that families are a key to Australia's present and future and that the union of a man and a woman, voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of others, is the foundation of stable families. In my inaugural speech I noted that those who voted for me hold their own firmly held beliefs. One of those firmly held beliefs is in the value of marriage.

For millennia marriage has been shown to be the best way for societies to fulfil their most important task -- the creation and successful nurturing of the next generation. The DLP feels that marriage has already been placed under excessive stress in recent decades by, among other measures, the Family Law Act, which the DLP considers to be inappropriately named.

Recently I argued in this house that family break-ups have contributed to Australia's housing affordability crisis -- for example, by adding to the demand for accommodation but doing nothing to increase supply.

Accommodation is only one aspect of economic wellbeing that is enhanced by families. Surely the sharing of goods and services increases standards of living, and, even in narrow economic terms, families are the most effective means we have for sharing.

The economic benefits of stable marriage might be seen by simply considering the effect that divorce has on the standard of living of the individuals concerned. It was correctly pointed out to me, after my contribution on the relationship between marriage and the demand for accommodation, that an increasing reticence to marry has also had a detrimental impact on people. That growing reticence to marry is, no doubt, more a product of our culture than of our laws, but of course our culture is informed and partly shaped by our laws. The benefits of a culture of strong, stable marriage are much more profound and diverse than merely the economic implications.

There are many other social aspects that could be referred to in demonstrating the importance of marriage to the future wellbeing of our country. One of these is the contribution of stable marriage to fatherhood. Unfortunately, it is not always possible, even in a culture of strong marriage, for every child to have a father in his or her life. It is, however, almost always desirable. Fatherhood does not make any man perfect but children benefit enormously from having a father. Can it be doubted that the lifetime commitment of a man to his children and, wherever possible, to their mother, is beneficial to his children? As a teacher of boys in high schools I noticed that it was often obvious from their behaviour which boys had fathers in their lives and which did not. I know of some fine young people of good character who have grown up without a father in their lives. I mean no disrespect to them at all; they deserve our admiration. The point, however, is that they have overcome a disadvantage.

Just as fatherhood is enhanced by the lifetime commitment inherent in marriage so the decline of fatherhood is partly a consequence of legislation and a developing culture that has weakened marriage and therefore families.

In my view Australia is undergoing the beginnings of an epidemic of loneliness. This is also in part a consequence of the damage done to families.

In giving sexual relationships other than marriage official status on the basis of sexual relationship per se, this bill would likely have the effect of making marriage merely one of several options and may well further erode marriage. Indeed, this point was accepted by Ms Pennicuik in her defence of the bill. I accept the government's claim that it is not intending to create new forms of marriage through this bill.

However, it seems likely to me, given the marriage-like obligations imposed on de facto couples over recent years both by the incremental changes to legislation that Mr Hall referred to earlier and by judicial interpretation, that under this bill marriage-like obligations, stronger than those presently envisaged, will eventually be imposed on those registrants who are in sexual relationships. In my opinion, in the future those registrants, contrary to their intentions, are likely to have imposed on them many of the obligations of marriage.

I am concerned about the implications of this bill for human rights because it minimises the requirement of voluntariness as a condition to assuming lifelong obligations. I also feel that many of those who support

Page 30

the bill now may in the future regret their current enthusiasm.

It might have been preferable to recognise the people in relationships rather than the relationships themselves. Why not simply create a register in which all people may mutually register to receive benefits such as superannuation entitlements, inheritance privileges in the event of death, automatic medical and other powers of attorney in the case of disability, and privileged access if either party is hospitalised, without making registration dependent on a sexual relationship? Why not allow people to register, without even asking if they are in a sexual relationship? Why not allow old friends, siblings or other relatives or lovers, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to register without asking the nature of their relationship and without making a sexual relationship a prerequisite to registration?

In discussions about this bill there have been claims about the rights and privileges of marriage. In my opinion very few rights are bestowed by marriage. It seems to me that marriage is actually much more about accepting responsibilities, duties and obligations than about gaining rights. However, it also seems to me that even more than that, marriage is an institution for the benefit of children.

We all know and love people who are in relationships outside marriage. Their happiness is as important as that of any other adults. I think we all hope they find the happiness they seek, but we should not approach creating legal structures to accommodate people in these relationships in ways which risk doing harm to marriage, an institution which has long been and remains the primary and best method we have for creating, raising and nurturing new and future generations.

Hansard 2007-02-13 Inaugural Speech

2008-02-18T16:13:00.004+11:00

13 FEBRUARY 2007

“The Barry family frequently had meagre fare while their intended meal, and often their shoes, were given to Carlton residents who came to the door hungry. My uncles and aunts remember as small children often waking up with unknown children sharing their bed, put there quietly late at night, while homeless families were found more permanent accommodation.”

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) —

Thank you President. I offer my congratulations for your election to the chair and to all Members for their election.

I would like to first acknowledge and thank all those heroic Australians who over the last century have risked and even given their lives in defence of our country. I would also like to thank and pay tribute to the volunteers who have been courageously fighting bush fires in Victoria.

Today, I would like to thank those who have helped me, explain my political motivations, and tell you about the DLP and how I hope to make a contribution in this Parliament.

I am very glad to have won, but sorry that it was at the expense of Elaine Carbines whom I know to be a very hard working, honest and talented woman. I would also like to acknowledge Samantha Macintosh of the Nationals and Marcus Ward of the Greens for their intelligence and generosity of spirit.

This is the first election win for the Democratic Labor Party anywhere for thirty six years and the first in this Parliament for fifty one years. I am strongly aware that many DLP people have deserved a seat in Parliament much more than me. I am reminded in particular of Jim Brosnan, and the late, great Frank Dowling, whom it was my privilege and honour to know when I was a boy.

