Page 574 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


Mr De Domenico: Only if you drove convertible cars, though, surely, because the helmet could be seen to be the roof of the car itself.

MR HUMPHRIES: I note that argument.

Mr De Domenico: Or jogging, perhaps, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: Or jogging, perhaps. I, frankly, am not sure what the answer to that argument is; I throw it up only to let people understand that that has been put forward. It seems to me that one is inherently more likely to injure oneself by having an accident on a bicycle than one is by having an accident in a car because one has some protection in a car. But it is not an argument that I think we can lightly put to one side.

The point is, Madam Speaker, that the community here stands to gain some protection. I believe that protection is the responsibility of a government and an Assembly which wishes to protect individuals. It is hard for us, in particular, to mandate that children wear helmets if we do not provide the example of adults doing the same thing and, of course, the ACT, frankly, does have the advantage of receiving some funding under the Commonwealth program by taking a part in this exercise.

Mr Moore: Bought out again.

MR HUMPHRIES: In a sense it is being bought out. We want to do something about our black spots which we do know cost lives. I think that that is a reasonable trade-off. If someone wants to pay me to do that, I am quite happy about that. I will be watching, as will my party, for any further intrusions, if you like, into the rights of individuals to do things by themselves; but I do not think this particular provision infringes unduly on that principle.

MR STEVENSON (8.39): Why does one not respond with ability in any situation that one deals with in life? If we look at responsibility, the key is that one can make up one's own mind. When we get a situation where someone constantly takes away our right to respond, takes away our freedom of choice, eventually there is little doubt that most of us would do things that are not sensible, that may not be responsible - responsible for others, or responsible for ourselves. This, I feel, is really the basis of the matter.

If you have children, if you continually do things for them, you will eventually find that they will become useless. If you have people who continually have things done for them, eventually they will become useless. Why is it that on a farm in the country people usually have a very high level of responsibility and usually have a very high level of productivity at a young age when that is not common within the city areas? I believe that it is because they have responsibilities pushed on them when they are younger.

Mr Humphries referred to a quote by John Stuart Mill but did not read it. I think it is worthwhile reading it, although we all have a copy. It reads:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. He cannot rightfully be compelled for his own good,


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .