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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1121 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

This is a complex and diverse subject and it will be an emotional one because it does involve, as Mr Moore suggests, what some people regard as their rights. I have never understood people insisting on their rights when, in many cases, it can lead to very severe injury and their own death. There flows from it a cost to society. There have been many laws enacted in this country that have to do with the common good rather than the individual good, and I see this as just another one. In my view, it is justified, but I would be very interested to see whether the committee can come up with any strong evidence to suggest that the law is wrong or that it should be repealed.

MS TUCKER (11.31): This issue is obviously of concern to a number of people in the community. I am not accepting that the Social Policy Committee would be the appropriate place to look at it. Listening to what Mr Kaine just said and to Mr Moore's arguments, obviously Mr Moore has been focusing in his speech on what he sees as the health risks. What I think is much more obvious from his motion is that this is a matter for the Legal Affairs Committee. He has made a mistake in referring this issue to the Social Policy Committee, because the subject of this inquiry sits quite clearly under the terms of reference of the Legal Affairs Committee.

The critical point in this issue, and the one that has generated the most controversy, is whether it should be compulsory for people to wear bicycle helmets. The opponents of the compulsory wearing of helmets argue that the safety benefits of bicycle helmets are not proven; therefore, they should not be forced to suffer the discomfort of wearing a helmet when they believe that the risk of injury in an accident could actually be increased. The issue, therefore, is one of civil liberties, human rights, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the law regarding compulsory helmet wearing. In fact, the name of the group that has been most vocal about this issue is the Cyclists' Rights Action Group. Again, the emphasis is on rights. Mr Moore acknowledges this in his proposed terms of reference, which refer to an inquiry into the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets - not just the wearing of helmets or the safety benefits, but the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets. His paragraph (a) is about the effect of the helmet law, and paragraphs (c) and (d) are again about the role of law in this issue. Paragraph (c) reads:

the need to apply the same laws to adults and children;

Paragraph (d) reads:

the role of laws which enforce self-protection within a democratic system with reference to internationally accepted standards;

This inquiry, therefore, clearly falls within the terms of reference of the Legal Affairs Committee. Its terms of reference are to examine matters related to administrative law, civil liberties and human rights, censorship, company law, law and order, criminal law and consumer affairs. It is also interesting to note that this committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the immunisation of children, which has health implications but is primarily about whether children should be required to be immunised for their own good and that of the whole community, which is a civil liberties issue, once again. An inquiry into the helmet law would be quite complementary to the immunisation inquiry, as similar issues regarding civil liberties would arise.

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