I recently had the great pleasure of meeting my predecessor in this Parliament, Mr Frank Scully, DLP MP from 1955 to 1958. He is 87 years old now but his intelligence, courtesy, charm and goodness are immediately apparent. I will strive to be worthy of his example.

The people of Western Victoria brought me here, and I am grateful. In the cities of Geelong and Ballarat and small towns like Nhil and Camperdown, from Melton and Werribee to the border there are people who voted DLP and people who helped. I am not a Western Victorian but have been genuinely impressed by the people of Western Victoria. They really do represent the best of the Australian tradition. Western Victorians see strangers as opportunities rather than as threats.

I thank those parties which gave me their second preferences — People Power, Country Alliance and Family First.

My thanks also to the Parliamentary staff who have been welcoming and extremely helpful and to all Members who have welcomed me to this Parliament. Coming in from outside, I have been impressed by the intelligence, obvious decency and dedication of many Members from all sides of this chamber.

There are individuals I must thank, including my running mates, Clare and David Power and Leanne and Michael Casanova of Ballarat. I would also like to thank Max Crockett of Geelong, my uncle Bill Barry Junior, Alan Guilfoyle of Melbourne, Pat Healy of Hamilton and DLP stalwarts John Mulholland and Pat Crea. I thank my friend Stephen Williams who contributed his expertise in public relations. His intelligence and creativity were crucial in overcoming the media's resistance to covering my campaign.

I would like to thank my parents—Mary and Frank Kavanagh. They did not have a lot to give materially but they did give their children strong values, including a love of learning and respect for education. Their love, care, worry and sacrifice raised six good citizens. My mother has been quite active in politics for most of her life.

My mother's parents, Bill and Mary Barry were important figures in the DLP story. My grandfather was president of the Carlton branch of the ALP from the age of eighteen and a member of the other House for twenty three years. He was Labour Parliamentary secretary for seventeen years and held several portfolios as well as being a Melbourne City Councillor for sixteen years and Labor leader in the Council. At its first election, in 1955, the DLP was often called "the Barry Party".

My grandfather was of convict stock - his grandfather, James Barry, was said to have been transported to Van Diemen's Land for agitating against the British occupation of Ireland. My grandfather's father, William Barry, I will call him, devoted his life to improving the lives of working people. He was instrumental in establishing a number of unions and the Labour Party itself in Tasmania and the Carlton branch where he was campaign manager for FH Bromley who was elected Labour Member for Carlton in 1892. William Barry's union activities marked him in the Depression that began in 1896 and he was forced to move to the goldfields of WA, where he worked for Federation.

My grandfather, Bill Barry, sought and used his positions to help battlers. He fought for the mentally ill and for improvements to 'sustenance' during the Great Depression. He was responsible for locating the Royal Children's hospital where it now stands, helped greatly to win the Olympic Games for Melbourne and campaigned tirelessly against capital punishment. As Minister for Health he introduced a comprehensive range of measures which resulted in the near eradication of tuberculosis, initiatives that were copied in other states. These were among many other political achievements.

My grandmother, Mary Barry, was also a member of the ALP for decades. While still a teenager, she was an activist against conscription and for Ireland's liberation. She led Labour Women for many years, in an honorary capacity, and was on the ALP executive - the only woman, during the Split. After the Split, she continued working for the Australian people, through the DLP, until her death. She succeeded in having women prisoners moved out of Pentridge. She fought with all she had for those condemned to execution, organised for relief during the Second World War and successfully lobbied for child endowment and other assistance to families.

My grandparents' qualities, including their enthusiasm for helping others, partly represented the times in which they lived. They worked not only in the Party and the Parliament but, in the then existing Labour tradition, they also helped the disadvantaged within their home. "No-one in Carlton will sleep outside" campaigned my grandfather during the Great Depression. With support from others, my grandparents housed the homeless, fed the hungry and clothed the desperate - literally. My grandmother's skills as a seamstress were often utilised altering my grandfather's clothes so that constituents could attend job interviews. The Barry family frequently had meagre fare while their intended meal, and often their shoes, were given to Carlton residents who came to the door hungry. My uncles and aunts remember as small children often waking up with unknown children sharing their bed, put there quietly late at night, while homeless families were found more permanent accommodation.

My grandparents are the people effectively referred to by John Cain Junior recently as "sectarian serpents". As to this particular assertion I would like to draw attention to the observations of Robert Murray, the most authoritative and objective commentator on the Split. In his book, "The Split", referring to John Cain Senior of course, he says, “this might be said even of Cain – bitterness against the Barry Group flowed over, all too often to be reinforced by deep seated religious prejudices, which came to the surface under pressure" (p.248).

The Australian labour movement of the nineteenth century was the true origin of the Democratic Labor Party. In the mid 1950s however the extreme left attempted to take over the ALP, especially to prevent parts of the Labour Party continuing to counter Communist attempts to control Australia's unions. The extremists were aided by the mental state of the ALP's federal leader who took their side and purported to have the legitimate Labour executive in Victoria sacked. The utterly bogus and unconstitutional nature of the persecution was confirmed by the ALP's own Jim McLelland and Clyde Cameron shortly before their deaths. The eventual result was that a majority, sixty percent, of Labour Party members in Victoria (and nearly eighty percent of Labour Party branches) were expelled or left in sympathy to form what became the Democratic Labor Party.

The DLP was clearly then, anything but a "splinter group". Nor was the DLP the instigator of the Split, DLP people were its victims.

Dozens of Parliamentarians gave up careers. Their sacrifice was for a principle, a correct one, now vindicated by history. In my view this has given the DLP an extraordinary legacy of courage and nobility. When I was a child I thought that the DLP's founders were heroes who had sacrificed so much, including their livelihoods, to oppose barbarism. I still think so.

DLP people were sometimes treated despicably both during and after the Split by the more extreme of their opponents. To the greatly limited extent that it is my right to respond to this, I offer the observation that the prayer which begins the business of this House each sitting day makes it perfectly clear that we dare not even ask for forgiveness for ourselves without first forgiving others.

Anti-Communists are almost invariably portrayed in our media as misguided lunatics. Whatever the ridicule and derision however, the DLP's assessment of the nature of Communism was accurate. The DLP saw Communism for what it was - economically primitive, inherently brutal and expansionist, and by its nature, murderous on a mass scale.

I have experienced at first hard and even felt, painfully, some of the practical manifestations of Communism in other parts of the world. It was partially in trq3ibute to the DLP that I joyfully joined with thousands of others in the physical knocking down of the Berlin Wall seventeen years ago.

The DLP has not only been correct in what it has opposed however, but also in what it has supported and in what it has initiated. The DLP was the first party to recognise the importance of Asia to our future and was the first parliamentary party in Australia to call for an end to the White Australia policy. It pioneered votes for eighteen year olds and equal pay for equal work. The DLP supported unions which advanced the interests of their workers without destroying the businesses which employed them, while also recognising union responsibilities to the broader Australian community. The DLP initiated child endowment for large families and government assistance for families to buy a home. It also struggled for, and achieved a measure of justice in education funding and pushed for genuine decentralisation and environmental protection. Little wonder then that even Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, after his retirement, voted DLP. The DLP's initiatives of decades ago continue to benefit the lives of most Australians to this day.

Why did almost 60,000 Victorians vote for the DLP at the last election after it had been ignored for so long? I think it was at least in part because the voters of the generation before me, and before most of you, here, know how much was sacrificed in the past, and know how hard Democratic Labor people have worked to implement new ideas for their community and their country.

I summarise what the DLP stands for in this way: We are For Life, For Workers and Battlers, For Families and for Australia".

The DLP lost parliamentary representation in the mid 1970s, in my view largely because of its steadfast support for South Vietnam. There are many significant ideas - for example profit-sharing between business and workers -that could have been much more successful in Australia if the DLP had retained its influence. The DLP would have opposed many of the mistakes that have been made by governments in recent decades. Surely DLP Parliamentarians would also have done something for the three million unborn who have been aborted in Australia over the last thirty years or so.

I'd now like to tell you how I see some present and future challenges.

I believe that we could really address illness, poverty and family breakdowns and dramatically cut crime by genuinely tackling drugs and problem gambling. Addiction, whether to legal or illegal substances or to destructive behaviours is a huge, avoidable threat to individual and community health, prosperity, and security.

Our current drug strategies are failing — we need to change our approach. We need strategies that are both compassionate and effective. Drug usage should remain illegal. Users who are not trafficking, however, should be sentenced, not to jail, but to treatment. Sweden reports that 70 to 80% of its non-voluntary patients are made addiction-free through compulsory treatment.

The current state of rehabilitation in Victoria is bad, even for those who voluntarily seek treatment. There are bureaucratic obstacles and insufficient resources.

We should work with the courts and community groups to develop comprehensive programs of rehabilitation and treatment; for voluntary and non-voluntary patients and we must put up the money to pay for them.

Some users of legal drugs need help too. Those with drinking problems and tobacco addiction deserve more than an assumption of the moral high ground by those who disapprove of their habits. They have paid quite enough in taxes on their habits to fully warrant government help to get out of the deadly traps they are in. As Minister of Health, my grandfather brought to Australia the world's best expertise in the fight against polio. I believe that now, we should bring the world's best medical and psychological techniques to Victoria and subsidise the most effective programmes that can be devised to help the victims of addictions.

What is loosely called "addiction to gambling" is destroying the lives of some people and spurring crime. Gambling brings many millions of dollars to the government but at a catastrophic cost to some families and individuals. I believe that our present poker machine policies and practices exploit the poor, the lonely and the ignorant and should be changed. I think we have an obligation to ensure that gambling is sensibly and effectively regulated in such a way as to minimise problem gambling.

The DLP pioneered government assistance for first home buyers. It is an achievement I would like to see built on. Even after recent reforms, Victorian families wishing to buy a home will still be taxed almost $15,000 to put an average roof over their children's heads. I believe that we should not be taxing families at all when they buy a first home.

I have been a teacher in Victorian schools and have taught and lectured in other countries. I have views about education. Our education system needs to provide a high level of skills, whether of an academic or technical nature as appropriate to the interests and abilities of students. The relatively recent decision to abolish technical schools, in my opinion and experience, has simultaneously lowered the quality of academic education, even for the academically gifted while causing the state to fail in its obligations to provide for non-academic students. The current state of education in Victoria is such that even our best universities now need to offer remedial English to new students.

Non ownership of a school by the government should not mean disownership of responsibility for that school's students by the state. The parents of students in non-government schools pay taxes to the government and their children are entitled to assistance from the government.

State schools should not teach sectarian values, nor should they indoctrinate children in leftist ideology. Schools are a natural place however for young people to learn fundamental, positive social attitudes, particularly the expectation that we all can and should contribute to, and not always take from, the community we share with other people, in other words, that is responsibilities as well as rights.

