BACKGROUND:
John Valves Pty Ltd, a manufacturing company operating in Ballarat since 1896 and employing 120 to 130 workers, had been placed into administration.
Mr Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region called on the government to assist the affected workers and industries in Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: John Valves Pty Ltd: government assistance
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Members Statements
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 16 October 2008
Page: 4461
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I referred yesterday to John Valves Pty Ltd, which has been placed into administration. The company has been operating since 1896. I support many of the comments made by Mr Vogels this morning. Like Mr Vogels, I visited John Valves in the middle of this year and was told by company representatives that they felt it was not getting a fair deal from the Victorian government. Neither was it getting fair treatment from the commonwealth government, because protection at that level is very low -- much lower than that provided in other countries that give protection to their industries.
In addition, the company felt it was not given fair consideration by the Victorian government for many projects in Victoria. Mr Vogels referred to a long list of them. Although the company was supplying other states, it had not won a contract in Victoria.
On behalf of John Valves Pty Ltd I asked the minister at that time to give the company better consideration.
I call on the government, firstly, to do what it can for the 120 to 130 workers whose future is now in jeopardy; secondly, to do what it can to guarantee better consideration in the future so that a new buyer may be found for the company; and thirdly, to provide better treatment of all industries in Victoria, especially in rural and regional Victoria.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Hansard 2008-10-29 Innovation: stem cell research
BACKGROUND:
Professor Martin, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, had recently written a letter showing that cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and has become completely redundant.
Mr Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region, asked Mr Jennings the Minister for Innovation about changes that have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Innovation: stem cell research
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 29 October 2008
Page: 4611
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for Mr Jennings, the Minister for Innovation. It relates to a topic that was raised yesterday in the house regarding cloning for stem cell research. I refer to a letter written by an emeritus professor of medicine, Professor Martin, at the University of Melbourne. It was a letter that I think was received by most members, and it shows that already, over the last 12 months, cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and is now completely redundant. It concludes:
"As it stands now, there is no basis for any further efforts to achieve therapeutic cloning using the transfer of adult cell nuclei to human eggs. Indeed it would be irresponsible to attempt this."
I ask the minister: what changes have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I am happy to answer the question from Mr Kavanagh. Every time I talk about stem cells I pre-empt the eventual arrival of his question and probably matters that he will raise in consideration of a matter that I will not pre-empt by talking about what is on the notice paper. I am well aware of Mr Kavanagh's enduring interest in this matter.
When I talk about the funding that has been provided by the state of Victoria and joined in a collaborative effort by the New South Wales government in recent times in supporting stem cell research, I take the opportunity to talk about the parallel stream of embryonic stem cell research with induced pluripotent stem cells, which is the alternative stream that Mr Kavanagh and other members of the community have a greater degree of confidence in because it is derived from other forms of tissue rather than through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). I have taken the opportunity to reflect on the intention of the government through its funding arrangements to test the validity and the application of these various forms of stem cell research.
I understand Mr Kavanagh is not alone in having ethical considerations about SCNT stem cell research; others in the community share his concern. However, what Mr Kavanagh purports to be the accepted scientific wisdom is an assertion which I refute.
That it is well established and recognised and that there is no longer a valid reason to pursue SCNT stem cell research are assertions I reject.
Part of the scientific research program that we have in Victoria, part of what is happening around the world and part of the collaboration between ourselves and the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is to test what is the appropriate application of that field of scientific endeavour and what benefits the community may derive from it.
I am happy for us to be tested in this field and I am happy for us to see the relative effectiveness of these two forms of the significant streams of stem cell research, but I do not accept that there has been unequivocal scientific evidence to fall on one side or the other.
I will assert in this place, in the public domain and in subsequent debates, in terms of providing support for research into the future, that there are still many reasons why we should continue with determination to explore the application and effectiveness of stem cell research.
Supplementary question
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- If the obsolescence of cloning as a research technique can be shown to the satisfaction of the minister, would that not warrant, indeed necessitate, a change in government policy?
Page 4612
The PRESIDENT -- Order! In my opinion Mr Kavanagh is asking for an opinion, which is contrary to the standing orders.
Mr Jennings interjected.
The PRESIDENT -- Order! I am sure the minister can answer, but the question is whether the Chair will allow it to be answered. I will allow Mr Kavanagh the opportunity to rephrase his supplementary question.
Mr KAVANAGH -- If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the minister that the cloning technology is now obsolete, does he intend to change government policy?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I thank the President for the opportunity to allow Mr Kavanagh to ask his question because it still warrants some personal opinion of mine and in terms of my responsibilities, but I am happy to outline what the sequence of events would be. In terms of the evidence and in terms of the commitment to research, I do not desert for 1 second from what I have said in my substantive answer. There are still many reasons for us to pursue with vigour the potential for SCNT research.
If the hypothetical situation of Mr Kavanagh's assertion came to be the scientific opinion that I would accept, then subsequently I, as a part of the government, would have some opportunities and obligations to share that with my colleagues and, with the collaboration within the policy development process of the government, to determine what the appropriate policy framework may be, and then, if necessary, to lead to legislation.
But at this point in time the Victorian government absolutely reaffirms its commitment to the legislative framework that we have in place in Victoria, to support the scientific research that we have in place and to consider -- on the basis of the best evidence, the best science and the best ethical considerations -- our position going forward. At this point in time we have got a lot of work to do.
Professor Martin, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, had recently written a letter showing that cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and has become completely redundant.
Mr Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria Region, asked Mr Jennings the Minister for Innovation about changes that have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology.
Mr Kavanagh's comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:
HANSARD:
Title: Innovation: stem cell research
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Questions without Notice
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 29 October 2008
Page: 4611
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- My question is for Mr Jennings, the Minister for Innovation. It relates to a topic that was raised yesterday in the house regarding cloning for stem cell research. I refer to a letter written by an emeritus professor of medicine, Professor Martin, at the University of Melbourne. It was a letter that I think was received by most members, and it shows that already, over the last 12 months, cloning for research purposes has been absolutely superseded and is now completely redundant. It concludes:
"As it stands now, there is no basis for any further efforts to achieve therapeutic cloning using the transfer of adult cell nuclei to human eggs. Indeed it would be irresponsible to attempt this."
I ask the minister: what changes have been made to government policy in response to this fundamental change in research technology?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I am happy to answer the question from Mr Kavanagh. Every time I talk about stem cells I pre-empt the eventual arrival of his question and probably matters that he will raise in consideration of a matter that I will not pre-empt by talking about what is on the notice paper. I am well aware of Mr Kavanagh's enduring interest in this matter.
