Press Release
31st July 2008
DLP Questions Government Over Fluoride Objectors.
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, asked the government in Parliament today, what it intends to do about the more than 1,000 residents of Castlemaine, who, in June, signed and witnessed statements delivering their non-consent to treatment for dental decay. These notices included declarations that there is evidence that fluoridation may be unjurious to health.
Mr Kavanagh succeeded late last year in passing a Bill in the Upper House to prevent the government fluoridating new parts of Victoria unless it were to first receive approval from a majority of voters at a plebiscite of affected citizens.
"The government did not allow that Bill to even be debated in the Legislative Assembly. Passage in the Assembly is required for any Bill to become law." Mr Kavanagh said.
"Unfortunately the relevant Minister is in the Assembly so it will take some time for a reply, which I do not expect to be satisfactory" Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Media 2008-07-31 DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge
Press Release
31st July 2008
DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge.
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, last night led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.
"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is attached below:
VICHANSARD
Whole Speech
Member Selected - KAVANAGH
Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page 2802
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.
I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.
The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.
Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.
The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is
Page 2803
temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.
This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?
Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.
In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.
The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.
It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.
It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.
We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.
This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.
The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.
Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new
Page 2804
wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.
Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.
The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.
In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.
The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.
Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.
A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.
As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.
This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.
This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.
It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.
The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.
This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.
Page 2805
Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.
The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.
Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.
Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:
The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients.
Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.
Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.
The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:
Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ...
This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.
There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.
Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:
... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death.
What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.
The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a
Page 2806
situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.
The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.
There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.
31st July 2008
DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge.
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, last night led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.
"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is attached below:
VICHANSARD
Whole Speech
Member Selected - KAVANAGH
Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page 2802
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.
I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.
The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.
Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.
The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is
Page 2803
temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.
This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?
Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.
In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.
The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.
It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.
It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.
We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.
This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.
The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.
Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new
Page 2804
wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.
Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.
The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.
In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.
The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.
Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.
A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.
As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.
This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.
This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.
It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.
The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.
This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.
Page 2805
Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.
The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.
Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.
Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:
The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients.
Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.
Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.
The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:
Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ...
This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.
There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.
Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:
... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death.
What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.
The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a
Page 2806
situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.
The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.
There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.
Media 2008-07-31 "Compressed Natural Gas?" DLP
Press Release
31st July 2008
"Compressed Natural Gas the way to go?" DLP
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria in Parliament yesterday, encouraged the Victorian government to consider promoting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).
Mr Kavanagh observed that :
-CNG cars are being sold in the US and distribution networks there are being expanded rapidly.
-Australia has huge resources of natural gas which are being exported at very low prices.
-Natural gas produces almost zero emissions.
-Australia's balance of trade could benefit enormously from replacing oil imports with CNG.
-Unlike LPG, CNG is not derived from oil.
-CNG has the potential to dramatically cut fuel costs for motorists.
Mr Kavanagh's speech in Parliament follows:
VICHANSARD
Title: Motor vehicles: alternative fuels
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2787
Motor vehicles: alternative fuels
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Industry and Trade and relates to innovation in alternative fuels. Of the many possible alternative sources of energy for cars, compressed natural gas (CNG) seems to be ideally suited to Australia because we have vast reserves of natural gas which we are exporting at very low prices. CNG, unlike liquefied petroleum gas, is not oil or petroleum dependent. The technology has been proven and is growing rapidly in the USA, where Honda is providing a CNG-dedicated car. CNG has almost no emissions, and its widespread use would greatly benefit our balance of trade by replacing oil imports. Of course, CNG also has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of fuel for motorists in Australia.
I ask the minister: as Victoria is the centre of Australia's car building industry, does the government have any plans to encourage car producers here to build CNG vehicles or to spur, or even help, distributors to establish networks for the retailing of compressed natural gas?
*******************************
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
31st July 2008
"Compressed Natural Gas the way to go?" DLP
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria in Parliament yesterday, encouraged the Victorian government to consider promoting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).
Mr Kavanagh observed that :
-CNG cars are being sold in the US and distribution networks there are being expanded rapidly.
-Australia has huge resources of natural gas which are being exported at very low prices.
-Natural gas produces almost zero emissions.
-Australia's balance of trade could benefit enormously from replacing oil imports with CNG.
-Unlike LPG, CNG is not derived from oil.
-CNG has the potential to dramatically cut fuel costs for motorists.
