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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4567 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Curnow believes that I made statements which the broader community would understand to reflect on his personal standing and credibility. Mr Speaker, I refute such claims. The thrust of my comments in the Assembly on 8 May related to the debate instigated by Michael Moore on bike helmets. The issue at the time involved the debate over whether sufficient evidence existed to prove that bike helmets reduced the incidence of injury to the brain. Mr Curnow and I disagree over this issue. The object of the right to reply is not to debate the issues but rather to ensure that citizens have the opportunity to correct the record if their reputations have been impugned. In relation to this, I believe it is important to clarify a few of the issues which were raised in Mr Curnow's statement.

Before I do that, Mr Moore indicated in his remarks that he did not believe Mr Curnow had attacked my reputation in his right of reply. I reject utterly the suggestion by Mr Moore that Mr Curnow has not attacked my reputation. In Mr Curnow's right of reply he says that I made an untrue statement. He says that I impugned his credibility. He also deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented my words and by doing so has implied that I deliberately made a false claim that I had not received any information from CRAG or Mr Curnow in relation to bike helmets. That is the essence of the first half of his argument that I deliberately made a false claim that I had not received any evidence from Mr Curnow, Mr Speaker. If that is not an attack on my reputation, I do not know what is. Of course, Mr Speaker, I had received evidence. What I said was that he had failed to produce evidence that there is some danger posed by wearing cycle helmets, not that he had failed to provide me with information. So, Mr Speaker, he has attacked my reputation, and that is why I believe it is important that I correct the record.

Mr Curnow does not believe that there is, or ever has been, sufficient evidence to show that the wearing of bike helmets reduces injuries to the brain. Instead, Mr Curnow believes that the compulsory requirement to wear a bike helmet has resulted in a reduction in the number of people riding bicycles and an increase in the risk of head injury. He believes that the National Health and Medical Research Council's research paper entitled "Football Injuries of the Head and Neck" substantiates his claim that by wearing a bike helmet individuals can actually increase damage done to the brain in the event of an accident.

Mr Curnow is entitled to his opinion. However, I believe that as an elected representative my primary duty is to ensure the safety of bike riders and children in our community who choose to ride bicycles, and I did that to the best of my ability. The National Health and Medical Research Council report does, in fact, acknowledge that by wearing helmets the extent of injury done to the brain in the event of an accidental blow may, in fact, be increased. However, it is talking about football helmets. The report goes on to indicate that this research is specifically tailored to football injuries. I quote:

Helmets ... must be sport-specific to be effective. The demands of an individual sport must be researched and then an appropriate helmet configuration, shock-absorbing material and outer surface must be constructed.

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