Barclay Todd: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarclay Todd: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): No worries. Mr McClay will be speaking on the next bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I was looking at him earlier. He is coming up next.TODD BARCLAY: I wish I could be speaking on a piece of legislation as fascinating as the tax amendment bill that is up next but unfortunately I will refrain and speak on the Radiation Safety Bill. Like a number of the members who have spoken tonight I am not a member of the Health Committee nor do I claim to know a huge deal to do with radiation but I think that as was the point made by Simon O’Connor earlier on all New Zealanders have an inherent level of appreciation and understanding of the level of dangers and risks associated with radiation. I think that given that originally this piece of legislation came into force in 1965 it is timely to review the current legislation and what it achieves. Just reflecting back to 1965 in fact I was not around. I was not even a twinkle in my mother’s eye at that point. My mother was only 10 years old. I think none the less it just goes to reinforce the fact that this legislation has been in place for quite some time and as times change and as new technologies develop and as new uses for radiation develop it is timely to review how we are legislating and regulating against such uses.I just wanted to pick up on a point that my colleague Jacqui Dean pointed out as well—while we are on the topic of sunbeds just before with the previous speaker. I wanted to make just a reflection on some of the points that Jacqui Dean was making around microwaves. I think they are equally as important potentially from a radiation point of view but probably more from a health and safety point of view. As a user of microwaves on a regular basis for Jimmy’s Pies every now and again you are always cautious that you do not leave a piece of metal equipment such as a fork or a knife in the microwave while you are heating up your pie. But just to concur with the points that Jacqui Dean made I think it is probably appropriate to keep that within health and safety legislation as opposed to the Radiation Safety Bill.As I said I do not sit on the Health Committee but I wanted to acknowledge Simon O’Connor his leadership of that committee and also the rest of the members who do sit on that committee. There is a wealth of experience including previous health Ministers such as the Hon Annette King. That experience cross-party provides a strong level of expertise in considering such an important bill as this. Some of the sources of radiation in New Zealand include medical X-rays industrial manufacturing and research purposes such as research assignments and other projects as talked about at universities and also from consumer goods such as smoke alarms. We have already heard about how the legislation is relatively outdated and it does not necessarily reflect the current use of radiation but going forward I think we have a responsibility for the safety of radiation sources for individual users.One of the points that has been mentioned tonight one of the fundamental changes is the fact that currently—dating back to the 1965 regulations—radiation licences are issued to individual users as opposed to organisations. This is probably an example of how the uses have developed and how organisations now more broadly are using the service. It is more widespread. From an organisation perspective and also an efficiency perspective in issuing licences you would want to ensure that the organisation more broadly takes greater responsibility for the use of radiation.I just wanted to pick up on a point that the Hon Annette King made when she was talking about when she was Minister of Health in 2005 when these regulations were initially first reviewed and how long it has taken for them to be implemented so far. I just pose the question: why did she not do anything a bit earlier in the piece when she had the opportunity as the then Minister of Health? But I suppose that it is a credit to the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman for taking forward the legislation now. It is great to see that the Hon Annette King who has such a strong passion about this can participate on it from the other side as a member of the select committee now.I just wanted to quote a pretty important statement from the regulatory impact statement which I think sums up the public policy objective around this. It says: “The public policy objectives are to protect the health and safety of individuals and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation to ensure the safe and secure management of radiation sources and their uses and to bring New Zealand into line with international best practice and international obligations with respect to the safety and security of radiation sources and their use.” There are a number of points that are quite salient too within that statement and I think we can see all of those points thoroughly reflected in the main provisions of this bill.I just wanted to talk a little bit about the duties of the licence holder. There are a number of duties that the licence holder must adhere to including with regard to the transportation of the source of the radiation in the first place. One is to ensure that the radiation source is properly maintained and stored. I think this is an important element with regard to the husbandry of the particular equipment that is so dangerous if not used and administered correctly. The second is around ensuring the appropriate security arrangements are in place to avoid accidental or miscellaneous use of radiation sources. It is important given that an individual organisation or user is issued with a licence to ensure the proper use of the radiation source so that it does not fall into the wrong hands and people who are not authorised or might not know how to administer radiation correctly find themselves in possession of such dangerous goods.The next point is not to abandon the radiation source which seems self-explanatory. Following on from that the disposal of the radiation source must be done only in accordance with the regulations. I think it is important on the one hand how you administer the use of radiation in a medical sense a research-related sense or any other industrial sense but equally so it is important how that radiation source is then disposed of following that. It is equally important to ensure that the licence holder properly accounts for and manages the use of that substance from the beginning right to the end to ensure again that it does not fall into the wrong hands. The next point is that the licence holder must comply with the requirements of the radiation safety plan if any is in place. It is another step that the bill introduces to try to ensure the proper use and maintenance of these dangerous goods.I wanted to touch just a little bit on the importance of the investment in radiation because I think one of the main drivers for this bill I suspect is the increased use over the last 50 years of this. I think we have seen it particularly in the health area because of the significant benefits it can bring to the treatment of cancer. I think that it is a shame—I think there would not one person in this House who has not either been directly or indirectly affected whether it be themselves a family member or a friend or an indirect family member by the harm from cancer. I think as we are investing more in trying to curb the existence of cancer we need to be ensuring that we are managing and monitoring the use of the mitigation substances in accordance with that.I think a lot of members tonight have already covered off the various uses of radiation. Just to touch on a couple again that are probably most commonly known to most New Zealanders who come into contact with it on a regular basis it would have to be through the use of X-rays CT scans in oncology regarding many types of cancer including breast cancer and prostate cancer and also in mammograms. Also of course we cannot forget about the extended and broader use of radiation within our universities and other tertiary institutions. I think that is equally as important as the use currently in the health system because the use at an academic level is to try to expand our knowledge and uses within the health system so that they are one and the same.The other point that the Labour members particularly Louisa Wall the last one homed in on quite significantly was the issue of the use of sunbeds. The point has already been made and I think it is worth reiterating that the Health Committee is currently considering this I understand through the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I think not to distort the purpose of this bill to the purpose of that one although there is an equally strong argument as to whether or not it is a dangerous use and whether it should be used it is just a question of which piece of legislation it most appropriately fits under. It is good that the chairman of the Health Committee made that point initially tonight and that we can reinforce that. To that end I obviously do not sit on the Health Committee but I support the contributions that the other members who sit on the committee have made tonight. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Health Committee.