John Gilroy (Labour)

I commend Senator Pat O'Neill for bringing this Private Members' motion before the House. I hope, however, that he will be generous and acknowledge that this side of the House is acting in good faith in opposing it.

The evidence is conflicting and vested interests are anxious to avoid damaging their brands. The same happened 30 years ago in the tobacco industry which actively suppressed information; therefore, it is a challenge to get industry to co-operate with such measures. I have little confidence when every expert report produced on one side of the argument is matched by another on the opposite side. The evidence is ambivalent. Senator Mark Daly mentioned the Italian case in which compensation was granted. Equally, in America in 2006 the exact opposite was found in a case against Motorola. Countries, industries and experts do not agree. The World Health Organization has classified prolonged mobile phone use as being in "Group 2B", meaning it is possibly carcinogenic and there could be an additional risk. It recommends additional research into the long-term use of mobile phones. Each and every report I can find, be it Danish, Swedish, British or German, finds there might be a risk but further research is needed. I agree with Senator Mark Daly on the precautionary principle which in health matters is very important, but the same principle applies to legislation. I support the amendment. After a period, if the industry is found to be unco-operative, we might introduce legislation to ensure such co-operation.