Freeman, Jack v Best, James

[1982] FCA 6

BETWEEN:

J A C K FREEXAN

--- App l i can t

and

J A M C S REST, _-_ R . C . FIEBB, N e J. flADFC)RD

3 . F. MACDONALD and D. R . L E S L I E (whd .- -

a re sucd a s t h e Chairman, Deputy-

Chairman and members of t h e Med;cal

Services Commjt tee of I n q u i r y f o r t h e

S t a t e O f V i c t o r i a ) and !4ICHACL JOHN

MACKE1,LAR (who is sued	as	the	; . l ;n is ter
I_I_-

of H e a l t h ) S t a t e f o r R e s p o n d e n t 5

NORTHROP J. EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT - 2 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 9 2

I p r o p o s e g i v e t o m y ~uclgment i n t h i s m a t t e r

jmmedia te ly because therc is some urcjcncy about the m a t t e r ,

an? becausc i t was broughc on a s a ma t t e r of urgcncy dLTr:qn

Che vacz t ion . Normal ly thc mat te rs ra i sec l would require time

for con&iderai : ion b u t I have fcrmed a s ~ ~ C f i c i e n t l y c l e a r v i c ? )

SE t o t!lc.- r c s u l t t e trahlc ne t o a t l e a s t a n n o u n c e ~y

d e c i s i o n a n d g;vc J~I i n d i c a t i o n in sulnlnary form of th r : bas i s

f o r t h a t d e c i s i o n , aqc! i f ncc?ssa ry , st t h e r e q u e s t of e i t h e r

p a ~ t y t o ?:.\‘,: mc)rc clet?.ilecl repzens i f e i t h e r p a r t y v a n t e t o

- 2 -

t ake t h e m a t t e r f u r t h e r , f r o m t h e d e c i s i o n I am a b o u t t o

g i v e . Any r e q u e s t f o r t h o s e r e a s o n s h o u l d b e made w i t h i n

fourteen days of today, and i f an appea l is taken from my

d e c i s i o n a n y n e c e s s a r y o r d e r s t o e x t e n d t i m e c o u l d b e g i v e n .

A t the very beginning I s h o u l d i n d l c a t e I propose

t o make t h e o r d e r s o u g h t i n paragraph 3 o f the no t7Ee of

m o t i o n b e i n g a n o r d e r t h a t pend:ng t h e a r i n g a n d

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n V.G. No. 6 of 1 9 8 2 , or u n t i l

f u r t h e r o r d e r , t h e decision of the Medical Service Commit tee

of Inqui ry of t h e S t a t e of V i c t o r i a d a t e d 2 9 J u l y 1 9 8 2 and

t h e de t e rmina t ion o f t he MLnis t e r of S t a t e f o r H e a l t h d a t e d

1 0 September 1 9 8 1 be suspended , and tha t there will be

l i b e r t y t o a p p l y . The e f f e c t of t h a t o r d e r Will b e t o

p r e v e n t t h e Review Tribunal f rom proceeding w i t h t h e hearing

of t he r ev iew w h i c h , a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , h a s been f i x e c f o r

1 0 February 1 9 8 2 .

The subs tance o f t h e m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t w l 2 1

b e s t a t e d , and although regard has been had to a l l the

subm:ssions	made	i t	i s	n o c	n e c e s s a r y	t o	r e f e r	t o	e a c h	o f
them.

T h e a p p l i c a n t 1 s a m e d i c a l p r a c t i t ; o n e r , 2 n d

p u r s u a n t o t h e provisions of the Heal - th Insurance Act 1973 --

he was t o a committee - a Medical g i v e n n o t i c e t h a t t h e Minister had r e f e r r e d t h e m a t t e r

Services Commit tee of Inquiry - t o

- 3 -

consider whether he had rendered excessive services under the provisions o f the Health Insurance Act 1973. -I---___._ - I should indicate that the applicant received notice of the inqu;ry

dated 8 February 1 9 8 0 , given by the Chairman of the

Committee, in accordance with the requirements of the Health --

-_ Insurance Act 1973, and in part;cular, s . 9 5 .

The notice was given under s . 9 5 of the Act, and the

Inquiry was t o be held on Wednesday, 27 February 1 9 8 0 . The notice also requested the applicant to notify the Committee whether he would be present or not, and the particulars to be inquired into were whether - and I quote:

' l . . . each professional service rendered to certain of your patients, particulars of which are set out in thc annexure hereto, was an 'excessive service' within the meaning of

section 79(1E)(a) of the Act."

Annexed to the notice also was an attachment

setting out certain provisions of the Ilealth Insurance Act _I

1973 in relation to the conduct of that inquiry. Included

also with the notice, as being the particulars, was a lengthy document containing a list of names and what appears to be medical services rendered to those persons, the result beinq that a very large number of services affecting a large number of patients were being made the subject of the inquiry, es to whether the services were excessive or not.

- 4 -

The a p p l i c a n t , u n w i s e l y , w r o t e a l e t t e r i n unusual

f o rm and r a t h e r c o n t e m p t u o u s l y s t a t i n g h e would not be

a t t end ing because o f t he w ide na tu re o f t he i nqu i ry and t h e

n u m b e r o f p a t i e n t s involved a n d s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d , t h e

s h o r t n e s s o f t i m e , a n d f u r t h e r , h e was n o t o b l i g e d t o g;ve

a n y e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o m a t t e r s w h i c h w e r e c o n f i d e n t i a l a s

between him and h:s p a t l e n t s . T h a t l e t t e r was no t r ece ived

by t he Commi t t ee u n t i l a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e d a t e

s p e c i f i e d on the no t i ce , name ly , 2 7 February 1 9 8 0 .

The powers of t h e C o m m i t t e e a r e s e t O u t i n D i V i S L O I I

3 o f P a r t purposes V o f t he Hea l th Insu rance Rc t 1 9 7 3 , and f o r p r e s e n t

i t i s s u f f i c i e n t o s a y t h a t u n d e r s.94, where an

i n q u i r y i s t o be made a s t o whether a p r a c t i t i o n e r h a s

r ende red excess ive s e rv i ces o r no t , t he Commi t t ee i s r e q u i r e d

t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g i n t o t h e m a t t e r . The powers confer red

by s . 9 2 a r e e x p r e s s l y s u b j e c t t o s .94 . Thcre then appears a

number of detai led prov;s ;ons a s t o how t h a t i n q u i r y is t o be

conducted , a l though the p rocedure i s a t t h e d f s c r e t i o n o f t h e

Committee i t s e l f . I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e i n

t h e n a t u r e o f a hea r ing a t wh ich ev idence is t o be glvc-n on

o a t h o r affirmation. There i s power t o summon w i t n e s s e s and

p r o t e c t i o n i s g iven t o wha t i s s a i d a t h a t h e a r i n g b e f o r e

the Committee which i s t o be held i n p r i v a t e .

!

- 5 -

L s h o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t h e a r i n g , w h a t

happened was t h a t a t r a n s c r i p t was t a k e n a s r e q u i r e d , b u t t h e

whole h ar ing took a b o u t f i v e m i n u t e s and the ev idence

c o n s i s t e d o f t h e presentation o r tender ing of number a of

exhibits, i n c l u d i n g t h e n o t i c e t o t h e a p p l i c a n t , v a r i o u s

other documents whlch a r e no t i n d i s p u t e , and Exhibi t 2 which

is a l a rge p r in t -ou t o f compute r r eco rds .

I n d u e c o u r s e t h e M i n i s t e r , i n t h e e x e r c i s e oL t h e

p o w e r c o n f e r r e d t h e b y A c t , a n d f o l l o w i n g u p o n t h e

recommendation made by the Committee, made a d e t e r m i n a t i o n

under s.106 of t h e Act. The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n

was tha t t he Min i s t e r accep ted t he r ecommenda t ions made by

the Committee under s . 1 0 5 o f t h e A c t , a n d d i r e c t e d t h a t

$ 6 0 , 7 0 5 . 1 7 be pa;d t o t h c Commonwealth o f Aus t r a l i a , nd

$327.65 be pa;d t o t h e H o s p i t a l B e n e f i t s A s s o c i a t i o n L m i t e d ,

being amounts which had been paid by t h o s e two bod ies i n

r e l a t i o n t o s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t .

