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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1126 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I will say that I think there are too many inquiries going on at the moment. I think that the Assembly is probably overinquiring, particularly so late in this Assembly's life; but that is another argument, I suppose. I do think that there is a case here which needs to be explored. We have had the rules in place for about five years now. I think it is time we assessed whether there is any evidence one way or the other about how well they work.

I warn the committee, though, that there is one piece of evidence which will be overpoweringly important in all of this, and that is the question of whether we continue to receive Federal Government black spot funding if we contemplate repealing the legislation. Even if the evidence shows that there is a case against making compulsory the wearing of bicycle helmets, I would have to say that it is a very powerful argument that we might lose Commonwealth funding.

Finally, I respond to Mr Whitecross's statement that there is no prima facie case here, so what are we doing, going back and debating bicycle helmets? I note that the very next item on today's notice paper is a motion calling for an inquiry into whether we should have a new private hospital, a hospital which is already going up. In Australia, in 1997, when every jurisdiction has private hospitals, where is the prima facie case for that inquiry? It obviously does not cut the mustard for the Labor Party on the next motion; so, Mr Speaker, I would say that we ought to consider the same argument for this.

Amendment negatived.

MR MOORE (11.52), in reply: Mr Speaker, I would like to deal with some of the issues raised by different members. Mr Osborne introduced some anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but it is not the sort of evidence that I wanted the Social Policy Committee to rely on for its results. Mr Kaine drew attention to the fact that there is now some evidence from South Australia and elsewhere to show that there is some efficacy. Of course, that was not available in 1992 when the Labor Government was pushed into this position and, therefore, we need to reassess it.

Ms Tucker did make the point that there had been no consultation about this. I think that is a bit unfair, because I have been talking to Ms Tucker about this issue for a quite long time, for at least six months. I concede that I have not raised it with her again in the last few months, but I talked to her about it a large number of times. I knew that her preference was not to have it go before her committee, but I still consider it the most appropriate committee. Members may recall that the Planning and Environment Committee was most reluctant to take on an inquiry recently, but that was the will of the Assembly and the committee, as a body of the Assembly, should do what the Assembly asks.

Mr Whitecross based his whole argument on the notion that there has to be evidence for us to change the law. The point I was putting was that there was no evidence for the law in the first place and it does infringe civil liberties; therefore, we ought to reassess the position. I have not stood up here and said, "Look, the evidence is overwhelming; we must undo this law". I have said there are enough questions being asked and it has had no efficacy whatsoever. If it has had no efficacy whatsoever, it is inappropriate for us to interfere with civil liberties. Let us test it and see whether that is the case. That is what I have been trying to achieve.

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