When I talk about the funding that has been provided by the state of Victoria and joined in a collaborative effort by the New South Wales government in recent times in supporting stem cell research, I take the opportunity to talk about the parallel stream of embryonic stem cell research with induced pluripotent stem cells, which is the alternative stream that Mr Kavanagh and other members of the community have a greater degree of confidence in because it is derived from other forms of tissue rather than through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). I have taken the opportunity to reflect on the intention of the government through its funding arrangements to test the validity and the application of these various forms of stem cell research.
I understand Mr Kavanagh is not alone in having ethical considerations about SCNT stem cell research; others in the community share his concern. However, what Mr Kavanagh purports to be the accepted scientific wisdom is an assertion which I refute.
That it is well established and recognised and that there is no longer a valid reason to pursue SCNT stem cell research are assertions I reject.
Part of the scientific research program that we have in Victoria, part of what is happening around the world and part of the collaboration between ourselves and the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is to test what is the appropriate application of that field of scientific endeavour and what benefits the community may derive from it.
I am happy for us to be tested in this field and I am happy for us to see the relative effectiveness of these two forms of the significant streams of stem cell research, but I do not accept that there has been unequivocal scientific evidence to fall on one side or the other.
I will assert in this place, in the public domain and in subsequent debates, in terms of providing support for research into the future, that there are still many reasons why we should continue with determination to explore the application and effectiveness of stem cell research.
Supplementary question
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- If the obsolescence of cloning as a research technique can be shown to the satisfaction of the minister, would that not warrant, indeed necessitate, a change in government policy?
Page 4612
The PRESIDENT -- Order! In my opinion Mr Kavanagh is asking for an opinion, which is contrary to the standing orders.
Mr Jennings interjected.
The PRESIDENT -- Order! I am sure the minister can answer, but the question is whether the Chair will allow it to be answered. I will allow Mr Kavanagh the opportunity to rephrase his supplementary question.
Mr KAVANAGH -- If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the minister that the cloning technology is now obsolete, does he intend to change government policy?
Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) -- I thank the President for the opportunity to allow Mr Kavanagh to ask his question because it still warrants some personal opinion of mine and in terms of my responsibilities, but I am happy to outline what the sequence of events would be. In terms of the evidence and in terms of the commitment to research, I do not desert for 1 second from what I have said in my substantive answer. There are still many reasons for us to pursue with vigour the potential for SCNT research.
If the hypothetical situation of Mr Kavanagh's assertion came to be the scientific opinion that I would accept, then subsequently I, as a part of the government, would have some opportunities and obligations to share that with my colleagues and, with the collaboration within the policy development process of the government, to determine what the appropriate policy framework may be, and then, if necessary, to lead to legislation.
But at this point in time the Victorian government absolutely reaffirms its commitment to the legislative framework that we have in place in Victoria, to support the scientific research that we have in place and to consider -- on the basis of the best evidence, the best science and the best ethical considerations -- our position going forward. At this point in time we have got a lot of work to do.
Friday, 17 October 2008
Media 2008-10-15 DLP on Government Services
Press Release
15 October 2008
DLP Pressures Government on Services
At the regional sitting of Victoria's Legislative Council held at Lakes Entrance today, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh succeeded in having a motion passed expressing concern at the state of government services in Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh's motion was largely a consequence of the report into Victoria's health services that was released in early October. The report showed that the quality of services to many patients in Victoria has recently deteriorated.
Mr Kavanagh also said "public transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services in Victoria are also in a sad state."
Mr Kavanagh also said "that last week's passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 will further threaten the availability of GP's and other medical services in Victoria. Hundreds of doctors have said that they will resign as a result of the passage of this Bill and Catholic Maternity and Emergency wards are also under threat as a result of the passage of this Bill."
Mr Kavanagh's motion was passed 18 to 17 votes.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
15 October 2008
DLP Pressures Government on Services
At the regional sitting of Victoria's Legislative Council held at Lakes Entrance today, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh succeeded in having a motion passed expressing concern at the state of government services in Victoria.
Mr Kavanagh's motion was largely a consequence of the report into Victoria's health services that was released in early October. The report showed that the quality of services to many patients in Victoria has recently deteriorated.
Mr Kavanagh also said "public transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services in Victoria are also in a sad state."
Mr Kavanagh also said "that last week's passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 will further threaten the availability of GP's and other medical services in Victoria. Hundreds of doctors have said that they will resign as a result of the passage of this Bill and Catholic Maternity and Emergency wards are also under threat as a result of the passage of this Bill."
Mr Kavanagh's motion was passed 18 to 17 votes.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
Hansard 2008-10-15 Victorian Services Deterioration
BACKGROUND:
On 15 OCtober 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria Region moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --
(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;
(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;
(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and
(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".
Mr Evan Thornley MLC for Southern Metropolitan Region was absent from the chamber for the vote.
Nonetheless the motion did pass on its merits as outlined in Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard below:
HANSARD:
Title: GOVERNMENT: SERVICES
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 15 October 2008
Page: 4414
GOVERNMENT: SERVICES
Page 4414
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I move:
"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --
(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;
(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;
(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and
(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".
The motion standing in my name proposes that the house express concern about the quality of services now available to Victorians. It refers in particular to an overloaded and degraded public health system, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria, and to a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.
This motion was prompted by reports on Victoria's hospitals released only a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of October. There are reasons to be concerned not only about hospitals but about a range of services in Victoria, including transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services.
In addition to the general quality of services to be concerned about there is the discrepancy between inner and outer Melbourne and indeed the difference between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.
The first point is that the situation is probably quite a lot worse than has been reported by the government. The Age of 22 September reported:
"Victorian hospitals have been warned not to admit emergency patients to 'phantom wards' or falsify data to secure funding, despite health minister Daniel Andrews' insistence that these practices do not exist.
...
A survey showed that 19 emergency department directors ...
found that almost 40 of them had been 'admitting' patients when they were still in waiting rooms, corridors or on trolleys.
The 'virtual wards' --"
which do not actually exist --
"were used purely for 'creative accounting' to receive funding and avoid 'performance watch', the doctors said".
Page 4415
The situation is probably quite a lot worse than is admitted by the government report. But even before the release of the report it was reported that more than 1500 people have been dying unnecessarily every year in Australian hospitals -- not Victorian hospitals but Australian hospitals -- because of overcrowding. Furthermore, for example, as reported in the Herald Sun of 24 September, a man in his 60s suffering from pneumonia had to wait three days in the emergency ward of a Melbourne hospital because of a lack of beds.
The government's report reveals disturbing information about Victoria's hospital system. The way of reporting has been changed. The Sunday Herald Sun complained about this on 5 October. It said that the previous way of reporting on hospitals in Victoria was clearly understood and was easy to understand, but a few years ago the government changed its system of reporting to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to read, let alone understand.