We represent and owe fairness to all Victorians. Aboriginals and others who are in particular need should be offered particular help on the basis of their need. We should remember however that in the distribution of limited resources, discrimination in favour of one is discrimination against another. Our long term aim should be equality before the law and we should be very careful not to take actions which will result in the creation of different levels of citizenship for future generations.

On most social issues, I believe that people should be largely free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. The contrasting issue is, of course, abortion because I believe, for good reasons, that human life begins at conception. This is not an article of religious faith but is a conclusion based on logic, knowledge, experience and reason.

The unborn person is admittedly human life at its most immature, its most vulnerable, its weakest, its most defenceless. Surely however, the young, the defenceless and the weak deserve more rather than less legal protection.

In addition to justice for the unborn, babies who are born alive after undergoing attempted abortion procedures are as entitled to respect and medical attention as anybody else. This is not often talked about but there are around fifty cases a year in the UK, suggesting an annual rate of perhaps four or five in Victoria. Investigations have been held in other states into babies being neglected after surviving attempted abortions. One baby in Sydney had been discovered crying in a waste bin. Victorian law should make it explicit that medical personnel are obliged to help such babies.

To me, this is a central issue - the limits of government and individual power. To have no reasoned and reasonable position on the limitations of such power is to conspire silently in creating a world where the abuse of power has no limits.

I congratulate this government on making this chamber a forum for a true multitude of counsellors. I hope to be a counsellor on behalf the unrepresented – including children in non-government schools and for the unborn who have no voice at all.

I also hope to speak for those who did vote but are underrepresented, including the aged and the disabled, and the supporters of minor parties.

They voted - not to bring down the government, but to counsel it.

They voted - not for the carefully crafted image of a major party, but for their own firmly held beliefs.

They voted - not for power, but to be heard.

I share at least some common ground with every Member here. I look forward to working with other Members who have expressed concerns which I share on challenges including homelessness, crime, environmental protection, public transport and our water crisis.

The government has a strong mandate so I expect to vote with the government quite often. Wisely however, Victorians also want their government to be accountable and so I will vote for measures which the government may not like, to put it under scrutiny which is fair, reasonable and close.

I may fail but will aspire to emulate the courage and dedication of the DLP's founders in working for the enduring ideals and values of the Democratic Labor Party - For Australia, For Workers and Battlers, For Families, For Life.

Media 2007-03-14 Goldfields Superpipe

2008-02-18T15:59:00.010+11:00

PRESS RELEASE

14 March 2007. Wednesday.

Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria, has urged the State government to seriously negotiate with farmers and respect the properties they are affecting when constructing water infrastructure projects. Mr Kavanagh has also argued in Parliament that Victorian governments have been negligent over a long period in failing to adequately plan for droughts and future water needs.

Peter Kavanagh's comments in Hansard follows.

For further comment please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I will briefly explain why I intend to support the amendment of the bill. Last week I met with quite a lot of farmers in the Ballarat area through whose properties the super-pipe will pass. Those farmers are angry; they feel that the government is not listening to them. They are

Page 535

worried about a lot of things associated with the super-pipe, including the possibility of weeds being spread while the super-pipe is being laid. They have been given conflicting information about the depth of the pipe, but they demand that the top of the pipe be at least 1 metre from ground level to allow for the use of large agricultural machinery in the future. They want to know what will happen to the soil that is displaced by the super-pipe. They claim that in the past when pipes have been laid quite often the topsoil has been put straight on top of the pipe and then buried under clay and rocks, ruining part of their land. They want assurances about the future -- for example, they want a guarantee that, if the pipe breaks, it will be repaired without damage to their properties.

According to many experts there are superior alternatives to the super-pipe.

Two former ministers -- Glyndwr Jenkins, who was Minister of Water Supply under Lindsay Thompson, and Rod Mackenzie, who was Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands under John Cain, Jr -- have been promoting a Barwon Water recommendation of 2003 for a weir on the Gellibrand River capturing some of its water, together with a pipe to the West Barwon Dam. At present only 7 per cent of Gellibrand River water is used, while 93 per cent flows into the sea. This option, which would be of low environmental impact, would be economical and would take the pressure off the water supply that is presently shared between Ballarat and Geelong.

Last year this house debated a motion to condemn the government for its handling of water. I voted against that motion because I did not want the first Democratic Labor Party vote in this house in almost 50 years to be condemning anybody. I also do not know if the Kennett government had a much better record on water than the present government does.

However, it seems to me that over a period of decades successive Victorian governments have shown a lack of leadership and have even shown neglect on the water issue. I urge the government to seriously address the concerns of landowners who will be affected by the super-pipe and to cast aside any ideological prejudices it may have against environmentally responsible dams in seeking long-term solutions to the water challenges facing Victoria.

Media 2007-03-07 Goldfields Superpipe

2008-02-18T15:42:00.012+11:00

PRESS RELEASE

7 March 2007. Wednesday, 11:00am.

Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC today begins a three day tour of Western Victoria . Mr Kavanagh will visit a farm outside Ballarat and then be briefed on the local water situation at Central Highlands Water.

At 2.30 pm Mr Kavanagh will attend the Newlyn Sporting Complex, on the Midlands Highway at Newlyn to meet local people who say that they have a message they want given to the Victorian government. Many framers in the area are expressing frustration that the government is not listening to them.

A Bill that will facilitate the construction of the "superpipe" will be introduced into the Legislative Council very soon. Mr Kavanagh has previously promised to listen to Western Victorians before making decisions on water.

For further comment please call 03 5222 1503.