Mr Kavanagh's speech in Parliament follows:
VICHANSARD
Title: Motor vehicles: alternative fuels
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2787
Motor vehicles: alternative fuels
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for the Minister for Industry and Trade and relates to innovation in alternative fuels. Of the many possible alternative sources of energy for cars, compressed natural gas (CNG) seems to be ideally suited to Australia because we have vast reserves of natural gas which we are exporting at very low prices. CNG, unlike liquefied petroleum gas, is not oil or petroleum dependent. The technology has been proven and is growing rapidly in the USA, where Honda is providing a CNG-dedicated car. CNG has almost no emissions, and its widespread use would greatly benefit our balance of trade by replacing oil imports. Of course, CNG also has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of fuel for motorists in Australia.
I ask the minister: as Victoria is the centre of Australia's car building industry, does the government have any plans to encourage car producers here to build CNG vehicles or to spur, or even help, distributors to establish networks for the retailing of compressed natural gas?
*******************************
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
Media 2008-06-10 DLP Blocks Police Integrity Bill
Press Release
10th June 2008
DLP Blocks Police Integrity Bill.
The Legislative Council at 4.20PM today delayed voting on the Government's Office of Police Integrity Bill on a motion by Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Western Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh argued that the Bill, which the Government was very anxious to have passed as ASAP, deserved more consideration because:
(1) The report by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee was only published today;
(2) Irregularities in the Committee's hearings and processes have been alleged; and
(3) The Bill seems to be inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and with general principles of human rights.
In short the Bill deserved further consideration. With Coalition and Greens' support, Mr Kavanagh's motion passed 21 to 19.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria on 03 5222 1503.
10th June 2008
DLP Blocks Police Integrity Bill.
The Legislative Council at 4.20PM today delayed voting on the Government's Office of Police Integrity Bill on a motion by Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Western Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh argued that the Bill, which the Government was very anxious to have passed as ASAP, deserved more consideration because:
(1) The report by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee was only published today;
(2) Irregularities in the Committee's hearings and processes have been alleged; and
(3) The Bill seems to be inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and with general principles of human rights.
In short the Bill deserved further consideration. With Coalition and Greens' support, Mr Kavanagh's motion passed 21 to 19.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria on 03 5222 1503.
Media 2008-06-05 Fetal Photo - Permission to publish
Press Release
5th June 2008
Controversial Fetal Photo- Permission to freely publish.
The temperature in Victoria's abortion law debate spiked yesterday, when a storm of protest was raised after Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Victoria's Upper House, emailed all state MPs an image of a 21 week old fetus holding a surgeon's finger after life saving surgery.
Some MPs immediately emailed and phoned expressions of their extreme offence at Mr Kavanagh's email of "A telling image".
The image shows Samuel Armas, who is now 7 years old, when he was a 21 week old fetus. Just after the surgeon had completed pioneering fetal corrective surgery, the unborn fetus was photographed holding the surgeon's finger.
An episode of the TV drama "House" shown in the US last year centred around this event captured by Photojournalist Michael Clancy.
If you would like to publish the photo, copyright holder Michael Clancy has communicated his permission to Australian newspapers to do so freely (see below).
Controversial picture is also attached below. The picture contains an image following surgery and is not suitable for children.
For more information contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
Permission from Michael Clancy to Publish Picture
"The attached copy of the picture, Samuel reaching from his mother's womb during a surgical procedure to correct spina bifida in the womb, is a file large enough for print reproduction.
I, Michael Clancy, as photographer of the attached image and sole copyright holder of the picture, give my permission for any newspapers in Australia to reproduce the image in their publication. The picture was taken at Vanderbilt University Medical Centre on August 19th 1999. Samuel Armas is holding the finger of Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, the pioneer of the surgical procedure."
Source of below attached photo:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children - http://www.michaelclancy.com
5th June 2008
Controversial Fetal Photo- Permission to freely publish.
The temperature in Victoria's abortion law debate spiked yesterday, when a storm of protest was raised after Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member of Victoria's Upper House, emailed all state MPs an image of a 21 week old fetus holding a surgeon's finger after life saving surgery.
Some MPs immediately emailed and phoned expressions of their extreme offence at Mr Kavanagh's email of "A telling image".
The image shows Samuel Armas, who is now 7 years old, when he was a 21 week old fetus. Just after the surgeon had completed pioneering fetal corrective surgery, the unborn fetus was photographed holding the surgeon's finger.