According to the report that was released a couple of weeks ago, waiting lists for cancer patients and other seriously ill Victorians have more than doubled in the past six months. This raises an extremely challenging situation for many people who know that they have cancer and yet they are being forced to wait for long periods before they can obtain treatment. It is bad enough to be in that situation of having an illness without having to worry about receiving any treatment for it.
The Age reports that more than 100 000 patients were not treated within target times in Victorian emergency departments last year and that the system struggled to cope with soaring demand. It breaks down those figures: 20 000 emergency patients, including stroke victims and those in severe pain and struggling to breathe were not treated within the set time of 10 minutes and so on; 98 000 urgent patients were not seen within 30 minutes; and 85 000 patients were waiting longer than 8 hours due to a lack of emergency beds.
The president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association said the hospital system in Victoria is drowning in patients. It does not have the facilities, it does not have the staffing and it does not have the equipment to look after Victorians. This is a dire situation indeed but the situation with services in Victoria is not restricted to hospitals. Public transport, roads, dental services and the ability to get a consultation to see a GP is deteriorating in Victoria. We all know about the chronic overcrowding on Melbourne's transport system with people unable to get a seat, the risk of cancellations and so on. This is repeated throughout regional Victoria. Not only is the situation in Melbourne bad but it is even worse in regional and rural Victoria.
We know from newspaper reports that inferior health care, transport and facilities for the cities north and west have been left behind.
The report shows how much worse the situation is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne than the better-off parts of Melbourne. Melburnians living in the western and northern suburbs of Melbourne are second-class citizens, starved of access to health care, transport links, public services and facilities. It is worse outside Melbourne than it is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne.
To substantiate this, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne only about 1 per cent of people are able to take public transport to work as compared with an average in greater Melbourne of 6.9 per cent. We all know that the facilities in outer Melbourne are not good enough, and this figure underlines that with startling clarity. We know that what happens in Melbourne is worse in Geelong, for example, where people cannot get onto a train and are subject to cancellations. If they can get on the train, they cannot get a seat.
The timetable itself is not a convenient one and does not seem to have been intelligently designed for the people of Geelong. It is similar in Ballarat, which I have talked about in the house before. People are quite often forced to stand on high-speed trains from Ballarat to Melbourne. This is a situation that many people find intolerable. Meanwhile the highway system throughout Western Victoria Region is not up to scratch. There are vast improvements needed throughout the region.
Last year we talked about dental services throughout Victoria in a debate about fluoridation. Mr David Davis, I recall, stood in the chamber and spent hours going through the data on dental services throughout regional Victoria, and the figures were terrible.
Although there have been improvements in certain respects -- I understand Portland, for example, has recently had a big improvement in the quality of dental services available through public facilities -- on the other hand the most recent report in Ballarat says there is an average wait of 52 months for public dental services in Victoria.
Ms Hartland this morning spoke about ambulance services and the pressure they are under throughout Victoria. It was also revealed just yesterday or the day before in Ballarat that home nursing visits have been reduced throughout that area because of funding pressures and deficiencies in resources.
Page 4416
I would like to speak mostly about the availability of the services of doctors, particularly throughout Western Victoria Region. Many doctors throughout western Victoria and I guess the whole state have recently closed their books. Many GPs will no longer see new patients unless they have seen them in the past. We are told that Victoria is facing a deficiency of 1000 medical staff, mostly doctors, by 2009. At the same time Queensland is actively recruiting Victorian doctors. For each doctor who leaves Victoria, the situation, especially in regional Victoria, will become much worse.
The government has taken some action. It has attempted to recruit doctors from the United Kingdom. However, the most recent report says that of the 2500 sought by 2014, so far only 35 doctors have been obtained from the United Kingdom. At the same time the doctors who are in Victoria are being recruited by other states and are leaving.
A lot of these problems require large amounts of money, but I would like to make the point that it seems to me that they are not all about money. There are other policies that can be initiated and adopted that would have a big impact on the availability of GP services throughout Western Victoria Region and would not cost extra money.
Last week we debated the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008. Unfortunately that bill legally forces doctors and nurses to participate in abortions, in spite of warnings from hundreds of doctors in Victoria that if the bill were passed, they would leave Victoria or take early retirement. More than 200 of them signed documents to that effect, and other individuals have been quoted in the press saying that they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed. Of course the bill has been passed, and in my view it is probably contrary to the government's own Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, the point for the purpose of this debate is that that was done despite knowing that it would cause even further damage to the ability of people throughout regional Victoria to see a GP. The government deliberately and with full warning, for ideological reasons, proceeded with a measure that will further degrade the provision of medical services, especially in regional Victoria. In addition we had statements that the passage of the bill would endanger the ongoing work of Catholic maternity and emergency hospitals in Victoria. Nevertheless, the bill was passed.
The government collects huge revenues from the people of Victoria; I think they are now almost double what they were when this government came to office less than nine years ago. It spends huge amounts of money on the sorts of services I have been talking about, but there are good reasons to believe that the Victorian taxpayer is not getting very good value for money.
The motion does not use excessive or florid language; it is worded in measured and moderate language. It is merely a motion to express concern about the state of services in Victoria, particularly in regional Victoria, and I ask all members to support the motion.
...
Page 4436
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- During the course of this debate Mr Viney described my speech as a rant. Neither my speech nor the words of the motion can fairly be described that way. The words of the motion are measured, balanced, fair and moderate. They do not ask for the condemnation of the government, but merely for an expression of concern by this house at the state of services in Victoria. The facts concerning services in Victoria fully warrant such an expression of concern. We have just received news about John Valves in Ballarat; it has unfortunately announced that it is closing with the loss of 130 jobs in that city.
But apart from that, and more explicitly on the theme of services, earlier this month a report on the state of Victoria's hospitals and health care system justifies an expression of concern. There is a wait of up to three days for a bed in an emergency room for people who are in a critical condition. The time patients suffering from cancer are required to wait for treatment has doubled. Throughout Melbourne and regional Victoria the transport system is in obvious crisis. The availability of services is insufficient and the quality of those services that exist is very bad indeed. That is shown by chronic overcrowding not only in Melbourne but also, for example, in Ballarat and Geelong. As I mentioned and as Mr Koch went into detail about, the state of highways in western Victoria is sadly lacking and they need a lot of work.
We have heard of ambulance services in crisis, and we have heard in the last day or two of nursing services in Ballarat being cut back because of insufficient resources.