T h e n o t i c e o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n w a s d a t e d 15

Sep tember 1 9 8 1 a n d s i g n e d b y t h e M i n i s t e r f o r H e a l t h .

Annexed t o t h e l e t t e r c o n t a i n i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n was a

n o t i c e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t had a r i g h t t o r e q u e s t a revlcw of

t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a Medical Services Review Tribunal

cons t i t u t ed unde r t he Hea l th - In su rance ----- 4 c t 1973. A t t h e t;me

t h e Act p r e s c r i b e d c o u r t . p r o v i d e d f o r a n a l t e r n a t i v e method of appeal to a

- G -

The Revlcw T r i b u n a l s a r e c o n s t i t u t e d u n d e r P a r t VA

of t he Ac and t t he p rocedures t o be adop ted a r e s e t ou t in

Div i s ion 3 o f P a r t VA which provide for a r e q u e s t f o r r e v l e w

of d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . The s e c t i o n s t h e n s e t o u t h e r i g h t s O f

t h e p a r t i e s and make p r o v i s i o n t h a t i n t he p roceed ings be fo re

a t r i b u n a l , t h e M i n i s t e r and the pe r son who request;; t h e

r e v i e w a r e p a r t i e s , and t h a t when a r e q u e s t i s made t h e

person making the r quest may appear nd be r uresented

b e f o r e t h e t r i b u n a l . As w e l l t h e M i n i s t e r may be

r e p r e s e n t e d . The p a r t i e s h a l l b e g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

a d d r e s s t h e t r i b u n a l . I n a d d i t i o n , upon t h e r e a u e s t f o r t h e

r e v i e w , t h e M i n i s t e r s h a l l f o r w a r d t h e r e q u e s t t o :he

P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Review T r i b u n a l a copy o f t he r e fe rence tha t

g a v e r i s e proceedings t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a t r a n s c r i p t o f t!le

of the hear ing conducted for the purposes of t h a t

r e f e r e n c e , t h e r e p o r t on t h a t r e f e r e n c e and any documents

s e n t t o t h e M i n i s t e r w i t h t h a t r e p o r t , a n d t h e d e t e r m i n a t l o i .

The proceedings to be fo l lowed on review a r e s e t o u t i n s . 1 1 9

of t he Ac t , and I s h a l l q u o t e s u b - s e c t i o n ( l ) , p a r a q r a F h ( a ) :

" A t r i b u n a l t h a t r e v i e w s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n

accordance w i t h a r e q u e s t -

( a ) s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r t o w h i c h t h e

d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e l a t e s h a v i n q r e g a r d t o

t h e g r o u n d s s e t o u t i n t h e r e q u e s t , t h e

d o c u m e n t s f o r w a r d e d b y t h e M:n:ster

w i t h t h e r e q u e s t and any addresses made

t o t h e T r i b u n a l d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

or the rev iew . . ."

I

- -

- 7 -

L

There appears to be no power to refer back to the Conmittcc for re-determination in accordance with law. For present purposes the Tribunal is authorized to "affirm, set aside or vary the determination" only.

App1ic~t:ons to prescribed courts by way of zppeai are to be in the nature of a re-hearing - s.123. The mattcr of the distinction between the powers of a review tribunal and a prescribed court do take on some importance in the present case in that it is not clear whether the proceedings before the rev--ew tribunal are in the nature of a re-hearing or not, but it is not necessary for me to express any final view on that matter.

In 1981, in the case of re Compensat:.on -__

(Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ex ~ z r t e

---___________-------__.-___I -L---

Portelli, I had to consider the provisions of that Act in relation to a review by a Commonwealth Employees Compensation Tribunal, which in some respects is S ' &m&lar to the review provisions contained in the Health Insurance Act 1973, while at the same time there was then an alternative proccdure by way of appeal to a prescribed court.

That matter has been reported in Volume 35 of the

Australian Law Rcports, p.207, but is sublect to appeal to a

full court of this Court. In that case, reference is made to

other cases such as Shell Co-any --- of Australia Llrnited V. --

.

-I- Federal Commrssioner -_ of Taxat ion , d d e c i s i o n r e f e r r e d t o me

t oday , bu t b:hich I f i n d n o t n e c e s s a r y t o r e l e r t o f u r t h e r f o r

t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s d e c i s i o n . T h e r e w e r e s u f f i c ~ e n t

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n P o r t e l l i ' s c a s e and t h c p r e s e n t c a s e t o

i n d i c a t e t h a t , u n d e r t h e H e a l t h I n s u r a n c e A c t 1 9 7 3 , t h e

p o s i t i o n i s n o t c l e a r , and so I proceed on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e

h e a r i n g oi t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e a Review Tribunal is no t a

r e -hea r ing , and t h a t t h e p o w e r s o f t h e T r i b u n a l a r e more

l i m i t e d , b u t t h a t is no f i n a l l y c o n c l u d e d v iew one way o r t he

o t h e r , b u t is is of i m p o r t a n c e a s t o t h e o r d e r s made.

The subs t ance o f t he compla in t by t h e a p p l i c a n t i s

t h a t h e r e was no ev idence be fo re t he Commi t t ee t o war ran t

the recommendations made by i t , o r t h e d e t e r m l n a t i o n made by

t h e M i n i s t e r .

I n December 1 9 8 1 , a copy of t h e mater ia l which was

b e f o r e t h e c o m m i t t e e , b e i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s a n d

t h e e x h i b i t s - e x c e p t E x h i b i t 2 which was made a v a i l a b l e i n

Cour t bu t was not necessary to be examined - were forwarded

t o t h e appl icant , oge ther wi th the recornmcndat ion of t h e

Commit tee . A r e f e r e n c e t h e t o r c o m m e n d a t i o n t h e f

Committee i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t much m a t e r i a l was cons idered by

t h e CommitLee W!IiCh, on t h e f a c e o f i t , was no t i nc luded i n

t he r eco rd on the p roceedings before the Commit tee and , aga in

on t h e face o f i t , i t is open t o d r a w t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e

Committee had r e g a r d t o many m a t t e r s w h i c h were no t pd t t o it

by way of sworn evidence at the hearing of the reference to it by the Minister. On the material before the Court, there is much force in the submissions made by counsel for the

applicant that there has been a non-compliance with the

requirements of the Judicial Review Act and, in particular,

that there was no ev;dence or other material to justify thc

making of the decision by the CommLttee and the Minister.

In addition, it was argued that there was a denial

of natural justice in that if the Committee had regard to

material that was not put to it at the hearinq of the

inquiry, it should have not;fied the applicant of that

material	to	give	him an opportunity of considering	the
matter.

Under s.3(3) of the Judicial Review Act, - it is

provided that:

" 3 ( 3 ) Where prov:s:on is made by an enactment for the making of E report or recommendatlon before a decision is made in the exercise of a power under that enactment or under another law, the making of such a report or recommendation shall itself be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be the making of a decision."

App1yir.g that section, the recommendatlon of the

Committee is a decision, a s well as the determination of the

Minister.

