Mathers Mojo: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMathers Mojo: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by picking up on the point that was made by Jacqui Dean just now around her confusion as to why the Greens were concerned about the exclusion of non-ionising radiation in the Radiation Safety Bill. The point that we are making is that we need a consistent regulatory framework for all forms of harmful radiation. And this is the important part—we are talking about harmful radiation. I do not think anyone is saying that no forms of non-ionising radiation are not harmful and that is the point. We recognise that some forms of non-ionising radiation such as ultraviolet sunbeds are harmful. There is a well-established scientific basis for that level of harm. What we are saying is that we need to bring that into a consistent regulatory framework.We do support the aim of this bill which is around protecting people from harm from radiation and protecting the health and safety of people both consumers and workers. It is abundantly clear as many people have said that the Radiation Protection Act is outdated and that current radiation laws are not really fit for purpose any more because they no longer take into account new technology new information changing attitudes and greater knowledge and understanding of the harm that can be posed by different forms of radiation. This is why Government regulation is so absolutely essential because consumers cannot possibly know when they are being X-rayed or are subjected to radiation for any purpose whatsoever what level is harmful to them. They cannot know if the equipment is working as it should be or that it is fit for purpose. I mean it is stating the obvious—most radiation is invisible and the harmful impacts are not immediately apparent. Sometimes it can take years for accumulated damage to become clear and with that an increased risk of skin cancer and so on.Precisely because of this we the public have to rely on expert knowledge and Government regulation and we have to trust. We place a huge amount of trust—we are placing our health and safety—in the hands of regulators. So we have to have trust that the system is robust and strong. For example I need to have trust that when I go to my dentist and have my 6-monthly X-ray that that is not going to place me at undue risk of some form of tumour in later life. This is the whole point—it is based on trust and it is based on trust in the Government and in the public health experts to set levels and use all the knowledge that is available to them in setting those levels.Whereas this bill is proposing to do that for ionising forms of radiation as my colleague Kevin Hague has said it is well-established that some forms of non-ionising radiation are harmful. This is just simple basic fact. I cannot understand why people are saying: “Oh well we don’t need to consider non-ionising radiation because it’s a different kind of radiation.” The impacts are the same. They have health impacts—some forms do. So the same principles need to apply to both forms of radiation. We need to regulate both of them.The point about microwaves that was made by Jacqui Dean earlier—every point that she was making could equally apply to smoke alarms. You do not want over-regulation of microwaves you do not want over-regulation of smoke alarms but that does not mean to say you should not have some form of regulation and that same regulatory framework should apply equally to microwaves and to smoke alarms. To include smoke alarms but not include microwaves is an inconsistent approach and that is what we are asking for: a consistent approach to both forms of radiation. By excluding non-ionising radiation you are actually going to feed public concerns around the health impacts of these because they cannot understand why. They already have concerns around food irradiation Wi-Fi cellphone towers and so on. I do not think it hurts to include these forms in this piece of legislation.The original 2004 regulatory impact statement proposed to include non-ionising radiation. Our argument is that the legislation should do and it would be consistent with Australia in that approach.