People in Ballarat are waiting on average 52 months to obtain dental services from public clinics. Doctor services are already under threat throughout Victoria. Earlier this year it was predicted there would be a shortfall of 1000 doctors throughout Victoria by next year. However, what has happened since that prediction was made has made the situation even worse. That includes, for example, the aggressive and successful recruitment of Victorian doctors to Queensland. Also, as I said before, the passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill last week will make the situation much worse than it would otherwise have been because of the threat of at least 200 doctors in Victoria saying they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed, and it now has been. There is of course the threat to maternity and emergency services that are presently provided through Catholic hospitals.
Page 4437
Mr Viney and Ms Pulford's contributions had a common theme, which was how much the government has spent. That was the main point they made: it was about the government's spending of huge amounts of money on services in Victoria. But that misses the point. The point is not how much has been spent but how much has been achieved. There was very little information from government members about what was achieved. There was an indication of train services that were restored, but that was as close as we got to an indication of what has been achieved.
I note that those train services went over budget by what I think was 1100 per cent or 1250 per cent -- something of that order. Neither Mr Viney nor Ms Pulford mentioned those, but they do seem to be relevant facts in the course of this debate. Ms Darveniza talked about the north-south pipeline. I believe most people who are affected regard that not as a government service but a government disservice.
This motion is not an extreme one. It is not a rant. It is an expression of concern. There are reasons to be concerned about the quality of services in Victoria at the present time. Is the government saying that it is not concerned by what is happening to hospital services in Victoria? Is the Australian Labor Party not concerned about the quality of dental services in regional and rural Victoria? Is it not concerned about the quality of transport that is offered to people throughout Victoria, not only in Melbourne but in Geelong, Ballarat and other places? The conclusion is inevitable that, if the government votes against this motion, it is saying that it is not concerned about things that it ought to be concerned about.
...
House divided on motion:
Ayes, 18
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...
Noes, 17
...
Motion agreed to.
On 15 OCtober 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria Region moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --
(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;
(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;
(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and
(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".
Mr Evan Thornley MLC for Southern Metropolitan Region was absent from the chamber for the vote.
Nonetheless the motion did pass on its merits as outlined in Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard below:
HANSARD:
Title: GOVERNMENT: SERVICES
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 15 October 2008
Page: 4414
GOVERNMENT: SERVICES
Page 4414
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I move:
"That this house notes with concern the deterioration in the quality of services available to Victorians, including --
(1) an overloaded and degraded public health system;
(2) transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne;
(3) transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria; and
(4) a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria".
The motion standing in my name proposes that the house express concern about the quality of services now available to Victorians. It refers in particular to an overloaded and degraded public health system, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in Melbourne, to transport and other infrastructure pressures in regional and rural Victoria, particularly in western Victoria, and to a growing divide and disconnect between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.
This motion was prompted by reports on Victoria's hospitals released only a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of October. There are reasons to be concerned not only about hospitals but about a range of services in Victoria, including transport, dental, ambulance and nursing services.
In addition to the general quality of services to be concerned about there is the discrepancy between inner and outer Melbourne and indeed the difference between Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria.
The first point is that the situation is probably quite a lot worse than has been reported by the government. The Age of 22 September reported:
"Victorian hospitals have been warned not to admit emergency patients to 'phantom wards' or falsify data to secure funding, despite health minister Daniel Andrews' insistence that these practices do not exist.
...
A survey showed that 19 emergency department directors ...
found that almost 40 of them had been 'admitting' patients when they were still in waiting rooms, corridors or on trolleys.
The 'virtual wards' --"
which do not actually exist --
"were used purely for 'creative accounting' to receive funding and avoid 'performance watch', the doctors said".
Page 4415
The situation is probably quite a lot worse than is admitted by the government report. But even before the release of the report it was reported that more than 1500 people have been dying unnecessarily every year in Australian hospitals -- not Victorian hospitals but Australian hospitals -- because of overcrowding. Furthermore, for example, as reported in the Herald Sun of 24 September, a man in his 60s suffering from pneumonia had to wait three days in the emergency ward of a Melbourne hospital because of a lack of beds.
The government's report reveals disturbing information about Victoria's hospital system. The way of reporting has been changed. The Sunday Herald Sun complained about this on 5 October. It said that the previous way of reporting on hospitals in Victoria was clearly understood and was easy to understand, but a few years ago the government changed its system of reporting to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to read, let alone understand.
According to the report that was released a couple of weeks ago, waiting lists for cancer patients and other seriously ill Victorians have more than doubled in the past six months. This raises an extremely challenging situation for many people who know that they have cancer and yet they are being forced to wait for long periods before they can obtain treatment. It is bad enough to be in that situation of having an illness without having to worry about receiving any treatment for it.
The Age reports that more than 100 000 patients were not treated within target times in Victorian emergency departments last year and that the system struggled to cope with soaring demand. It breaks down those figures: 20 000 emergency patients, including stroke victims and those in severe pain and struggling to breathe were not treated within the set time of 10 minutes and so on; 98 000 urgent patients were not seen within 30 minutes; and 85 000 patients were waiting longer than 8 hours due to a lack of emergency beds.
The president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association said the hospital system in Victoria is drowning in patients. It does not have the facilities, it does not have the staffing and it does not have the equipment to look after Victorians. This is a dire situation indeed but the situation with services in Victoria is not restricted to hospitals. Public transport, roads, dental services and the ability to get a consultation to see a GP is deteriorating in Victoria. We all know about the chronic overcrowding on Melbourne's transport system with people unable to get a seat, the risk of cancellations and so on. This is repeated throughout regional Victoria. Not only is the situation in Melbourne bad but it is even worse in regional and rural Victoria.
We know from newspaper reports that inferior health care, transport and facilities for the cities north and west have been left behind.
The report shows how much worse the situation is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne than the better-off parts of Melbourne. Melburnians living in the western and northern suburbs of Melbourne are second-class citizens, starved of access to health care, transport links, public services and facilities. It is worse outside Melbourne than it is in the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne.
To substantiate this, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne only about 1 per cent of people are able to take public transport to work as compared with an average in greater Melbourne of 6.9 per cent. We all know that the facilities in outer Melbourne are not good enough, and this figure underlines that with startling clarity. We know that what happens in Melbourne is worse in Geelong, for example, where people cannot get onto a train and are subject to cancellations. If they can get on the train, they cannot get a seat.
The timetable itself is not a convenient one and does not seem to have been intelligently designed for the people of Geelong. It is similar in Ballarat, which I have talked about in the house before. People are quite often forced to stand on high-speed trains from Ballarat to Melbourne. This is a situation that many people find intolerable. Meanwhile the highway system throughout Western Victoria Region is not up to scratch. There are vast improvements needed throughout the region.
Last year we talked about dental services throughout Victoria in a debate about fluoridation. Mr David Davis, I recall, stood in the chamber and spent hours going through the data on dental services throughout regional Victoria, and the figures were terrible.
Although there have been improvements in certain respects -- I understand Portland, for example, has recently had a big improvement in the quality of dental services available through public facilities -- on the other hand the most recent report in Ballarat says there is an average wait of 52 months for public dental services in Victoria.
Ms Hartland this morning spoke about ambulance services and the pressure they are under throughout Victoria. It was also revealed just yesterday or the day before in Ballarat that home nursing visits have been reduced throughout that area because of funding pressures and deficiencies in resources.
Page 4416
I would like to speak mostly about the availability of the services of doctors, particularly throughout Western Victoria Region. Many doctors throughout western Victoria and I guess the whole state have recently closed their books. Many GPs will no longer see new patients unless they have seen them in the past. We are told that Victoria is facing a deficiency of 1000 medical staff, mostly doctors, by 2009. At the same time Queensland is actively recruiting Victorian doctors. For each doctor who leaves Victoria, the situation, especially in regional Victoria, will become much worse.
The government has taken some action. It has attempted to recruit doctors from the United Kingdom. However, the most recent report says that of the 2500 sought by 2014, so far only 35 doctors have been obtained from the United Kingdom. At the same time the doctors who are in Victoria are being recruited by other states and are leaving.
A lot of these problems require large amounts of money, but I would like to make the point that it seems to me that they are not all about money. There are other policies that can be initiated and adopted that would have a big impact on the availability of GP services throughout Western Victoria Region and would not cost extra money.
Last week we debated the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008. Unfortunately that bill legally forces doctors and nurses to participate in abortions, in spite of warnings from hundreds of doctors in Victoria that if the bill were passed, they would leave Victoria or take early retirement. More than 200 of them signed documents to that effect, and other individuals have been quoted in the press saying that they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed. Of course the bill has been passed, and in my view it is probably contrary to the government's own Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, the point for the purpose of this debate is that that was done despite knowing that it would cause even further damage to the ability of people throughout regional Victoria to see a GP. The government deliberately and with full warning, for ideological reasons, proceeded with a measure that will further degrade the provision of medical services, especially in regional Victoria. In addition we had statements that the passage of the bill would endanger the ongoing work of Catholic maternity and emergency hospitals in Victoria. Nevertheless, the bill was passed.
The government collects huge revenues from the people of Victoria; I think they are now almost double what they were when this government came to office less than nine years ago. It spends huge amounts of money on the sorts of services I have been talking about, but there are good reasons to believe that the Victorian taxpayer is not getting very good value for money.
The motion does not use excessive or florid language; it is worded in measured and moderate language. It is merely a motion to express concern about the state of services in Victoria, particularly in regional Victoria, and I ask all members to support the motion.
...
Page 4436
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- During the course of this debate Mr Viney described my speech as a rant. Neither my speech nor the words of the motion can fairly be described that way. The words of the motion are measured, balanced, fair and moderate. They do not ask for the condemnation of the government, but merely for an expression of concern by this house at the state of services in Victoria. The facts concerning services in Victoria fully warrant such an expression of concern. We have just received news about John Valves in Ballarat; it has unfortunately announced that it is closing with the loss of 130 jobs in that city.
But apart from that, and more explicitly on the theme of services, earlier this month a report on the state of Victoria's hospitals and health care system justifies an expression of concern. There is a wait of up to three days for a bed in an emergency room for people who are in a critical condition. The time patients suffering from cancer are required to wait for treatment has doubled. Throughout Melbourne and regional Victoria the transport system is in obvious crisis. The availability of services is insufficient and the quality of those services that exist is very bad indeed. That is shown by chronic overcrowding not only in Melbourne but also, for example, in Ballarat and Geelong. As I mentioned and as Mr Koch went into detail about, the state of highways in western Victoria is sadly lacking and they need a lot of work.
We have heard of ambulance services in crisis, and we have heard in the last day or two of nursing services in Ballarat being cut back because of insufficient resources.
People in Ballarat are waiting on average 52 months to obtain dental services from public clinics. Doctor services are already under threat throughout Victoria. Earlier this year it was predicted there would be a shortfall of 1000 doctors throughout Victoria by next year. However, what has happened since that prediction was made has made the situation even worse. That includes, for example, the aggressive and successful recruitment of Victorian doctors to Queensland. Also, as I said before, the passage of the Abortion Law Reform Bill last week will make the situation much worse than it would otherwise have been because of the threat of at least 200 doctors in Victoria saying they would leave Victoria if the bill were passed, and it now has been. There is of course the threat to maternity and emergency services that are presently provided through Catholic hospitals.
Page 4437
Mr Viney and Ms Pulford's contributions had a common theme, which was how much the government has spent. That was the main point they made: it was about the government's spending of huge amounts of money on services in Victoria. But that misses the point. The point is not how much has been spent but how much has been achieved. There was very little information from government members about what was achieved. There was an indication of train services that were restored, but that was as close as we got to an indication of what has been achieved.
I note that those train services went over budget by what I think was 1100 per cent or 1250 per cent -- something of that order. Neither Mr Viney nor Ms Pulford mentioned those, but they do seem to be relevant facts in the course of this debate. Ms Darveniza talked about the north-south pipeline. I believe most people who are affected regard that not as a government service but a government disservice.
This motion is not an extreme one. It is not a rant. It is an expression of concern. There are reasons to be concerned about the quality of services in Victoria at the present time. Is the government saying that it is not concerned by what is happening to hospital services in Victoria? Is the Australian Labor Party not concerned about the quality of dental services in regional and rural Victoria? Is it not concerned about the quality of transport that is offered to people throughout Victoria, not only in Melbourne but in Geelong, Ballarat and other places? The conclusion is inevitable that, if the government votes against this motion, it is saying that it is not concerned about things that it ought to be concerned about.
...
House divided on motion:
Ayes, 18
...
Kavanagh, Mr
...
Noes, 17
...
Motion agreed to.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Media 2008-10-14 DLP Asks Governor Stop Abort Bill
Press Release
14 October 2008
DLP Asks Governor to Stop Abortion Bill
DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh has faxed the Governor of Victoria Professor De Kretser, asking him to withhold Royal Assent for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, on the basis that it was not properly passed by the Victorian Parliament.