i

- 1 0 -

T h i s i s an app l i ca t ion fo r an in t e r im o r r i e r , o r

i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r , u n d e r s.15 o f t h e J u d i c i a l __ Review -- Act ,

s e e k i n g t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h o s e t w o

d e c i s i o n s , pending the ar ing and determ‘nat ion the f

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s Court . I t i s a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y m a t t e r ,

and i t i s u n d e s i r a b l e f o r me t o e x p r e s s a n y View, one way o r

t he o the r , o the rwise o f any f i rm k ind i n r e l a t i o n t o the 1;keli l ibod or

of success o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d , i n any event ,

t h e f u l l m a t e r i a l s upon rlhich t h e a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be heard

a r e n o t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , b u t i t is s u f f i c i e n t t o s a y t h a t ,

on t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , t h e r e ;S a s u f f i c i e n t l y

s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e i n t h e r e q u i s i t e s e n s e as expressed

i n t h e Beechain d e c i s i s i n t h e High Court, a s w e l l a s

d e c i s i o n s o f this C o u r t , t o j u s t i f y t h e making O € an i n t e r im

o rde r : t he ques t ion be ing whe the r , i n t he c i r cums tances o f

t h i s case, such an order should be made.

The subs t ance of t h e c p p o s l t i o n t o the making of

t h e o r d e r i s based upon s . l 0 ( 2 ) ( b ) of t h e J u d i c i s 1 Rcview

--I Act which provides, i n subs t ance -

“ 1 0 . ( 2 ) ...

( b ) t h e C o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , r e f u s e

t o g r a n t a n a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r s e c t y o n 5 ,

6 o r 7 t h a t was made t o t h e C o u r t i n

r e s p e c t o f a d e c i s i o n , i n r e s p e c t o f

conduct engaged in f o r the purpose of

making a d e c i s i o n , o r i n r e s p e c t o f a

f a i l u r e	t o	make	a	d e c i s i o n ,	f o r	t h e
reason	-

- 11 -

( i ) t h a t the a p p l i c a n t h a s s o u g h t a

rev iew by t h e C o u r t , o r by a n o t h e r

c o u r t , o f t h a t d e c i s i o n , c o n d u c t

o r f a i l u r e o t h e r w i s e t h a n u n d e r

t h i s Act; o r

( i i ) t h a t a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n is made by

an17 l aw o the r t han t h i s Ac t unde r

i r h i c h t h e a p p l i c a n t is e n t i t l e d t o

seek a rcv iew by the Cour t , by

a n o t h e r c o u r t , o r a n o t h e r b y

t r i b u n a l , a u t h o r i t y o r pe r son , o f

d e c i s i o n , t h a t c o n d u c t o r

f a i l u r e . "

I t i s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e Hea l th Jnsu rance Act 1973

p r o v i d e s a method whereby t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Minis te r can be

reviewed by t h e Review Tr ibunal , and tha t t h e a p p l i c a n t

s h o u l d p u r s u e t h a t r e v i e w , r a t h e r t h a n seek an order under

t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e J u d i c i a l Review Act. Again, I am

d e a l i n g w i t h a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y matter and n o t a f i n a l h e a r i n g ,

b u t i n my o p i n i o n , t h a t c o n t e n t i o n f a i l s . I t is a r g u e d t h a t

h e r e t h e a p p l i c a n t s o u g h t l e g a l a d v i c e i n September of 1981,

a n d t h a t h e i n f a c t has l odged an app l i ca t ion fo r ev i ew by

t h e Review T r i b u n a l . I t i s s a i d t h a t t h i s i s an adequate

p r o v i s i o n made by law for the rev iew of t h e d e c i s i o n by t h e

M i n i s t e r , a n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s h o u l d p u r s u e t h a t r e m e d y ,

r a t h e r t h a n come t o t h i s Cour t . I t is a r g u e d f u r t h e r tha t he

s o u g h t l e g a l d v i c e a n d t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

n o t i c e s e t t i n g o u t h i s r i g h t s was m i s l e a d i n g a n d , i n f a c t ,

wrong, i n t h a t i t d i d n o t i n c l u d e l l t h e r i g h t s h c had ,

n e v e r t h e l c s s t h e s o l i c i t o r s h o u l d h a v e known t h e p r o v i s i o n s

of t h e H e a l t h i n s u r a n c e F.ct 1973 and advised t h e a p p l i c a n t of

I_

h i s a l t e r n a t i v e r m e d i e s o f r e v i e w o r a p p e a l b y way of

- 1 2 -

r e -hea r ing . As a g a i n s t t h a t , :t is a r g u e d t h a t i t was n o t

u n t i l December of 1 9 8 1 t h a t the l e g a l a d v i s e r s w e r e f i r s t

f u l l y i n f o r m e d o f t h e p a u c i t y of t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e t h e

Committee and t h a t t h e r c a f t e r , h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e v a c a t i o n

p e r i o d , t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s a c t e d w i t h a l l speed i n s e e k i n g t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t , and i n s eek ing the in t e r im o r d e r s .

In my o p i n i o n , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a l t e r n a t i v e

remedies is n o b a r t o h e e x e r c i s e o f power under t h e

J u d i c i a l Rev;ew Act, 1101- is the f a c t t h a t a n a p p e a l i n f a c t

has been l odged t o t h e Review Tribunal . I n t h i s r e g a r d , I

r e f e r a l s o t o what was s a i d by Mr. J u s t i c e Toohey ;n Kellp v .

Coa tes 35 A . L . R . 9 3 , where i t is s a i d t h a t t h e onus i s on t h e

r e s p o n d e n t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t make an

o r d e r w h i c h o t h e r w i s e it would make.

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i t seems t o me t h a t t h e issue

f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h i s Cour t i s whether t h e p roceed ings

b e f o r e t h e Committee were i n f a c t i n b r e a c h of t h e

r equ i r emen t s as s e t o u t i n c . 5 of t h e J u d i c i a l Review Act -

a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , the two m a t t e r s a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d t o .

That is r i g h t o f a p p e a l , o n e a m a t t e r o f law and can be d e t e r m i n e d , s u b j e c t t o a n y

way o r t h e o t h e r by t h i s Cour t .

There i s a c e r t a i n d o u b t as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e

powers of t h e Review Tribunal under s .119 o f t h e H e a l t h

Insu rance Ac t 1 9 7 3 and, i n any even t , t h e r e i s an appeal by

- 13 -

way o f gues t ion o f l aw to t h i s Court f rom any decis ion by

t h a t T r i b u n a l . I t s e e m s , a g a i n , t h a t h e p r a c t i c a l a n s w e r i s

t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d b e a b l e t o e x p r e s s a n ' o p i n i o n , o n e way

or t h e o t h e r , on the i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s ,

w i t h o u t f o r c t n g t h e p a r t i e s t o p r o c e e d by way of review

b e f o r e t h e T r i b u n a l , and p o s s i b l y t h e n t o t h i s Cour t . Even

though t e Commonwealth, p r i m a f c i e , p a y s t h e c o s t o f

p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e T r i b u n a l , n e v e r t h e l e s s ;t seems

i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h i s mat ter should be determined on t h e b a s i s

of t h e s m a l l e s t n u m b e r p r o c e d u r e s o f a n d h e a r i n g s

appropr i a t e . Accord lng ly , hav ing r ega rd t o those f a c t o r s ,

and a l s o t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h c i n i t i a l h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e

Committee was i n February 1 9 0 0 , and t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e

Min i s t e r was n o t g i v e n u n t i l September 1 9 8 1 when t h e r e q u e s t

f o r t h e r e v i e w was made, t h a t t h e r e will be no undue h a r d s h i p

caused t o t h e respondents by a f u r t h e r d e l a y o f t h e h e a r i n g

of the rev iew i f it is an appropr i a t e p rocess .

Accord ingly , for those reasons , it is proposed to

make t h e o r d e r s s o u g h t , h a t p e n d i n g t h e h e a r i n g a n d

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n V.G. No. 6 of 1 9 8 2 o r

f u r t h e r o r d e r , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e M e d i c a l S e r v i c e C o m m i t t e e

o f I n q u i r y f o r t h e S t a t e o f V i c t o r i a , d a t e d 29 J u l y 1951, and

t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e M i n i s t e r o f S t a t e f o r Hea l th , da t ed

10 September	1 9 8 1 , be	suspended,	and	there	will	be	l i b e r t y	t o
apply .

- 14 -