An episode of the TV drama "House" shown in the US last year centred around this event captured by Photojournalist Michael Clancy.
If you would like to publish the photo, copyright holder Michael Clancy has communicated his permission to Australian newspapers to do so freely (see below).
Controversial picture is also attached below. The picture contains an image following surgery and is not suitable for children.
For more information contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
Permission from Michael Clancy to Publish Picture
"The attached copy of the picture, Samuel reaching from his mother's womb during a surgical procedure to correct spina bifida in the womb, is a file large enough for print reproduction.
I, Michael Clancy, as photographer of the attached image and sole copyright holder of the picture, give my permission for any newspapers in Australia to reproduce the image in their publication. The picture was taken at Vanderbilt University Medical Centre on August 19th 1999. Samuel Armas is holding the finger of Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, the pioneer of the surgical procedure."
Source of below attached photo:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children - http://www.michaelclancy.com
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Media 2008-06-04 Fetus Grasping Surgeon Image Stir
PRESS RELEASE
04 June 2008. Wednesday.
DLP SENDING IMAGE OF FETUS GRASPING SURGEON'S FINGER CAUSES STIR
Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria, ignited indignation this morning when he sent an email to other Members showing a picture of a fetus reaching out to grasp a surgeon’s finger.
The picture was taken after the surgeon had successfully operated, saving the life of the fetus.
A copy of the email with the photo attached follows:
"Subject: A telling image
For your information, find attached a telling image."
The image sent to the other Members can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.
Mr Kavanagh received angry responses from some other MPs - some assuming, at first glance, that the image was of an abortion.
"I would not send pictures of an abortion, mainly because I suspect that such images could be counter-productive. The image I sent actually follows a miraculous, healing operation," Mr Kavanagh said.
I suspect some were actually offended because the image makes it clear that human life does not suddenly begin at birth," Mr Kavanagh said.
A copy of Mr Kavanagh’s email response follows:
"Dear Members,
Following the sending of an image by me this morning, some Members have expressed offence on the assumption that the picture shows an abortion. The image does not show an abortion. It shows a scene following wondrous, life saving surgery on a fetus. The picture was taken at the end of the operation and shows the fetus grasping the surgeon's finger.
I am not upset by the image of one person, however young, touching another's hand.
The image has been published in newspapers around the world, including "USA Today" and was the basis of an episode of the TV series "House". Of course, the newspapers did not include "warnings".
The baby in the picture, Sam Armas, is now a happy, healthy boy ( I can send further images taken throughout his life, including others of him before birth, if anyone would like them).
Peter Kavanagh"
For further comment please contact Mr Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
The image at the centre of this press release can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.
04 June 2008. Wednesday.
DLP SENDING IMAGE OF FETUS GRASPING SURGEON'S FINGER CAUSES STIR
Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria, ignited indignation this morning when he sent an email to other Members showing a picture of a fetus reaching out to grasp a surgeon’s finger.
The picture was taken after the surgeon had successfully operated, saving the life of the fetus.
A copy of the email with the photo attached follows:
"Subject: A telling image
For your information, find attached a telling image."
The image sent to the other Members can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.
Mr Kavanagh received angry responses from some other MPs - some assuming, at first glance, that the image was of an abortion.
"I would not send pictures of an abortion, mainly because I suspect that such images could be counter-productive. The image I sent actually follows a miraculous, healing operation," Mr Kavanagh said.
I suspect some were actually offended because the image makes it clear that human life does not suddenly begin at birth," Mr Kavanagh said.
A copy of Mr Kavanagh’s email response follows:
"Dear Members,
Following the sending of an image by me this morning, some Members have expressed offence on the assumption that the picture shows an abortion. The image does not show an abortion. It shows a scene following wondrous, life saving surgery on a fetus. The picture was taken at the end of the operation and shows the fetus grasping the surgeon's finger.
I am not upset by the image of one person, however young, touching another's hand.
The image has been published in newspapers around the world, including "USA Today" and was the basis of an episode of the TV series "House". Of course, the newspapers did not include "warnings".
The baby in the picture, Sam Armas, is now a happy, healthy boy ( I can send further images taken throughout his life, including others of him before birth, if anyone would like them).
Peter Kavanagh"
For further comment please contact Mr Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
The image at the centre of this press release can be viewed on the following link:
Caution: The picture "A Telling Image" relates to surgery, not suitable for children.
WestVic Report June 2008 Available Online
Available online is the WestVic Report newsletter published by the Office of Peter Kavanagh to inform people of Western Victoria about the work and initiatives of Peter Kavanagh MLC, for the people of Western Victoria and the State.
CONTENTS
* ABOUT WESTERN VICTORIA
* THANK YOU WESTERN VICTORIA
* COMMITTEE WORK
- Gaming Committee
- Public Land Committee
* EVENTS IN WESTERN VICTORIA
- Deakin Medical School
* ABOUT PETER KAVANAGH MLC
* WORK IN PARLIAMENT
- Maiden/Inaugural Speech - 13 Feb 2007
- 15 April 2008: Holding the International Remembrance Flame (Torch)
- Media Commentary on Peter Kavanagh in Parliament
- Cloning Bill - 2nd May 2007
- Relationships Bill - 8th April 2008
- Manufacturing Industry
- Local Medicos oppose fluoridation
- Genetically Modified Crops
* ACTION ON WESTERN VICTORIAN ISSUES
- Water
- Goldfields Superpipe
- South-West Helicopter
- Budget Reply Speech
- June 6 2007
- Support for Other Projects
* FUTURE CHALLENGES - MORE TO COME FOR WESTERN VICTORIANS
- Life Issues
- Drugs
- Problem Gambling
- Taxes
- Local Decision Making
- Water and Pollution
* PETER KAVANAGH'S CONTACT DETAILS
The link to the full report is:
http://www.dlpwestvic.org/pdf/westvic_report
CONTENTS
* ABOUT WESTERN VICTORIA
* THANK YOU WESTERN VICTORIA
* COMMITTEE WORK
- Gaming Committee
- Public Land Committee
* EVENTS IN WESTERN VICTORIA
- Deakin Medical School
* ABOUT PETER KAVANAGH MLC
* WORK IN PARLIAMENT
- Maiden/Inaugural Speech - 13 Feb 2007
- 15 April 2008: Holding the International Remembrance Flame (Torch)
- Media Commentary on Peter Kavanagh in Parliament
- Cloning Bill - 2nd May 2007
- Relationships Bill - 8th April 2008
- Manufacturing Industry
- Local Medicos oppose fluoridation
- Genetically Modified Crops
* ACTION ON WESTERN VICTORIAN ISSUES
- Water
- Goldfields Superpipe
- South-West Helicopter
- Budget Reply Speech
- June 6 2007
- Support for Other Projects
* FUTURE CHALLENGES - MORE TO COME FOR WESTERN VICTORIANS
- Life Issues
- Drugs
- Problem Gambling
- Taxes
- Local Decision Making
- Water and Pollution
* PETER KAVANAGH'S CONTACT DETAILS
The link to the full report is:
http://www.dlpwestvic.org/pdf/westvic_report
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Hansard 2008-06-12 Auditor General Report - Pipelines
BACKGROUND:
On 12 June 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria commented on the Auditor-General Report on the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe.
Mr Kavanagh expressed concern that other superior alternatives to supplying water to Bendigo and Ballarat were not pursued by the government and detailed some of the adverse affects on the property of the farmers located on the pipeline route.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Statements on Reports
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 12 June 2008
Page: 2270
Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The goldfields super-pipe was constructed to avert the prospect of Bendigo and Ballarat running out of drinking water. It seems to me that there were superior alternatives available, which included the construction of dams or at least a weir in the Otways with a view to using some of the 93 per cent of the most reliable water supply in Victoria that now flows into the sea. These options and others were rejected -- largely, it seems to me, because of a misplaced ideological opposition by the government to new dams.
Although it has been alleged in public that the Democratic Labor Party was trying to stop the construction of the super-pipe, this was never the case. The truth is that I put a lot of effort into getting the best deal possible for affected farmers.
These efforts met with some success and the pipe was laid deeper than was originally intended. This is important to allow
Page 2271
farmers to use heavy equipment over the pipe with confidence. Finally a much better insurance deal than was originally intended was offered to the farmers. I think it is fair to say that, as a result of vigilance and frequent complaints and requests for action to ministers, more care was expended to meet farmers' concerns than would otherwise have been the case.
