Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4677 ..
(a) I personally left with his staff on 23 April 1996 a note, copy attached as 1, and copy of chapter 6 of the NHMRC report Football injuries of the head and neck.
(b) I sent to him by fax a letter and subjoined paper on 18 October 1996, copies attached as 2, and I personally delivered to his office on the same day a copy of the article by Robinson which I referred to in that letter.
(c) I sent to him by fax a letter on 15 December 1996, copy attached as 3, and I note that the offer in it: "If you have any doubts about what we have said, I can assure you that we have abundant supporting evidence, and would be happy to brief you on it at a meeting." was never taken up.
Second, continuing his statement, Mr Whitecross said:
"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 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."
It is untrue to say that I falsely used the NHMRC report. On the contrary, as my letter of 18 October 1996 to Mr Whitecross shows, I made it clear that the report was entitled "Football injuries of the head and neck", and I quoted from it accurately. The report credits cycle helmets with reducing soft tissue injuries2, but its significance is in showing how the wearing of a helmet may result in increased injury to the brain - see chapter 6 of the report, copy attached as 4 3.
Though I have been diligent about providing accurate information and references to relevant research and the like to Mr Whitecross and others, and have offered to provide substantiation to him, his statements could well impugn my credibility with other people following the debate who did not know this. I conclude that my reputation and dealings or associations with others have been adversely affected and my office as president of the Cyclists' Rights Action Group has been injured. I request a citizen's right of reply as redress.
W.J. Curnow, President, Cyclists' Rights Action Group 8 September 1997
___________________________
2 Report, page 58, first paragraph
3 Report, page 55, third paragraph, page 56, first paragraph, page 58, last paragraph, points (b) and (c) in particular
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .