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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1123 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The first of these, Mr Speaker, is that I, like other members of this Assembly, have been receiving representations in relation to the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. I have maintained a consistent position with the lobbyists on this issue, which is that it has been considered, the decisions have been made, and if they want it to be revisited the onus is on them to produce evidence that there is a problem with the existing law; that there is some danger posed by the wearing of cycle helmets. Mr Speaker, they have consistently failed to produce that evidence. The Minister touched on some of the arguments they have used and the faults with those arguments.

Mr Speaker, in the course of seeking to demonstrate this, they even resorted to falsely using the National Health and Medical Research Council report to argue that cycle helmets are dangerous. In fact, the report that they cited was not about cycle helmets; it was about football helmets. That report actually says that, unlike cycle helmets, there is no evidence that football helmets improve safety. The very evidence that the Cyclists' Rights Action Group presented to me seemed to lead to a conclusion contrary to the one they wanted. In the absence of any prima facie case that there is something wrong with the existing law, we should not be having the inquiry. Mr Kaine gave all the reasons why he did not think there was a case. I see no reason for having an inquiry if there is no prima facie case. There has to be something to inquire into. What is the committee going to look at if there is absolutely no evidence?

Mr Speaker, the other issue which has come up in the course of this debate and which Ms Tucker has referred to is the civil liberties argument. Ms Tucker has rightly said that most of Mr Moore's arguments are civil liberties arguments. Quite frankly, the civil liberties argument is the last refuge on this. When all the arguments about how wearing a helmet is actually dangerous fall over, what do you wheel out as a last resort? You say, "You are infringing my civil liberties". When the argument that smoking cigarettes is not bad for you finally falls over, what do you wheel out? You say, "I have a civil right to puff away on cigarettes on the bus or in the restaurant or somewhere else". It is the same approach.

Mr Speaker, civil liberties are an important issue. They are an important issue to me. But there is a balance between the civil liberties argument and the argument of defending the wider community. Mr Moore would take us down a very dangerous path when he argues for the civil right of people to engage in an activity which is almost universally recognised to be dangerous. At a time when we are putting lots of resources into persuading children to wear cycle helmets and to engage in safe practices when riding cycles, Mr Moore would create the impression that there is some sort of legitimate reason not to be wearing a helmet. Mr Speaker, I think that is a concern.

The Cyclists' Rights Action Group have put to me that one of the reasons why we should overturn the cycle helmets law is that there are fewer people riding cycles now than were riding them before we introduced it. If they are not riding around endangering themselves because they do not have a cycle helmet, I think that is a good thing. I do not see why anyone would argue that it is better to have more people riding around endangering their lives or their health than to have fewer people riding around doing it safely.

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