Media 2007-03-06 Goldfields Superpipe

2008-02-18T15:35:00.006+11:00

PRESS RELEASE

6 March 2007. Tuesday, 11:30pm.

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC, will begin a tour of Western Victoria tomorrow, Wednesday 8 March. Mr Kavanagh will visit a farm outside Ballarat and then be briefed on the local water situation at Central Highlands Water.

At 2.30 pm Mr Kavanagh will attend the Newlyn Sporting Complex, on the Midlands Highway at Newlyn to meet local people who say that they have a message they want given to the Victorian government. Many framers in the area are expressing frustration that the government is not listening to them.

A Bill that will facilitate the construction of the "superpipe" will be introduced into the Legislataive Council very soon. Mr Kavanagh has previously promised to listen to Western Victorians before making decisions on water.

For further comment please call 03 5222 1503.

Media 2007-02-13 Inaugural Speech

2008-02-18T15:18:00.015+11:00

PRESS RELEASE

13 February 2007. Tuesday, 3.30 pm.

Member for Western Victoria Peter Kavanagh today became the first Democratic Labor Party member in 51 years to deliver an inaugural speech in the Victorian parliament.

Mr Kavanagh delivered his inaugural speech today at 3.30 pm.

A link of Mr Kavanagh's speech follows, and a photo of Mr Kavanagh can be downloaded from:
http://www.dlpwestvic.org/pages/photos.html

Further inquiries, Michael Casanova, 03 5222 1503.

http://peterkavanagh.blogspot.com/2008/02/inaugural-speech-peter-kavanagh-mlc.html

Hansard 2007-05-02 Cloning Speech

2007-09-12T15:57:00.007+10:00

Ethically and Technologically
Superior Alternatives to
Embryonic Stem Cells
Already Available

“Mr Scheffer, in his contribution, said that he does not accept that the cloned embryo is a potential human being. I agree. There is nothing potential about it; it is a human being ... The embryo is a person, and it looks exactly like a person should look at that stage of development.”

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) —

I intend to speak at some length this evening because I believe this is an issue that warrants considerable discussion and comment. I express the opinion first that I am disappointed that many members are not here because many actually told me they would listen carefully to the debate before they voted. Many of those members are not in the chamber. It may be helpful if they were here, although they may still be able to hear something of the debate — I understand that.

We are to vote according to our consciences whether or not to allow embryos to be cloned, experimented upon and then destroyed. The question is whether or not to cross what the federal opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, called in the commonwealth Parliament an ‘ethical threshold’. I think perhaps ‘ethical precipice’ would be a better term. I agree with Mr Rudd that we should not cross that ethical barrier. We should not, in his terms, create life for the explicit purpose of experimentation and destruction. It is clearly wrong to destroy the weak in order to benefit others. Human life should never be an industrial material. As has been noted before in this house, human beings are ends in themselves, not means to ends.

In addition to these clear ethical principles, there are other associated principles and considerations and very good pragmatic reasons for opposing embryonic stem cell research. The inherently unethical nature of this proposal, the damage to women’s health that it would necessarily involve and the diversion away from more ethical and more promising fields of research all show that the proper choice is clearly to oppose this bill.

This bill is extraordinary for several reasons. First, the bill covers separate, largely unrelated matters. Human cloning for research purposes is not infertility treatment, and this controversial part of the bill should be in a separate bill by itself. The language of this bill is less than candid. SCNT, or even somatic cell nuclear transfer, may sound more acceptable, but it is less than forthright. The subject matter should be referred to as what it is — cloning. We have had some speakers say they would never accept reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning is tautologous — all cloning is reproductive. All cloning produces another person or animal. That is the nature of the process — the production or reproduction of another person or animal.

This bill says that it is about therapeutic cloning. In fact it is just the opposite. This bill is not about treatments in itself. The hope is that maybe some years in the future it may lead to treatments. By its nature this bill is about reproductive cloning, with the hope perhaps some time in the future of developing therapies from that reproductive cloning. If members have been correct in saying that they are absolutely opposed to reproductive cloning, they will vote against this bill. I noticed that one member said she felt she was quite sure that the human material involved in the cloning under this bill will be treated respectfully. I really do not understand how you respectfully destroy a cloned person.

In my view there are very strong limits on the proper role of governments in enforcing morality, but the first role of any government or legal system is to prevent harm being done to other people. This necessarily demands, first, that people are not killed and, second, that they are prevented from killing others. Life is so important because it is a prerequisite to every other good. When a person is killed, so is every potential, every chance, every opportunity. When we kill, we take everything away. Life is an individual’s paramount right, and its protection is every state’s primary duty.

The embryo is a human being. Mr Scheffer, in his contribution, said that he does not accept that the cloned embryo is a potential human being. I agree. There is nothing potential about it; it is a human being.

The embryo does not look like the other people that we are accustomed to seeing, so some people conclude that the embryo is not a person. The embryo is a person, and it looks exactly like a person should look at that stage of development.

It has sometimes been claimed, even explicitly in the other house, that the embryos to be created and destroyed under this bill are not human because they are cells, or because they are extremely small, or because they are not viable. In a material sense, what are any of us here but cells? Everyone in the world is just a collection of cells in a material sense. As for the human beings to be destroyed by this bill being tiny, are we to believe that large people are more entitled to life than small people? Are the tall to be protected more than the short? Are the obese more worthy of life than the skinny? Of course not; size has nothing to do with it.

It is sometimes claimed that viability is analogous to personhood; that is that the human embryo should not be considered human if it can be shown that it cannot survive long, and I think Mr Drum addressed that point very well. The principle underlying this assertion is not correct in any case. Surely even a dying person is a person even if that person cannot live very long. In any case, the assumption that a cloned embryo is not viable is incorrect. The cloning technology that we would authorise by this bill is precisely the same technology that created Dolly the sheep, and, like Dolly the sheep, these human embryos could go on and develop into adulthood. I do not say personhood, because they are already people.

Two or three weeks ago I was at one of the seminars held by experts who came in to talk to members of Parliament. In the course of one of the seminars a young member said to the panel in a very agitated way, ‘Look, would you please settle something once and for all. These human embryos cannot go on and live into adulthood, can they? People come to my office and they tell me they can, but I keep telling them, “No, you are wrong”, and they yell back at me, “No, you’re wrong; they can grow into adulthood”. Would you please settle that for me once and for all’. The expert was a little bit embarrassed. She obviously did not want to immediately deflate the person who asked the question. After a short hesitation she said, ‘Well, theoretically they are right, but in a practical sense you are right because the bill mandates the destruction of the embryo after 14 days’. I was shocked by that answer; I was flabbergasted. What is the logic of that answer? Any person or group of people — any category of person — which the law mandates to be killed, automatically, by that law cease to be human. Why? Because they are no longer viable. Why? Because we passed a law saying they have to be killed.

The world has seen quite a bit of that kind of logic before, and I think it has always had disastrous consequences. The lives to be experimented on, to be engineered and destroyed, under the bill will indeed be composed of tiny, artificially conceived cells which are vulnerable and in the earlier stages of development. They will also be genetically complete, living, growing and human.

There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, and that neatly encapsulates a very interesting characteristic of human beings. That characteristic is that we tend to be more moved, more motivated, more persuaded by what we see than by what we know. The human embryo is a human even if we cannot see it — even if we cannot see him or her. I say ‘him or her’ advisedly, because although the sex of the embryo may not be apparent it is determined at conception. The human embryos to be destroyed under the bill will be male or female. In respect to considering the humanity of the unborn embryo. I ask that all members think with their mind and not with their eyes.

The bill would authorise the creation and destruction of some human beings for the benefit — it is argued — of another category of human beings — another class of people clearly assumed to be of more value than those to be destroyed. In contributing to the development of categories or classes of human life — and the bill does do that — we might ask: into which category will we put the sick, the deceased and the injured; those whom the bill purports to benefit? Those who are deficient in any sense will surely not be assumed to be in the top class of humans. In other words, in creating a hierarchy of human worth the bill will demean and degrade precisely those whom it purports to help. A related point was made by the member for Box Hill in the other place. He said ‘once we become used to treating some life as not worthy of living or as an object to be used for the ends of others, we undermine the grounds for protecting any human life’.

History is full of examples of denying recognition as human beings to others. If history has taught us anything, is it not that we must avoid denying human recognition to other people? Does not every historical example fill us with revulsion, and is this not precisely what the bill does? Does the bill not propose to do this on the basis of age and/or level of development? Much has been made in the debate in Australia about the other countries that allow cloning and destruction of embryos. We have heard less about the fact that some countries have banned the practice. They include the Italians, the Austrians and the Germans, who are admirably learning from their historical experiences. I think we too should learn from their history. We should also note that in 2005 the General Assembly of the United Nations urged all countries to ban cloning, and I quote ‘Inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life’.

The cloning envisaged would require huge numbers of human eggs. It took 430 sheep ova to clone Dolly the sheep. It was revealed following the scandal in South Korea last year that the scientist who had attempted human cloning had used well over 2000 ova from 122 women without success. Egg harvesting normally results in around 12 to 20 eggs, although sometimes more. This means that it will take the eggs of many dozens or hundreds of women to clone a single embryo. Large numbers of ova are not easily obtained.

The extraction of ova from a woman is not a simple procedure. It involves massive courses of hormones and invasive procedures with significant risks. The reproductive organs of donors may swell massively during this process and discomfort is the least of it. It was alleged by Women’s Forum Australia in its submission to this Parliament’s Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee that six women are known to have died in the United Kingdom alone from ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHSS. Much more common than deaths is damage to organs and likely future fertility problems resulting from these procedures. Mr Drum also noted future genetic defects, about which I have not been aware.

Like it or not, regulate against it or not, passage of this bill would see a market develop for ova as it already has in the United Kingdom, where women are paid £250 for their expenses.

The first rule of medicine is ‘Do no harm’. How is this procedure compatible with that first maxim of medicine which has been around for well over 2000 years from the time of Hippocrates? It is precisely because of the combination of the requirement for huge numbers of ova and the difficulty of obtaining them that some experts, including Professor Alan Trounson himself, say that embryonic stem cells are unlikely to result in the medical advances that some of its proponents claim. In Reproduction, Fertility and Development, Professor Trounson said:
… it is unlikely that large numbers of mature human oocytes would be available for the production of ES — embryonic stem — cells, particularly if hundreds are required to produce each ES cell line. The technical capability for nuclear transfer would also need to be widely available and this is unlikely.
There are many deficiencies, technically as well as ethically, with embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have an inherent tendency towards explosive growth. Attempts to use embryonic stem cells have so far invariably led to the development of extremely aggressive tumours. This has been the case in animal trials and, indeed, human trials — for example, last year embryonic stem cells caused cancer in every single one of the rats into which they were injected. It seems very doubtful that such an inherent tendency will ever be overcome.
Furthermore, although it seems likely upon initial consideration that clones might eventually provide rejection-free transplants, there are very good scientific reasons for thinking that this is actually quite unlikely. It seems that, to put it simply, the very act of cloning damages the clone’s cells rendering them unsuitable for transplantation. Quoting Professor Trounson again from the same document:
… epigenetic remnants of the somatic cell used as the nuclear donor can cause major functional problems in development … which must remain a concern for ES cells derived by nuclear transfer.
It also states:
… it would appear unlikely that these strategies will be used extensively for producing ES cells compatible for transplantation.
Embryonic stem cells collect mutations, and the stem cells will very probably be degraded by the process of cloning itself. This is likely to contribute to their tendency to produce tumours when transplanted and cause them to be much less effective in transplants than we might hope for. This might partially explain why Dolly was plagued by health problems and only lived to be half the life span of a normal sheep. In addition, of course, the clone is genetically the age of the donor at the time of donation. From conception the clone is genetically the age of the donor.

In the United States of America last month Senator Brownback of Kansas put the score for embryonic stem cell research as 613 to zero. That is $613 million of US federal government money, plus a lot more from other levels of government plus non-government sources, including $3 billion presumably that Mr Drum referred to earlier. The results? Zero! Nothing useful has so far come from this investment. How much more might have come from investment in other, more effective stem cell technologies?

Embarking on the embryonic cloning path is likely to actually detract from medical advances by leading away from other avenues of research that are not only much more ethical but also more promising. Research on different types of non-embryonic stem cells have already shown great results and amazing promise.

First, adult stem cells. Adult stem cells grow in an ordered, regular way. Research with adult stem cells, which does not involve the destruction of human life, has so far led to more than 70 cures or treatments for conditions including Parkinson’s disease, liver cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Adult stem cell technologies were recently shown to deliver results for people with spinal cord injuries, such as those treated by Dr Carlos Lima in Portugal, who reported last year on the transplant of nasal stem cells into seven patients with long-term spinal cord injury. Breakthroughs based on adult stem cells are announced almost weekly, including a Melbourne-based one in the treatment of heart attacks reported on 3 April this year.

Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of Brisbane, neuroscientist and researcher and Queenslander of the Year for 2003, has said that adult stem cells can do everything that is hoped embryonic stem cells might be able to do. They can be obtained from a range of disease sufferers and can be tweaked into the relevant cell type for genetic study and cell testing. Professor Mackay-Sim considers adult stem cells to be superior to embryonic stem cells, because they do not carry the genetic damage caused by the cloning process, they do not incorporate mitochondrial DNA, are more easily and cheaply obtained and readily multiplied and more stable genetically.

The potential of adult stem cells alone has rendered the case for cloning, as Professor Mackay-Sim puts it, irrelevant and impractical. Irrelevant and impractical — that is what Professor Mackay-Sim, Queenslander of the Year and scientist, says about embryonic stem cells. That potential has been demonstrated by the development of treatments or cures for 26 types of cancers including the brain tumours medulloblastoma and glioma, retinoblastoma, ovarian cancer, the skin cancer merkel cell carcinoma, testicular cancer, tumours abdominal organs lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are 73 diseases and illnesses listed in this document which are now curable or treatable, to some extent at least, because of research done on adult stem cells. Each listing has a peer review journal reference. In fact, this is slightly out of date because it does not include the breakthrough announced in Melbourne last month, which I referred to earlier.
What do all of these treatments mean in practice? This is the practical reality. Edward Bailey, a 65-year-old Englishman, could not believe it. For 10 years all he had seen were shades of black and grey. After an operation using adult stem cells a nurse came by and he saw a flash of blue from her uniform. He went home and when he took the eye patch off he had his vision back. He observed that it is only when you lose something like sight that you realise how precious it is.

Surely these proven results by themselves would be enough for us to conclude that stem cell research on embryos is not the right path, but there is a lot more.
Umbilical cord blood cells are being used in a host of treatments, and not only by those who have had their umbilical cords stored for them, an increasingly popular practice in the United States. One of the many people who have benefited from umbilical cord blood stem cells is American Nathan Salley, who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia at the age of 11 in 1997. In 1999 he was one of seven children to receive a cord blood transplant. In testimony before a congressional committee in 2001 Salley proudly declared that he was living proof that there are promising and useful alternatives to embryonic stem cell research and that embryos do not need to be destroyed to achieve medical breakthroughs.

In addition reports from the Presidential Commission on Bioethics say there are five methods undergoing development by which embryonic stem cell research may be possible without destroying embryos.

Amniotic stem cells are an even more exciting alternative. In January of this year, following the passage of the commonwealth legislation, it was announced in the United States that research had shown the potential of amniotic cells for medical research and treatment. Amniotic cells are cells taken from the fluid surrounding the foetus in the womb or from the placenta, which is normally thrown away following birth. Embryos do not need to be destroyed to obtain these amniotic cells. People do not need to be harmed and eggs do not need to be harvested.

The research was widely reported including in Newsweek on 7 January. The Newsweek article is titled ‘A new era begins’. Following the passage of the act on which this bill is based, a new era has begun. The article says that amniotic stem cells rival embryonic stem cells in their ability to multiply and transform into many different cell types. Furthermore they can be obtained harmlessly as a by-product of amniocentesis or from placentas, which as I said are normally thrown away following birth.