"There are good reasons to conclude that the Abortion Bill contravenes Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Furthermore passage of this Bill through the Parliament did not comply with requirements specified in the Charter. The Charter requires certain procedures before a bill that affects rights guaranteed under the Charter can be properly passed by the Parliament. The Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 did not comply with those requirements. On the basis of this deficiency I have asked the Governor to withhold Royal Assent for the Bill", Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
14 October 2008
DLP Asks Governor to Stop Abortion Bill
DLP MLC for Western Victoria, Peter Kavanagh has faxed the Governor of Victoria Professor De Kretser, asking him to withhold Royal Assent for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, on the basis that it was not properly passed by the Victorian Parliament.
"There are good reasons to conclude that the Abortion Bill contravenes Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Furthermore passage of this Bill through the Parliament did not comply with requirements specified in the Charter. The Charter requires certain procedures before a bill that affects rights guaranteed under the Charter can be properly passed by the Parliament. The Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 did not comply with those requirements. On the basis of this deficiency I have asked the Governor to withhold Royal Assent for the Bill", Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh 03 5222 1503.
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Media 2008-08-19 DLP Questions Abortion Report
Press Release
19 August 2008
DLP Questions VLRC Abortion Report in Parliament
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MP for Western Victoria, today gave notice of a motion expressing "deep concern" at the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Report on abortion.
Mr Kavanagh said, "the Report is clearly not the result of honest attempts to find the truth. For example there is overwhelming evidence that abortion is agonisingly painful to many fetuses and is also harmful to women. The VLRC report ignored the preponderance of evidence and accepted dissenting, minority opinions on these important topics".
Please find copy of the Notice of Motion below.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MR KAVANAGH - NOTICE OF MOTION
I give notice that, on the next day of meeting, I will move —
That this House notes with deep concern the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Final Report on the Law of Abortion, in that the Report either ignored or dismissed a large volume of cogent, valuable scientific evidence showing physical and mental health risks of abortion to women and took no adequate or appropriate steps to provide the Government with that information, and further notes that the deficiencies in the Report include —
(1) the failure to acknowledge the risks of psychological damage, depression, suicide, the abortion breast cancer link, infertility and damage to the cervix and uterus resulting in pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies with concomitant problems including cerebral palsy;
(2) opposition to mandated information provisions;
(3) opposition to mandatory counselling;
(4) opposition to any anti-coercion legislation thereby leaving women vulnerable to pressure by husbands, partners, family and others to have abortions which are not genuinely of their own choosing;
(5) the failure to recommend banning partial-birth abortion, now banned in the United States of America;
(6) the failure to seriously address the issue of fetal pain; and
(7) the failure to address the role of abortion in destroying evidence of the sexual abuse of young women and the obligation of all medical practitioners to report evidence of child abuse.
19 August 2008
DLP Questions VLRC Abortion Report in Parliament
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MP for Western Victoria, today gave notice of a motion expressing "deep concern" at the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Report on abortion.
Mr Kavanagh said, "the Report is clearly not the result of honest attempts to find the truth. For example there is overwhelming evidence that abortion is agonisingly painful to many fetuses and is also harmful to women. The VLRC report ignored the preponderance of evidence and accepted dissenting, minority opinions on these important topics".
Please find copy of the Notice of Motion below.
For further comment please contact Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MR KAVANAGH - NOTICE OF MOTION
I give notice that, on the next day of meeting, I will move —
That this House notes with deep concern the failures of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Final Report on the Law of Abortion, in that the Report either ignored or dismissed a large volume of cogent, valuable scientific evidence showing physical and mental health risks of abortion to women and took no adequate or appropriate steps to provide the Government with that information, and further notes that the deficiencies in the Report include —
(1) the failure to acknowledge the risks of psychological damage, depression, suicide, the abortion breast cancer link, infertility and damage to the cervix and uterus resulting in pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies with concomitant problems including cerebral palsy;
(2) opposition to mandated information provisions;
(3) opposition to mandatory counselling;
(4) opposition to any anti-coercion legislation thereby leaving women vulnerable to pressure by husbands, partners, family and others to have abortions which are not genuinely of their own choosing;
(5) the failure to recommend banning partial-birth abortion, now banned in the United States of America;
(6) the failure to seriously address the issue of fetal pain; and
(7) the failure to address the role of abortion in destroying evidence of the sexual abuse of young women and the obligation of all medical practitioners to report evidence of child abuse.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Hansard 2008-07-30 Physician Assisted Dying Bill
BACKGROUND:
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, on 30 July 2008 led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.
"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said in a press release the following day.
The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is below:
HANSARD:
Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2802
Page 2802
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.
I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.
The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.
Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.
The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is
Page 2803
temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.
This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?
Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.
In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.
The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.
It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.
It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.
We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.
This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.
The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.
Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new
Page 2804
wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.
Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.
The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.
In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.
The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.
Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.
A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.
As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.
This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.
This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.
It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.
The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.
This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.
Page 2805
Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.
The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.
Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.
Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:
"The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients".
Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.
Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.
The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:
"Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ..."
This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.
There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.
Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:
"... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death".
What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.
The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a
Page 2806
situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.
The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.
There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, on 30 July 2008 led a charge against the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 with a major speech in the Legislative Council.
"A mood against the Bill certainly seemed to develop during the course of the debate. I am now CONFIDENT that the Bill will not be passed" Mr Kavanagh said in a press release the following day.
The full text of Mr Kavanagh's speech against the Bill is below:
HANSARD:
Title: MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 30 July 2008
Page: 2802
Page 2802
...
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- As was pointed out by Ms Broad, we human beings possess a questionable gift -- the gift of knowing that we are all mortal, that there is no getting out of our earthly existence alive. Anxiety over the inevitability of death is accentuated by the heartbreaking experiences that probably all of us have had in witnessing people we love suffering in the course of dying, sometimes over protracted periods. The bill before us is motivated by compassion engendered by such experiences. It is entirely appropriate that we be motivated by compassion, but it is also obligatory for us to use our intellect, our reasoning and our understanding of human nature gained from ourselves and our fellows. The application of these tools and insights to the challenge of painful death makes it clear that any conceivable good that could come from the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be greatly outweighed by its harmful consequences.
I observe that, contrary to assumptions and assertions by some proponents and opponents of this bill, it is not actually about suicide. The bill is not about people killing themselves, but its legal parts relate to providing and/or administering the means of ending another person's life. Contributing to the death of another person, even one who apparently volunteers, of course raises issues and legal principles quite different from those involved in the consideration of a suicide. Not only our legal system but also our very civilisation have long been predicated on the premise that innocent human life is of such value that it may be taken permissibly only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. This principle, the heart and soul of our legal system, protects us all. Damaging, denying or compromising that principle reduces the protection provided by our legal system and the dominant social attitudes to which our laws contribute.
The principle of the value of innocent human life demands that lives be respected even by barons and kings. This principle was not established quickly or easily. It took centuries of inculcating what were initially revolutionary concepts about the nature and importance of the individual. However, the fact that this process took a long time and struggle to establish does not mean that its undoing would require a correspondingly long period or that the process would be necessarily as tortuous. An unfortunate fact of life is that destruction is much simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper than construction. The greatest building in the world that took centuries or generations of hard work, genius, material and wealth might be destroyed by a single individual with a few seconds of concentration and a match. Despite the best intentions of many of its proponents, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 would be a spark conflagrating the most important principle that is the basis of our legal system and civilisation.
Passage of this bill would establish at least two new principles. First, the lives of certain categories of people will not be protected by the legal system. Second, that killing certain people is rendering assistance to them. Actions that are inherently wrong have regrettable reactions only some of which are foreseeable. The consequences of the passage of this bill that we can foresee include generally diminishing the value of human life not only by the state but also by individuals.
The inculcation of the principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if the bill is passed, because the law not only expresses our culture but also helps to inform and shape it. If this bill is passed then the restraint the law has traditionally contributed to imposing on people in situations where there is
Page 2803
temptation to take another person's life would be weakened.
This process would not be conscious, deliberate or even considered. It would be automatic but influenced by the devaluation of human life which this bill entails. For example, a home burglar who is confronted by an elderly resident would know, if this bill is passed, that there are innocent people, especially elderly people, who the law allows to be killed. The home invader might even reason, taking his cue from the law, that causing a quick death might even be doing that bothersome old person a favour. Passage of this bill would weaken the inhibitions felt at the taking of human life in every situation of conflict or anger -- whether, for example, it is two people fighting in a bar or a driver engulfed by road rage. If the bill diminishes respect for the lives of others, as it would, what would be its effects on attitudes towards assaulting or otherwise harming others short of death, let alone by stealing or damaging their property?
Even more profound and disturbing than the effect on how individuals assess the value of the lives of others would be the effect that the passage of this bill had on how people see themselves. The elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community at large. Would not the knowledge that some elderly and sick are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live -- that is, failing to volunteer to be killed -- as an act of selfishness? Indeed, as pointed out by Palliative Care Nurses Australia in Commentary on the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008, famous proponents of euthanasia in Australia have implicitly implied or argued that it would be altruistic for those who feel that their lives are a burden to seek assistance to die.
In addition to the implicit pressure that passage of this bill would put on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people.
The bill purports to safeguard the elderly against pressure from relatives and friends by prohibiting those involved in a death from inheriting from the deceased. This safeguard is naive and would be almost totally ineffective. First, the person encouraging the sick person to volunteer to be killed need not be an agent under the bill. Second, the encourager may not need a will at all to inherit property. Third, the benefits to the encourager may not be of a financial or material nature at all. There are many other benefits that could come from a person apart from money or property. The death of the sufferer might, for example, simply relieve the encourager of inconvenience, for any encouragement that was given will be nearly impossible to prove after the death of the person who volunteers to be killed.
It is easy to envisage thousands of types of motivations for seeing the death of another person. One can also imagine thousands of scenarios in which this encouragement might take place.
It will probably not be in the form of a demand; it will not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss. Suggestions to volunteer to be killed will be 'nurtured in smiles and in soft deceitful wiles', to quote the poem.
We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He has not seen her for quite a while but he drops in unexpectedly and they have a cup of tea together. He says, 'You know, Mother, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now, you are a good age, you are over 60 years old and you are getting on. There is that arthritis you get every year, and life is not very good these days. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more? Your daughter comes to see you every week and it is taking her away from the kids. We have got our own lives to lead. We are very concerned about you, but don't you think you owe it to the kids to volunteer?'. There are many scenarios along those lines that we could imagine.
This bill rests on several false premises. One premise is that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents them making an important decision, let alone a life-and-death decision.
The bill presumes that medical science is capable of making consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. It presumes a 100 per cent success rate. In recent years two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia, one in New South Wales and the other in Northern Territory, demonstrated not a 100 per cent success rate but a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive the deceased had been medically diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after euthanasia deaths revealed that neither of them had terminal illnesses. It is also worth noting in this context that this bill does not require autopsies to be performed on deceased persons who died pursuant to this legislation.
Under clause 6 the sufferer may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. If the person is unable physically to do so, this revocation may be done by the sufferer's agent. But what of the sufferer who, firstly, has changed his or her mind but is unable to express his or her new
Page 2804
wishes; and secondly, what of an agent who does not revoke the certificate on the sufferer's behalf? What of it? That sufferer will be killed pursuant to this bill but without his or her consent.
Passage of this bill would make it legally mandatory to officially declare falsehoods in important documents. Clause 16 requires that the cause of death of a person killed by euthanasia be recorded in the death certificate as the condition which encouraged the deceased person to volunteer, if indeed they did volunteer, to be killed. As explained by Aristotle two and a half thousand years ago, causation is a complex concept both in practice and in theory. It is not so complex, however, that the declaration of cause of death can honestly lend itself to the degree of distortion required by this bill.
The cause of death of a person who kills himself following the breakdown of a marriage is surely suicide and not divorce.
In the case of a person who is killed because the killer was angered by something about the deceased, then the cause of death is surely homicide, rather than whatever was the reason for the killer's anger. This bill legally demands that death certificates be falsified. The law should not mandate the uttering of falsehoods.
The deception associated with this bill is not restricted to falsehoods in death certificates. The language of the bill is chillingly Orwellian. Facilitating another's death by providing a poison or even pouring that poison down the throat of another person is categorised by this bill not as 'murder', 'killing' or even 'mercy killing', but repeatedly it is called 'assistance'.
Intolerable pain is referred to repeatedly but defined only as profound suffering and/or distress, whether physical, psychological or existential -- that is, intolerable to the patient.
A literal definition of intolerable pain would mean pain that cannot be tolerated -- that is, pain that kills the patient. Though logical, this cannot be what is meant. It must mean severe suffering of some kind but this is extremely subjective. There are really no satisfactory objective criteria possible by which intolerable pain can be measured: not in the bill and not in medical science.
As we in prosperous advanced societies grow weaker, the boundaries of intolerable suffering will grow ever larger. Combined with a sharply increasing acceptance of killing, if this bill is passed, the acceptable definition of 'intolerable suffering' would no doubt quickly balloon out of all present recognition. The very title of this bill is deceptive. It is called the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008. It is not about medical treatment at all. Medicine is a branch of science dealing with healing and postponing death.
This bill is about the opposite -- unnaturally shortening life. An act is not necessarily medical in nature simply because it is performed by someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. The so-called medical treatment that would come from this bill would be no more medical than Dr Mengele's experiments or the actions of Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered many elderly patients in Britain in order to inherit from them.
