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.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Media 2008-05-27 DLP Causes Euthanasia Bill Delay
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, 26 May 2008
Hansard 2008-05-09 Police Integrity Bill
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
Media 2007-11-22 Fluoridation Bill
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.
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Media 2008-04-22 South-West Helicopter
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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. ……………….
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