Amniotic stem cells are pluripotent — that is, able to transform into fully grown cells representing each of the three major kinds of tissue found in the body. The scientists were able to create in the laboratory nerve cells, liver cells, endothelial cells — which line blood vessels — and cells involved in the creation of bone, muscle and fat. Some scientists even coaxed amniotic cells into becoming structures found in the kidneys. Some of the amniotic cells functioned as they would be expected to in the human body. The liver cells secreted urea, an activity otherwise seen exclusively in their natural counterparts. Relevant to Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders, the laboratory’s nerve cells secreted glutamate, a neurotransmitter which is crucial to memory and which helps to form dopamine. Tests were also done on mice with a neurodegenerative disease. These showed that the amniotic cells sought out and repopulated damaged areas of the brain.
Amniotic stem cells multiply quickly and are remarkably long lived. The laboratory’s cells divided more than 250 times. They are very tolerant to low oxygen, which makes it easier to manipulate them in the laboratory. It also means that once they are transplanted into a body they can live for quite a long time until the body sends out blood vessels to feed them. I sent a copy of this report to all members. If they read it they will see that amniotic fluid stem cells do not cause tumours, and they apparently provoke very little immune response when implanted, although why that is so is not understood.

Late in 2006 a Swiss team reported that it had temporarily been able to grow human heart valves from cells found in amniotic fluid. The Newsweek article concludes by stating:
It’s a future that’s suddenly looking brighter.
Not only is it a new era, but it is a very bright new era full of promise, promise from amniotic not embryonic stem cells.

Since the passage of the commonwealth legislation on which the current bill is based a new alternative to embryonic stem cells has been reported. This alternative does not require the destruction of human embryos. It does not jeopardise the health of women. It does not cause cancer. It does not provoke a strong rejection response. It has been proven to be feasible and to do things that only in our wildest dreams might we have hoped it could do. In short, amniotic stem cells show every promise of being vastly superior ethically and technologically to embryonic stem cells.

In view of the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that each of these alternative, ethical stem cell methods by itself — adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells — exceeds the technological potential of embryonic stem cells. If they do not individually, then the evidence is overwhelming that collectively they certainly exceed the potential of embryonic stem cells.

Human cloning, on which this bill is based, has not yet been achieved. There is some doubt that it can be done, although I suspect that it is possible. According to my understanding it is normal practice, however, before research theories are carried out on humans, to demonstrate proof of concept — that is, that what is proposed can actually be done by showing that it can be done on animals, particularly apes. There has been no proof of concept with embryonic stem cells; there have been no valuable treatments or cures to have come from embryonic stem cells in animals yet. This is just one example of this particular bill not conforming to established safeguards and procedures.

I would like to add on the subject of apes that a few weeks ago I was watching television at home, flicking through the channels, when I came across a documentary on the apes of the world. The makers of the program began by asking, ‘In what way are we human beings really different from apes?’. The film crew went all around the world, and it filmed gorillas in Africa. The makers asked the question, ‘Can apes make tools?’ They showed a film of the gorillas twisting pieces of straw and grass in a certain way to make a tool for scraping out ants from ant holes and then eating the ants. They then said, ‘Obviously we are not unique in being able to produce tools, what about in terms of foresight?’

They then filmed in the Amazon a much smaller ape. They showed a monkey going to a tree which had very delicious fruit, but the fruit could not be eaten by the monkey unless it first made a tiny hole in the fruit, sucked the juice out and left the fruit for four days, after which, the monkey had learned, it was dry enough to be able to be opened and eaten. So we human beings are not unique in our ability to make tools. We are not unique in our capacity for foresight. The makers of the program asked, ‘How are we unique?’ and answered that we human beings and only we human beings have ethics. According to the makers of the program that is the one, single, solitary difference between us and other primates.

We are indeed on a slippery slope. We are not at the peak of it; we are halfway down and gathering momentum. If members do not believe that, I ask them to please just consider that in the year 2002 the commonwealth Parliament unanimously — every single member — voted to ban cloning, yet here we are only five years later and it seems we are about to authorise the practice of cloning in Victoria. The public has been led to believe that the members of this Parliament will be voting according to their consciences. Members of large parties will know if that is true or not. If that is not true, members may decide that their honour demands that they show integrity and independence in their vote. A dictionary will define honour as the ability to tell right from wrong. To me honour has always meant not exploiting others, and above all never using what is good about others against them.

All of us here, every single one of us, throughout our lives have seen people we love suffer from ailments and have desperately wished they could be cured. Every one of us here loves people who we hope might benefit from medical breakthroughs. I think a lot of us here hope that we ourselves might benefit in the future from yet to be discovered medical technologies. I do. We also probably hope for the uplifting of humanity, for relief from pain for everyone throughout the world and for an end to disease and suffering for human beings generally.

There are better ways, however, than those proposed by this bill — vastly better ethnically and much better technologically. The bill before us is technically far from good parliamentary practice. More importantly, it seeks to allow the destruction of human embryos on the false premise that this is good science. It is not good science. Happily, with respect to stem cell research good science coincides with good ethics. The bill proposes medical technology which is not only ethically repugnant but scientifically obsolete, redundant and unnecessary. In this very fast-changing world of bioethical technology, embryonic stem cell research should be considered to be not from the age of black-and-white television but from the age of the overland telegraph. It is already redundant.

To vote for this bill would be to support the destruction of cloned embryos; and, I suppose, their creation or their engineering. The evidence shows that it will also be a vote to hamper medical advances, to slow the development of therapeutic technologies, and to delay the discovery of new cures and treatments. It has been suggested that we do not profit anything at all if we sell our souls, even if we gain the whole world in exchange. How much less do we profit when we accept what we know to be profoundly wrong and get nothing in exchange?

The passage of this bill will not advance the cause of medical research; it will block it by directing resources to a field of study which is not only wrong in principle but technologically unpromising. The Faustian bargain proposed by this bill would destroy nascent human life, distract from superior avenues of research, degrade those it seeks to benefit and damage women even to the point of death — and surely the passage of this bill would also diminish our selves.

President, if the bill is passed, I would like to move that it be sent to the Legislation Committee.

See http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
for 180 peer reviewed references