The evidence proposed to be given by Ms Colleen Peterson, a town planner, as to the economic and social impact of an increase in the number of gaming machines at the Ocean Grove Bowling Club, is admissible.

Mr Tweedie of counsel instructed by Michelle Griffith of Bazzani Brand Lawyers

Dr Karin Emerton of counsel instructed by Lyn Corneliusen

Mr Attiwill of counsel instructed by Jan Macpherson of Barwon Law

(given orally at the hearing and subsequently revised)

1 The Ocean Grove Bowling Club Incorporated has applied to the tribunal to review a decision of the Victorian Commission of Gambling Regulation. The club seeks to increase the number of gaming machines in its premises from 45 to 60. The proposed increase in the number of machines has been opposed by the City of Greater Geelong. The Commission has refused to approve the increase.

2 At the hearing before the tribunal the club has sought to lead evidence from Ms Colleen Peterson, who is a qualified and experienced town planner. Ms Peterson has prepared a report of some 50 pages, in which she sets out matters concerning the club premises, the demography of the area, the profile of club patrons, practices that are being followed in relation to responsible gaming, and her opinion as to the social and economic impacts of the proposed increase in the number of machines.

3 Ms Peterson states that her primary training was as a town planner. She has an Honours degree in Planning Design from the University of Melbourne. Further, Ms Peterson has worked in local government and for private firms as a planning consultant. In the course of that work she has done the usual work of a strategic and statutory planner, but has also performed some 20 or so studies of gaming proposals. Most of these studies have been performed for hotels and clubs proposing to install gaming machines or additional gaming machines.

4 In her written report Ms Peterson makes the following declaration:

I have made all the enquiries that I believe that are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance that I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the tribunal.

5 The objection to the receipt of the evidence is based upon two grounds. The first is that Ms Peterson has not complied with, or sufficiently complied with, the tribunal's practice note in relation to the giving of expert evidence. This contention seems to be based on the fact that there is no clear statement in the witness statement that the witness is aware of the practice note and understands that the principal obligation of an expert witness is to the tribunal rather than to his or her client. However, in my opinion, the declaration made by Ms Peterson is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the practice note. That statement evinces an intention on the part of the witness to put all relevant matters before the tribunal and not withhold any relevant matters from the tribunal. The fact that the practice note is not specifically identified is, to my mind, not material. It is the substance that ought count.

6 The second objection is that Ms Peterson's knowledge and experience as a town planner is not sufficient to enable her to give an expert opinion upon the social and economic effects of gaming machines.

7 Expert evidence will only be acceptable if the person giving the evidence has some degree of expert knowledge or experience in relation to the matter at hand. However it is not necessary that the person have expert knowledge and experience in relation to all relevant aspects of the matter at hand. Ultimately decisions often depend upon an amalgam of elements - yet it is entirely appropriate for expert evidence to be given on just one element, rather than upon the whole amalgam. In the context of the economic and social impacts of gaming machines, one might contemplate that a witness might give expert evidence simply on the topic of demography, or simply on the topic of problem gambling, or simply on the topic of the econometric boost that might be provided by additional gaming machines upon a local economy; or, indeed, simply on matters embraced within "town planning", whatever they may be. It follows that Ms Peterson - as a town planner - clearly has expertise to give some relevant evidence; and that there is no basis for excluding her evidence absolutely.

8 Sometimes it will be the case that a witness, who has the competence to give relevant expert evidence, may stray beyond that competence. When that occurs usually it will result in less weight or no weight being given to that excursus. However fields of expertise ought not be thought of in black and white terms; but, rather, as black fading to white. In reality people with a particular expertise will have more knowledge than laypersons about allied areas that are outside their discipline if narrowly defined. Let me give two examples: a neurologist is likely to know more about the orthopaedic structure of the body than would a layperson; and a town planner is likely to know more about spatial economics than would a layperson. In such circumstances - at least before the tribunal - such evidence might still be received but accorded less weight than it would if it emanating from a person with greater specialisation. One of the roles of cross-examination may be to reduce the weight that may be given to expert evidence by reference to the expertise of the witness.

9 This brings me to a final, but important, observation. Town planning is a generalist profession. Those who are members of generalist professions play an important role in society, as public decision making often involves the balancing of a wide range of considerations. Members of generalist professions tend to know a little about a lot; whereas specialists tend to know a lot about a little. It is easy to disparage those who know a little about a lot; but good decision making - in the sense of rounded, balanced decision making - is significantly aided by generalist professionals. In this regard, town planning is a classic. Town planning decisions involve identifying and balancing physical, environmental, social and economic considerations. Town planning is a profession which is informed by, and draws upon, a wide array of more specialised disciplines: spatial economics, geography, cartography, traffic engineering, heritage, botany, sociology, civil engineering, building and so on. It is always open for a town planner to express an opinion on a matter that is the subject of a specialised discipline, provided it falls within the umbrella of "town planning".

10 The decision that has to be made in this case involves the evaluation of social and economic impacts in a spatial context. This is a task that is extremely similar to many town planning decisions, where a rounded, balancing approach is required: a good, recent, example is the decision in Thompson v City of Greater Geelong concerning a sky bridge in Yarra Street, Geelong.[1] Indeed, as Mr Tweedie noted, I made a comment to that effect in Branbeau Pty Ltd v Victorian Commission of Gambling Regulation[2].

11 It follows that I do not uphold the objection. Of course it does not follow that I will accept the evidence, or will place weight on all or any particular part of that evidence. That will be a matter which I will need to determine in due course.

[1] [2006] VCAT 1098.

[2] [2005] VCAT 2606 at paragraph 53.