Wall Louisa: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this first reading of the Radiation Safety Bill which will be referred to the Health Committee. I am a proud member of that select committee and I look forward to debating the issues that we have heard tonight with my committee members. I want to draw the House’s attention to the relevance of this piece of legislation to the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the process that began in 2002 with the Ministry of Health review of the Radiation Protection Act 1965 which sees us in the House tonight debating this updated piece of legislation. The aim of this bill is to “provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological scientific and organisational changes that have occurred over the last 5 decades while the current Act has been in force.” It also enables “ratification of key relevant international instruments.” Those international instruments are the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.The intention of this bill is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. What are the harmful effects of ionising radiation? They are burns and damage to tissues and organs. They lead to increased cancer risk and they also lead to brain damage in foetuses and to damage of foetal brain development. Of particular note is that non-ionising radiation such as that produced by electromagnetic fields—defined as cellphone towers Wi-Fi microwave ovens ultraviolet tanning machines and power lines—falls outside this bill. It seems to me that the difference between ionised and non-ionised is actually about low frequency and shorter wavelengths. So hold that thought.In terms of non-ionising radiation it is regulated in New Zealand under relevant health safety environmental or consumer legislation. Therein lies the relationship between this piece of legislation and the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. In New Zealand the Ministry of Health oversees the Inter-agency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-ionising Fields. We monitor in New Zealand research into extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields and radiofrequency fields. Every year this group reports to the Director-General of Health—and there are representatives from the Government industry the academic sphere and consumer groups—noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) every year has ongoing projects that investigate possible health effects of these particular cellphone towers Wi-Fi power lines and ultraviolet tanning machines. A report is actually due later this year. There has been research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer which the WHO oversees.Something that I have just read is that actually there is a finding that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic—that is they cause cancer. And the region at which radiation becomes ionising—so from non-ionising to ionising—is actually not well defined. The relevance to this piece of legislation that we are debating actually has to be seen within the sunbed issue—the ultraviolet tanning machines. We have had submissions before the Health Committee that these particular devices actually increase the risk of melanoma for users. In fact when we look at the statistics here in New Zealand there are 2000 new cases of melanoma every year and 350 deaths. So I think the point about all the debate that we have had in the House tonight between ionising and non-ionising is actually about what causes cancer. It seems to me that there is more and more evidence that is saying that these sunbeds actually do cause cancer and if that is the reality of that particular device or piece of equipment in New Zealand and if the Government is adamant that those devices should not be included in the Radiation Safety Bill then obviously it is incumbent on it to do something about that particular device in the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.The Cancer Society the Dermatological Society and Melanoma New Zealand—there have been a number of organisations that have made submissions to our select committee that say that in fact these ultraviolet tanning machines are causing cancer. So if the Government as I said earlier—and I noted Jacqui Dean’s contribution tonight. She is also a member of the Health Committee. We are not talking about microwaves and having them licensed. Actually we are very specifically talking about ultraviolet tanning machines. I think the select committee has got an opportunity in the next few weeks when we discuss the summary of submissions and take advice from the officials. I think the evidence is becoming more and more clear that these tanning machines should be banned as they have been in Brazil and as they have been in Australia. If the argument on that side of the House is that non-ionising machines are safe because they do not cause cancer when in fact what we do know now from current research is that these ultraviolet tanning machines actually do cause cancer and do lead to 2000 New Zealanders getting melanoma ever year and 350 New Zealanders dying every year because they have melanoma then it is going to be incumbent on the Government to do something about itwithin the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.A lot of people have talked about that tonight because the science is not so clear. It may be clear from other people’s perspectives that cellphone towers Wi-Fi power lines and ultraviolet tanning machines are not causing cancer but if the evidence is clear that they are then we as a select committee obviously have an opportunity to review that evidence and to make recommendations to this House about whether or not the non-ionising ultraviolet tanning machines should be taken care of within that piece of legislation. So as a member of the Health Committee I too look forward to the debate and discussion that we will have. It is timely obviously that we have the intersection of these two bills the Radiation Safety Bill and the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill because I think it is incumbent on all of us to always keep principles in the forefront of what we do—principles about health and safety and protecting the interests of all New Zealanders. So I look forward to those discussions and deliberations and hopefully we can have a constructive conversation about ultraviolet sunbeds. And if they do not have a place in our society I hope we have the courage as other countries have to ban them. Kia ora.