Radiation Safety Bill

Again I am pleased to rise in support of the second health bill before this House today. This is another bill that went to the excellent Health Committee, where some very good work was done on trying to understand this bill.

💬 Hon Member: Who’s on it?

Who is on this committee? Of course there is myself, and some others. There is Scott Simpson, there is Barbara Kuriger, and there is the excellent Poto Williams, and Louisa Wall was on it at this time.

💬 Hon Member: Excellent members.

It is a very, very good committee. But this was quite a difficult bill, because we had to understand some issues that were quite foreign to many of us, when you got into the detail of it. I want to commend our officials who serviced this committee. They were excellent. They understood the bill. They could explain to us in layperson’s language what it meant, how it would work, and what we were changing.

This bill replaces the old Radiation Protection Act of 1965. So you can see that it was a pretty old Act and it was in need of some change. One of the purposes of the bill is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radiation protection, radiation safety and security, and nuclear non-proliferation, under a range of international treaties. We acknowledge the necessity to do this, to update the legislation, and to keep pace with technological changes, because an awful lot has changed since 1965. In fact, I can recall seeing my first programme on television in about 1962. You can have a look at how things have changed in that time. We have changed in terms of microwaves, cell towers, etc. There are lots of modern technology.

I have to tell you that this bill is not about that, which is why I commend my Supplementary Order Paper 140 to the Committee for consideration. This bill is called the Radiation Safety Bill and it is about ionising radiation. I am suggesting that we have a Supplementary Order Paper and a change of name to the Ionising Radiation Safety Bill. I will tell the Minister in the chair why we are doing that. There is, and was, some confusion as to what ionising radiation is and where it is regulated, and what non-ionising radiation is. Can I just quickly tell the people who are listening what the difference is. But before I do that I just want to say that the suggestion for changing the name came from Louisa Wall, and I want to acknowledge that she made the suggestion although the Supplementary Order Paper is in my name.

Ionising radiation is high-energy radiation and includes X-rays, alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays that have ionising capability and hence cause chemical or molecular changes to interacting bodies. Non-ionising radiation is electromagnetic energy. That includes laser lights, electromagnetic fields, and radio waves. So non-ionising radiation is from cell towers, Wi-Fi, microwave ovens, ultraviolet tanning machines, and power lines. It is not addressed in this bill. So when people thought that we were passing a bill on radiation safety, the confusion was that we were including everything. We are not including everything. This is about ionising radiation. So I say to the Minister that it is not a big loss to the Government to actually name it as it is.

Non-ionising radiation is not regulated under this legislation. It is controlled through standards. So that is the difference. Non-ionising radiation is done by standards; ionising radiation is done by the amendments that are being made to this bill. I will commend this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee, when we get to debating it.

There was, as I said, some confusion around ionising and non-ionising radiation and I think it is important to point out to the Committee that the World Health Organization, the pre-eminent body in terms of looking at health issues, said with regard to public health risks posed by electromagnetic fields that the evidence is weakened by the methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In addition, there are no accepted reasons to say that this could cause cancer. This is the non-ionising radiation. I say that because there was some confusion perhaps that if we do not include this, maybe there is evidence saying that it would cause cancer. The World Health Organization says there is no such evidence.

What the bill does is it introduces a number of things. As I said, it does ensure that we meet our international obligations. But it also brings in a new regime for authorisations for individuals and organisations using radiation material. It puts in place quite a hefty fine regime for those who contravene their authorisation. In the case of an individual there is a fine not exceeding $100,000, and in the case of a person or organisation other than an individual there is a fine not exceeding half a million dollars. There are enforcement officers who have the power to inspect places, for reasons that are specified in the bill. The Director-General of Health, as the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Health, is responsible for administering this bill. The director-general must maintain a register of controlled radiation sources. The old council that is in place is replaced by a new council, a Radiation Safety Advisory Council, as opposed to a Radiation Protection Advisory Council. But all the existing members are reinstated, and I think that is probably important because they are the people who know what they are doing.

There is quite a lot in this bill. It has a number of parts and schedules. We support the bill. We think a lot of work has been done on it. I now see we are joined by another member of our officials who supported us at the select committee. Can I repeat our thanks for the excellent way our committee was serviced, and the very broad knowledge that is held by the officials in this area of great expertise. None of us claimed that we had that expertise, and we have been very well guided by our officials. The bill also covers the use, transportation, and disposal of ionising radiation—both man-made, which is cobalt-60, and naturally occurring uranium—in quantities above a stated level.

I do think that the changes that have been made—and the Minister has got a number on his Supplementary Order Paper, which we support—bring our legislation right up to date. It brings us in line with our international conventions and requirements in treaties, but it also brings us up to date in terms of New Zealand’s domestic approach. I have to say it has taken longer than an elephant having a baby to bring this bill to the House. We are talking years to get it to this stage, so I think people will be pleased to see it passed, and passed as soon as possible.

The Labour Party supports this bill, but I do say to the members opposite, in the spirit of cooperation that we have had on this bill—I would urge members of the Government to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper. There is a very small change—changing the name from the Radiation Safety Bill to the Ionising Radiation Safety Bill. There is no confusion then for the public as to what is covered by legislation and what is covered by standards. Thank you.

I am going to take a short call on the Radiation Safety Bill. Despite being named by Mrs King as being the excellent Poto Williams, I was not actually sitting on the Health Committee at the time that the submissions were being heard. However, I do want to make a couple of points, just to add to the excellent contribution that the Hon Annette King has made.

Having read through some of the submissions, and there were a few—not a great deal, but definitely from people who understand the industry well, such as the Canterbury District Health Board and Radiation Protection Services Ltd, which is called RadPro. They had a couple of suggestions to make, which confirm the issues that Annette King has raised. In the first one, Radiation Protection Services says that it supports the general intent of the bill, but that the problem really was with the title. It supports the change to the Ionising Radiation Safety Bill, which actually clarifies that we are talking about ionising radiation, as opposed to non-ionising radiation. It would clarify that for them, professionally.

In relation to the Canterbury District Health Board, it talked specifically about clause 10(1), and the associated definitions to be amended to make it clear that repairs may be carried out on source equipment. As the legislation went to the committee, it read: “No person may deal with a radiation source unless it is fit for intended purpose.” The Canterbury District Health Board recommended clarifying that point. Also, it talked about the definition of a calibration service, by adding at the end of the definition: “or other organisations, or similar.”

This bill brings us up to date with other international standards and obligations around radiation protection, and it is well overdue that we align ourselves to other legislation. It has taken a long time to get the bill to this point, so I am not going to speak for too long, because it is important that we do pass this legislation. I support and endorse and encourage other parties to support Hon Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 140, which actually just clarifies the name of the bill. It really does also bring us in line with compliance for the best practice for international standards and helps us to meet those international treaties. I think that is about the sum of my contribution. I thank you, and commend the bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Parts 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.