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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1122 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The terms of reference for the Social Policy Committee, on the other hand, are to examine matters related to health, hospitals, nursing homes, welfare, employment, housing, social security, ageing, people with disabilities, family, Aboriginal people, youth affairs, status of women, multicultural affairs, industrial relations, occupational health and safety, education, the arts, sport and recreation. We have quite a lot to look at already. The issue of whether bicycle helmets should be compulsory simply does not fit into our terms of reference. It would be quite unfair and disparaging to those people in the community who are concerned about this issue for the Assembly to refer the matter to the wrong committee. I notice that in several letters that have been written from the concerned groups they always focus on the civil liberties matters as well as the uncertain evidence, as they see it, or lack of evidence, as Mr Moore sees it, about the actual health issues.

I will not go into the debate about the issue itself, although Mr Kaine did raise a number of interesting issues and referred to evidence which obviously does exist, although Mr Moore did not seem to be aware of it. He did refer to skateboards as well. Bicycles are on the roads, and I think there is quite a difference there in how they are used. However, that is debating the issue, and I will leave that for a later date, if there is an inquiry.

I would also like to make a comment about the process of this referral. I think it would have been useful if Mr Moore had given the Social Policy Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee an opportunity to discuss these issues, rather than just landing it on us here in the Assembly. We have a lot of priorities to look at here, and as committees we should at least be respected enough to have an opportunity to look at our priorities - - -

Mr Moore: Like you did when you forced me to do a previous inquiry.

MS TUCKER: I am sorry, Mr Moore; I did not quite hear that. What was that?

Mr Moore: I will deal with you when I have my right of reply.

MS TUCKER: Right. I think the community also is being shown a lack of respect here. If committees are not able to do a good job on a particular inquiry, then you are showing the community disrespect. They should be able to know that the hard work they have put in to making submissions to committees will be given the attention it deserves. I move:

Omit "Standing Committee on Social Policy", substitute "Standing Committee on Legal Affairs".

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (11.37): Mr Speaker, we will not be supporting Ms Tucker's amendment, and we will not be supporting Mr Moore's motion. I think the Minister has made out a very strong case against inquiring into this matter. Really, after hearing his articulate and persuasive case against this proposal, there is not a lot more to say, Mr Speaker; but there are a couple of things which I do need to address.

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