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.