Page 1758 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
there is room for that to be the case. Where there is the opportunity for a safer way for a child to travel, then the child ought to be in the safest position in the vehicle, and I think that is the intention of the law. It seems to me, on my reading of it, that it has met that intention.
I was interested in the exceptions for the purpose of this proposed section, those exceptions being public motor vehicles, private hire cars, those vehicles that do not comply with the specific Australian design rule, and cars with a Commonwealth plate and star. They are what we know as the Comcars. It may be appropriate for hire vehicles and Commonwealth cars to ensure voluntarily that they have with them the normal child restraints in a position to clip them on - that is not a terribly onerous thing for them to have to do - and that they have cars set aside for when they are carrying children.
I would encourage those people to have the ability to do that, but at the same time I think it is appropriate to exempt them from the legislation because there will be times when they will pick up people with a child who has to be carried. Those vehicles are driven by professionals and, whilst they are occasionally involved in accidents, as any vehicle can be, they probably have a far better record, given the number of kilometres they travel, than most other vehicles. It is an issue that was worth raising, although I do not seek to move an amendment on it.
Mr Lamont: All the TWU members - - -
MR MOORE: I hear a little interjection from next to me about TWU members. I hope that somebody close to those TWU members will pass on what a positive attitude I have to them and how much I appreciate the safety in which they have carried me on the occasions I have had to use their services.
MR LAMONT (4.25): I rise to support the legislation, and in particular two components of it. While all of the proposals in this Bill are deserving, there are two aspects that I wish to draw attention to. The first is prohibiting the use of radar detectors and, secondly, the matter of child restraints.
Before we rose for the long winter break we had a lengthy debate concerning the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets. Indeed, the debate, as I recall, stretched over some hours and some quite significant and conflicting contributions were made by members of the Assembly. At the end of the day the legislation was passed, and for the same reasons. In fact, had this been a contentious matter, we could have had exactly the same debate in relation to child restraints as we had in relation to bicycle helmets.
Mr Moore: Not at all. One is about adults and one is about children. They are totally different.
MR LAMONT: My friend here says that one is about adults and one is about children. I suggest that maybe in his seven-week holiday he forgot the issues that were being debated in relation to bicycle helmets. There is basically no difference, and I would refer Mr Moore to the debate that occurred at that time, which he can find in Hansard. I am sure that at the end of re-reading that he will be as convinced as I was that that was a good thing, and so are the propositions in this legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .