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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1117 ..

Mr Osborne: Let us look at seat belts, too.

MR MOORE: I have an interjection from Mr Osborne about looking at seat belts, too. Because it is such a fallacious argument, I repeat that when seat belt laws came in they were based on very widespread evidence of benefit to the health of the population as a whole. That was a very sensible law, and I am happy to support that law. I am not questioning it, because the evidence is overwhelming. No such evidence exists, that I am aware of, for benefit from bicycle helmets; therefore we should look at it. It may well be, Mr Osborne, that the Social Policy Committee, in inquiring into this, with your support, would say, "Yes, there is enough evidence to warrant this law continuing in place". It could also look at a range of other issues. If there is an overwhelming benefit from this law, perhaps we should also look at compulsion of helmets where I think they would provide much greater benefit anyway - with such things as rollerblades, roller-skates and skateboarding. Indeed, we may raise the issue of whether helmets should be worn in motor cars.

There have been assumptions by governments and the medical profession that helmets will decrease risk, and there is some evidence I have seen to indicate that the opposite might be true, that is, that a helmet may increase the risk of injury. I imagine that all members have seen evidence that has been put forward. We should be open-minded enough to look at that evidence. It seems to me that we have to be very careful whenever we deal with laws for self-protection. On the one hand, we saw the evidence for seat belts - this was before self-government existed in the Territory - and the evidence of benefit was overwhelming, but in the case of helmets this may not be so. Where will this take us in the end? When will we look at the role of laws designed for self-protection? Will we wind up with everybody walking around wrapped in foam or cotton wool?

It seems to me that parents should be able to associate with this. As parents, what we would love to do is make sure that our children are never put in the situation where they face any injury at all. We are all conscious of some parents who are incredibly overprotective - we use that term very regularly - because they interfere all the time in the sorts of things their children do. Their children do not learn to behave in a physically active way that teaches them, from a very small burn on the finger, for example, how to avoid problems with major burns or fires or whatever. There is a balance there, and it is that balance that I believe should be investigated by this Assembly through the Social Policy Committee.

In conclusion, in 1992 the ACT Government, in putting this legislation up, did not go through a broad public consultation process. At the time I criticised them for that, and I criticise them again for that. They disregarded requests for consultation. The law was passed on assumptions and with pressure from the Federal Government, with the Federal Government also failing to produce the evidence that was needed. Instead of increasing public welfare, it may well be that it has had no impact whatsoever or even may have the opposite effect. Remember, Mr Speaker, that there is an underlying theme in Australian politics, and that is the freedom of adults to act in an autonomous way, unless we have overwhelming evidence for the alternative. I have not seen that evidence on this issue, and I think it is time for us to explore that issue and to get those questions answered. I think this inquiry I have proposed is the appropriate way to test those things and find an answer, to be open-minded about this issue.

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