This bill pays only lip-service to the value of life. This bill aimed at ending lives prematurely claims that 'life is precious'. That this is only lip-service is seen by the fact that the bill, under clause 4, while saying that physicians should treat requests by patients to be killed with 'caution', provides no penalties at all for failure to exercise that caution. On the other hand, under clause 9, penalties are imposed on physicians who refuse to help kill patients and do not refer patients to other physicians who may agree with this request to be killed. The right of conscientious objection is thus removed from the bill.
It would make it a criminal offence in some circumstances for doctors and nurses not to participate in the process of killing another person. Pursuant to the bill there are also strong penalties for physicians who try to resuscitate patients who take poison and are dying. Resuscitating a dying person actually becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances under this bill. That criminal offence is punishable with a fine of up to 1000 penalty units and imprisonment of up to five years.
The word 'dignity', though not dignity itself, also recurs throughout this bill. What is meant by dignity? What seems to be meant is continence and a lack of pain. Is it dignified to end life prematurely? Is there really dignity in deliberately leaving loved ones forever, before it was necessary to do so? I think not. In my opinion there is more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence.
This bill is not supported by the Australian Medical Association. Similar proposed legislation around the world is strongly opposed by many medical associations. Many physicians in Victoria strongly oppose the provisions of this bill. Some doctors in western Victoria have privately expressed the intention to take early retirement if this bill is passed. They say if this bill is passed they would rather leave the medical profession than remain part of an occupation which has fundamentally changed in nature from attempting to heal or treat patients in any circumstances to participating in the deliberate killing of innocent people.
Page 2805
Trust is surely an essential component of a doctor-patient relationship and is dependent on a patient believing that a doctor will do his or her best for the patient in all circumstances. How could this bill not damage that trust, and how could it not therefore do injury to the medical profession and the efficacy of treatment, especially for the elderly? Many elderly people in Holland now fear doctors just as many Aboriginals in the Northern Territory feared doctors and refused to seek treatment when similar legislation was active. In the case of the Dutch at least, their fears are unfortunately not without foundation. Although Holland's euthanasia laws initially had strict safeguards, with the passage of time they have been watered down. Contrary to the claims of Ms Broad, there are now cases of the medical killing of the elderly and the sick and handicapped, especially babies who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed.
The truth is that whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time.
Ms Broad said it is up to the Parliament to make laws and the laws cannot be changed without our permission. While the letter of the law may not be changed without our permission, the practical effect of the law is changed every day without reference to Parliament. In Victoria we have laws that say that technically it is illegal to perform an abortion, for example. At the same time in Victoria we have about 30 000 abortions paid for by the commonwealth government and the taxpayer. The letter of the law and the reality of the law are two quite different things, as I think Ms Broad will understand.
Why will these safeguards be watered down over time? The reason is that once it becomes accepted in law and in principle that killing people can be 'assisting' them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away. Expert analysis of the Oregon act, which is the model for the bill before us, has concluded that in respect of the safeguards in the Oregon act:
"The evidence strongly suggests that these safeguards are circumvented in ways that are harmful to patients".
Furthermore, an editorial in the Oregonian of 8 March 2005 said that their system of euthanasia, which this bill is based on, is 'a system that seems rigged to avoid finding' answers. In practice what will happen is that it will very quickly become clear which physicians are pro-euthanasia. There will probably be lists available on the internet -- certainly by telephone, if not on the internet -- of doctors who will promote euthanasia and who will not, I am afraid, contrary to the assertions of Ms Broad, be as devoted to finding cures for patients with difficulties as they will be to assisting them to end their lives.
Palliative care is a relatively new but rapidly developing area of medicine that holds great promise.
The passage of this bill would detract from the considerable achievements being made in the promotion of palliative care and in the standards and effectiveness of palliative care. As the Victorian division of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life claimed in a recent letter to MPs:
"Recent replacement of oral morphine with methadone improves the patient's quality of life ..."
This is being done now for people who are dying in pain; their lives are being improved. This methadone allows for the reduction in sedation and allows both a higher dose of opiate and more activity on the part of the patient. As information from Palliative Care Nurses Australia demonstrates, the standards of palliative care now possible make it feasible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death.
There is evidence that the more doctors know about palliative care, the more hostile they become to euthanasia. Even in the Netherlands over the last two or three years, the rate of euthanasia has begun to decline very slightly. This has been attributed to the increasing familiarity of many Dutch physicians with palliative care methods.
Research shows that while physical illness is often a trigger for despair, it is the depression and not the underlying illness itself which motivates most of those who are volunteering overseas for euthanasia. Crucially, to quote from an article by leading specialists in the Michigan Law Review of last month, those who request euthanasia in Oregon:
"... are [almost] always ambivalent about their desire for death".
What the authors are saying is that it depends on which day you get the patient as to whether they are volunteering for death or not; those who volunteer today may be quite unwilling tomorrow.
The end of life can be traumatic. One of our best features as human beings is to empathise with the suffering of others. Sometimes our empathy is even inflated by projecting onto the sufferer our reaction to what looks really horrible but perhaps is not actually as bad as it looks. In Victoria a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain relieving medication if that is their desire and their choice. This is entirely proper, because in such a
Page 2806
situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not, as proposed by this bill, through the intervention of another person.
The passage of this bill would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all people that is provided by the law and the social attitudes to which the law contributes. As explained, the bill, even as presently written, will allow people who do not genuinely volunteer, to be killed. Even beyond that, the bill's safeguards, although initially observed, would weaken over time.
There are likely to be other long-term consequences that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences will be pernicious, because they will emanate from initiatives which, while nobly motivated, are wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Media 2008-07-31 Government Questioned on Fluoride
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.
31st July 2008
DLP Questions Government Over Fluoride Objectors.
Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC for Western Victoria, asked the government in Parliament today, what it intends to do about the more than 1,000 residents of Castlemaine, who, in June, signed and witnessed statements delivering their non-consent to treatment for dental decay. These notices included declarations that there is evidence that fluoridation may be unjurious to health.
Mr Kavanagh succeeded late last year in passing a Bill in the Upper House to prevent the government fluoridating new parts of Victoria unless it were to first receive approval from a majority of voters at a plebiscite of affected citizens.
"The government did not allow that Bill to even be debated in the Legislative Assembly. Passage in the Assembly is required for any Bill to become law." Mr Kavanagh said.
"Unfortunately the relevant Minister is in the Assembly so it will take some time for a reply, which I do not expect to be satisfactory" Mr Kavanagh said.
For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.
Media 2008-07-31 DLP leads Anti-Euthanasia Charge
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