The Auditor-General's report Piping the System concluded that the goldfields super-pipe has been well managed. While this may be the case in general, there were a considerable number of instances of mismanagement in the installation of the pipeline by contractors. In at least one case, to gain access to a farm contractors simply cut the electric fences, allowing cattle to escape and wander the district. This caused great distress and worry to the farmer concerned and necessitated the loss of days of work time in rounding up his cattle.
In spite of repeated, explicit demands by farmers that construction equipment not be taken between properties without it being thoroughly washed down, this was not always done. Some farms were needlessly exposed to the spread of weeds and other contaminants onto their properties. In a similar way, soil profiles were not always restored as they should have been. Farmers demanded the restoration of soil profiles and in a majority of cases this was done. In some cases, however, it was not done and some farmland has thus been degraded through the replacement of topsoil with subsoil.
There was at least one oil spill on farmland. Installation of the pipe also caused damage to pre-existing old pipes, causing flooding of crops on at least one farm and in another case cutting the supply of water essential to crops. This happened when temperatures were over 40 degrees and the crops were at real risk of being ruined. In both cases, repairs to pipes were not begun until more than 10 hours after the damage was first reported.
There are reasons to suspect that the amount of compensation being offered to each farmer depends more on the amount of noise that he makes rather than on the real cost to the landowner. Whilst the temptation is understandable, it is obviously bad policy.
Australia comprises many things -- its spirit and its people. Undoubtedly Australia is also the land on which we stand. We have the responsibility to preserve and protect our country, and this must surely include the land that is beneath our feet. The world is experiencing a sharp rise in food prices due to a shortfall in crop production. I do not believe this will prove to be a long-term crisis, but it emphasises the need to conserve farmland. The land adversely affected in the laying of the goldfields super-pipe included some of the best farmland in Victoria.
I express the hope that in implementing future projects, including the north-south pipe, the government will ensure that contractors act with more respect for the land and for landowners than was shown in some instances by those who installed the goldfields super-pipe.
On 12 June 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria commented on the Auditor-General Report on the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe.
Mr Kavanagh expressed concern that other superior alternatives to supplying water to Bendigo and Ballarat were not pursued by the government and detailed some of the adverse affects on the property of the farmers located on the pipeline route.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Statements on Reports
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 12 June 2008
Page: 2270
Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The goldfields super-pipe was constructed to avert the prospect of Bendigo and Ballarat running out of drinking water. It seems to me that there were superior alternatives available, which included the construction of dams or at least a weir in the Otways with a view to using some of the 93 per cent of the most reliable water supply in Victoria that now flows into the sea. These options and others were rejected -- largely, it seems to me, because of a misplaced ideological opposition by the government to new dams.
Although it has been alleged in public that the Democratic Labor Party was trying to stop the construction of the super-pipe, this was never the case. The truth is that I put a lot of effort into getting the best deal possible for affected farmers.
These efforts met with some success and the pipe was laid deeper than was originally intended. This is important to allow
Page 2271
farmers to use heavy equipment over the pipe with confidence. Finally a much better insurance deal than was originally intended was offered to the farmers. I think it is fair to say that, as a result of vigilance and frequent complaints and requests for action to ministers, more care was expended to meet farmers' concerns than would otherwise have been the case.
The Auditor-General's report Piping the System concluded that the goldfields super-pipe has been well managed. While this may be the case in general, there were a considerable number of instances of mismanagement in the installation of the pipeline by contractors. In at least one case, to gain access to a farm contractors simply cut the electric fences, allowing cattle to escape and wander the district. This caused great distress and worry to the farmer concerned and necessitated the loss of days of work time in rounding up his cattle.
In spite of repeated, explicit demands by farmers that construction equipment not be taken between properties without it being thoroughly washed down, this was not always done. Some farms were needlessly exposed to the spread of weeds and other contaminants onto their properties. In a similar way, soil profiles were not always restored as they should have been. Farmers demanded the restoration of soil profiles and in a majority of cases this was done. In some cases, however, it was not done and some farmland has thus been degraded through the replacement of topsoil with subsoil.
There was at least one oil spill on farmland. Installation of the pipe also caused damage to pre-existing old pipes, causing flooding of crops on at least one farm and in another case cutting the supply of water essential to crops. This happened when temperatures were over 40 degrees and the crops were at real risk of being ruined. In both cases, repairs to pipes were not begun until more than 10 hours after the damage was first reported.
