Simpson Scott: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionSimpson Scott: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2095. Text is subject to correction.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure to rise as a member of the Health Committee to speak on this bill the Radiation Safety Bill in its first reading. The Health Committee is so ably led and chaired by my colleague and friend the member for Tāmaki Simon O’Connor. I am pleased to report to the House that the committee is a collegial committee. It is a constructive committee. It is a committee that does very good work. Tonight I think we have heard some very good presentations some very good debates which give people listening a measure of the solid approach and serious approach taken by members of the Health Committee across the House.In fact I am delighted also to note that unless I have missed anything it sounds to me as if all parties are supporting the first reading of this Radiation Safety Bill and are doing so with a degree of unanimity that is sometimes seldom to occur in this House so that is quite encouraging.I do not have any particular specialty or knowledge about radiation or radiation matters but like most New Zealanders I guess I have got an innate sense that somehow radiation is bad that it is evil that it does bad things to you and that it is not something that humans should get too much of. But when I was doing a little bit of research ahead of this first reading speech tonight I was of course reminded very quickly that there are an awful lot of radiated items—machinery equipment medical bits and pieces and what have you—that actually do help encourage the health and well-being of humans and that radiation in appropriate use and in small doses with the right kind of science and the right kind of background and the right kind of medical approach is in fact very useful. It came as a surprise to me as no doubt it will come as a surprise to people listening that there are actually already some 4300 licensed users of radiation sources in New Zealand.I remember back to my university days when I had an opportunity at the University of Auckland to go into the engineering department. There in the bowels of the engineering department back in the mid-1980s were doors that were locked solidly—quite ominous-looking doors with these big radiation symbols across them. I can remember being quite surprised to see those. But that sort of work—that scientific educational research work that was being done at the University of Auckland back in those days and probably still is being done there today—is the sort of work that this bill seeks to license control and regulate in a way that is modern functional and going to bring us more into an age where the sorts of controls around this radiation equipment whether it be for science health or industry are going to be more appropriate than the old legislation which dates back now 50 years. It is time for a bit of a change.One of the things that I have discovered is that of course there is an awful lot of radiation equipment used for diagnostic health processes. It is used in all kinds of medical treatment and it is something that science has shown us can be extremely useful in fighting some of the dreadful medical malaise that we confront as mere humans on this mortal coil. Given that there are already so many licensed users of radiation-emitting systems devices and treatments it makes absolute sense to now update the legislation modernise it and bring us into line with international best practice around the world.I am pleased to see that the Labour Party the Greens and New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the Health Committee where I know—under the chairmanship of Simon O’Connor—the committee will shepherd the bill through and we will be paying very close and careful attention to the various aspects contained in it.A major source of exposure to radiation in New Zealand is of course X-rays. Medical X-rays perform a crucial and important part in our medical system but of course as Barbara Stewart mentioned in her speech to the House tonight dentists are big users of X-rays. So are podiatrists and of course in the veterinarian area they are also using X-rays and radiation equipment. All these sectors that are doing good work in medical science research and animal husbandry areas—these are all sectors of our economy sectors of our society where more radiation is being used constructively than most New Zealanders I think probably would at first give thought to.Then there are the areas that have been referred to by my colleague Jacqui Dean—the non-ionising radiation devices such as lasers and ultrasound. We will be going through the select committee process to actually have a very careful analysis of the pros and cons of non-ionising radiation. But we will also I think want to have a look at what role industry plays in the use of radiation. I was interested to read that radiation materials and equipment are used for things as diverse as measuring the contents of hoppers that contain all kinds of agricultural products. And then of course X-rays of an industrial nature are used to test for welding joints and a whole range of other mechanical components—for cracks faults and all those sorts of things.So once we start delving into this area with what on the face of it may seem to be a slightly dull but worthy bill—one that is simply designed on the face of it to bring New Zealand standards and best practice up to a modern and new appropriate level that is more modern than the 1965 original legislation—we very quickly find that there are many aspects to our day-to-day life where radiation and radiation equipment are used for all sorts of good but can equally be used for harm.I took an opportunity to have a look at the regulatory impact statement and I want to spend a second or two just going through what is wrong with the current old legislation. Why is the change necessary and why do we need to modernise it? Well the legislation that we operate under at the moment does not enable the regulation of non-ionising radiation and practices involving exposure to naturally-occurring sources of radiation. So there is a need for us as a House and as a select committee to focus on that area and I know that we will.Secondly the legislation that exists at the moment places the responsibility for the safety of radiation sources on individual users. That may have been appropriate in the 1960s and it may even have been appropriate for several years after that but in today’s modern world and modern economy it is no longer appropriate and it seems far more sensible in fact to make the business the manager or the operating organisation responsible.Barbara Stewart raised questions about who will be eligible to be a licence holder—who will have a licence to possess is the way that the bill refers to it—and those are subjects that the select committee will I am sure focus on in some detail. The current legislation which we are going to replace with the introduction of this bill does not for instance enable the Ministry of Health to prohibit the use of a radiation source if it is unsafe or has been obtained illegally. In today’s modern world that seems to be an anachronism. It seems to be something that definitely needs attention and addressing by this House and again I know that that is a matter that the select committee will want to spend time addressing.Finally—just in terms of why we need to introduce this new legislation—the current legislative environment makes no provision for the preparation of safety security and emergency plans by licensees. In 1965 the creation of emergency plans and things of that nature were probably relatively unheard of and not something that people paid a lot of attention to but in today’s modern world of course we want to plan and have plans in place for every eventuality particularly if there was to be any kind of problem.That brings us to what is really the public policy objective of this new piece of legislation. I want in closing just to quote from the regulatory impact statement. It says that “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.” That seems to me to neatly sum up the objectives of the bill. It is a good bill I am looking forward to participating in the select committee process and I commend and endorse the bill to the House.