There are reasons to suspect that the amount of compensation being offered to each farmer depends more on the amount of noise that he makes rather than on the real cost to the landowner. Whilst the temptation is understandable, it is obviously bad policy.
Australia comprises many things -- its spirit and its people. Undoubtedly Australia is also the land on which we stand. We have the responsibility to preserve and protect our country, and this must surely include the land that is beneath our feet. The world is experiencing a sharp rise in food prices due to a shortfall in crop production. I do not believe this will prove to be a long-term crisis, but it emphasises the need to conserve farmland. The land adversely affected in the laying of the goldfields super-pipe included some of the best farmland in Victoria.
I express the hope that in implementing future projects, including the north-south pipe, the government will ensure that contractors act with more respect for the land and for landowners than was shown in some instances by those who installed the goldfields super-pipe.
Hansard 2008-06-11 Reporting Date/Interim Report
BACKGROUND:
On 11 June, Mr David Davis MLC for Southern Metropolitan moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the resolution of the Council on 2 May 2007 requiring the Select Committee on Public Land Development to present its final report to the Council no later than 30 June 2008 be amended so as to now require the committee to present its final report by 11 September 2008”.
And concurrently sought to move:
“That the Council take note of the second interim report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Reporting date and second interim report
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2197
Reporting date and second interim report
Page 2197
…
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Having spoken about the work of the Select Committee on Public Land Development on the tabling of its first interim report, I do not intend to speak at length on today's tabling of the committee's second interim report. There are two points, however, that seem to me to deserve emphasis and are therefore worth repeating. The first is that the government has maintained its hostility and obstruction to the committee's work. This can be seen rather clearly from the speech given earlier today by Mr Thornley and by the extravagant attacks on the committee by its deputy chairman, Mr Tee, when the first interim report was tabled. One expects possibly to hear similar remarks from Mr Tee a little later today.
The extraordinary attacks included a greatly exaggerated claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on the committee. There has been some spending, no doubt, on the committee's work, including photocopying, postage and so on, and there have been two assistants employed for a total of a few months, not throughout the entire length of the committee's work. I do not believe that the amount of money spent on the committee amounts to anywhere near $100 000, let alone the hundreds of thousands of dollars that has been alleged by the government members of the committee.
This hostility and obstruction falls into a pattern that is familiar to members and observers of the gaming committee also. The government has continued to do its best to prevent the committee doing its work. This house specifically authorised the land committee to investigate the alienation of public land. The government relies on an obscure administrative order to continue to insist that public land means land that cannot be alienated.
The government's logically untenable position has, as obviously intended, limited the investigations of the committee.
Our adversarial parliamentary system is built on the assumption that competition enhances performance or, to put it another way, that scrutiny is conducive to good government and indeed is good for the government ultimately. The people of Victoria should be concerned that the government has continued to express determination to avoid scrutiny.
The second point I would like to emphasise is that the way that the government deals with land is a matter of keen interest to a very large number of people. Dealings with public land is the point at which community interest intersects with government policy for many people. The committee has heard from large numbers of passionate, interested people.
It is important that governments develop and implement the best policies possible on the uses and sale or other alienation of public land. The committee's work could assist the government to fulfil this obligation.
On 11 June, Mr David Davis MLC for Southern Metropolitan moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the resolution of the Council on 2 May 2007 requiring the Select Committee on Public Land Development to present its final report to the Council no later than 30 June 2008 be amended so as to now require the committee to present its final report by 11 September 2008”.
And concurrently sought to move:
“That the Council take note of the second interim report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Reporting date and second interim report
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2197
Reporting date and second interim report
Page 2197
…
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Having spoken about the work of the Select Committee on Public Land Development on the tabling of its first interim report, I do not intend to speak at length on today's tabling of the committee's second interim report. There are two points, however, that seem to me to deserve emphasis and are therefore worth repeating. The first is that the government has maintained its hostility and obstruction to the committee's work. This can be seen rather clearly from the speech given earlier today by Mr Thornley and by the extravagant attacks on the committee by its deputy chairman, Mr Tee, when the first interim report was tabled. One expects possibly to hear similar remarks from Mr Tee a little later today.
The extraordinary attacks included a greatly exaggerated claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on the committee. There has been some spending, no doubt, on the committee's work, including photocopying, postage and so on, and there have been two assistants employed for a total of a few months, not throughout the entire length of the committee's work. I do not believe that the amount of money spent on the committee amounts to anywhere near $100 000, let alone the hundreds of thousands of dollars that has been alleged by the government members of the committee.
This hostility and obstruction falls into a pattern that is familiar to members and observers of the gaming committee also. The government has continued to do its best to prevent the committee doing its work. This house specifically authorised the land committee to investigate the alienation of public land. The government relies on an obscure administrative order to continue to insist that public land means land that cannot be alienated.
The government's logically untenable position has, as obviously intended, limited the investigations of the committee.
Our adversarial parliamentary system is built on the assumption that competition enhances performance or, to put it another way, that scrutiny is conducive to good government and indeed is good for the government ultimately. The people of Victoria should be concerned that the government has continued to express determination to avoid scrutiny.
The second point I would like to emphasise is that the way that the government deals with land is a matter of keen interest to a very large number of people. Dealings with public land is the point at which community interest intersects with government policy for many people. The committee has heard from large numbers of passionate, interested people.
It is important that governments develop and implement the best policies possible on the uses and sale or other alienation of public land. The committee's work could assist the government to fulfil this obligation.
Hansard 2008-06-11 Water: Plug the Pipe Protest
BACKGROUND:
On 11 June 2008, Ms Wendy Lovell MLC for Northern Victoria moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the Legislative Council expresses its disappointment at the Premier's intemperate response towards the Plug the Pipe organisation and their peaceful protest which was held on the steps of Parliament on Tuesday, 3 June 2008”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2238
WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
Page 2238
…
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- It seems to me that the origin of the dispute that has led to an unfortunate remark by the Premier was in the government's misguided hostility towards dams and weirs. For centuries dams and weirs have been used to protect countries and cities against drought, and they have proven their worth. It has previously been argued by me in this house that the government should seriously consider, for example, the scheme that Mr Vogels referred to: a weir in the Otways. At present 93 per cent of the water runs into Bass Strait, and I do not see the advantage in that at all.
So the government is now left with proposing running pipes that will crisscross throughout Victoria to bring water from one area which may not have an abundance of it to other areas which have even less water, plus constructing an extremely expensive desalination plant.
Many in northern Victoria resent water being taken from their area, and indeed they have expressed that anger on the steps of this building. The Premier's response was a very uncharacteristic failure of intelligence by someone who undoubtedly is an extremely intelligent man. The Japanese refer to an uncharacteristic failure with the expression 'Even monkeys fall out of trees'. We all make mistakes, and this is probably one by the Premier. We have all done things that we regret, and I suspect that the Premier will regret this momentary failure of his intelligence. The response by the Premier was disappointing, so I feel I have no alternative but to vote for the motion.
…
House divided on motion:
Ayes, 21
…
Kavanagh, Mr
…
Noes, 19
…
Motion agreed to.
On 11 June 2008, Ms Wendy Lovell MLC for Northern Victoria moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the Legislative Council expresses its disappointment at the Premier's intemperate response towards the Plug the Pipe organisation and their peaceful protest which was held on the steps of Parliament on Tuesday, 3 June 2008”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2238
WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
Page 2238
…
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- It seems to me that the origin of the dispute that has led to an unfortunate remark by the Premier was in the government's misguided hostility towards dams and weirs. For centuries dams and weirs have been used to protect countries and cities against drought, and they have proven their worth. It has previously been argued by me in this house that the government should seriously consider, for example, the scheme that Mr Vogels referred to: a weir in the Otways. At present 93 per cent of the water runs into Bass Strait, and I do not see the advantage in that at all.
So the government is now left with proposing running pipes that will crisscross throughout Victoria to bring water from one area which may not have an abundance of it to other areas which have even less water, plus constructing an extremely expensive desalination plant.
Many in northern Victoria resent water being taken from their area, and indeed they have expressed that anger on the steps of this building. The Premier's response was a very uncharacteristic failure of intelligence by someone who undoubtedly is an extremely intelligent man. The Japanese refer to an uncharacteristic failure with the expression 'Even monkeys fall out of trees'. We all make mistakes, and this is probably one by the Premier. We have all done things that we regret, and I suspect that the Premier will regret this momentary failure of his intelligence. The response by the Premier was disappointing, so I feel I have no alternative but to vote for the motion.
…
House divided on motion:
Ayes, 21
…
Kavanagh, Mr
…
Noes, 19
…
Motion agreed to.
Hansard 2008-06-10 Police Integrity Bill
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
