Williams Poto: Radiation Safety Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionWilliams Poto: Radiation Safety Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 03 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9384. Text is subject to correction.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is my turn to take a call on the Radiation Safety Bill. As the previous speakers have discussed one of the key discussions really has been around the ionising and non-ionising radiation. Unfortunately I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee at the time when the discussion happened so I actually took the opportunity to inform myself about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. And I looked to the World Health Organization for a definition. The definition that it provides is “Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom causing the atom to become charged or ionized.”It has been a long time since science class so I have done some further exploration of that and it is really around electromagnetic radiation. The impact of ionising radiation when it binds with electrons in the orbit of an atom is that it actually causes the structure to change which is the ionisation of it. There is a continuum I guess—a spectrum around the energy where you have low-frequency use at one end and high-frequency use at the other end. So at the low-frequency end we are talking about things like radio waves microwaves infrared and visible light. At the higher end we are talking about X-rays and gamma rays. For the purposes of this bill we really are specifically talking about X-rays and gamma rays. So that is what I understand is the context within the Radiation Safety Bill—that is the nub of the issue so to speak. Not all electromagnetic radiation is ionising as I say. It is generally just the X-ray and gamma-ray end of the spectrum.One of the examples that I think it would be useful for the House to think about is when you are having X-rays at the dentist before you are having treatment. The dentist will ensure that they are well protected in the use of the X-ray machines. As I understand it there was a discussion around who was licensed or authorised to use the piece of equipment that has the radiation source within it. Generally speaking in a dental practice it will be the lead dentist who will have the licence and they may under supervision allow other members of their staff to use the equipment but it would be with some specific criteria around that use. That is as I understand it and I think that has been confirmed by the members of the select committee who did hear the evidence from the officials. It would have been an interesting discussion for those who are scientifically minded because I understand that from schedule 2 for example there would have been a really lively discussion around concentration levels and the activity and the source and if you are anything like me the periodic table is back there in the mists of time. So I really acknowledge that. In relation to the technical ability for this bill there would have been some real opportunity for the officials to support the select committee members in their understanding of this particular topic.The legislation itself does some other things. It allows New Zealand to become compliant with the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the protection of nuclear material I guess in practical terms is the example that I quoted around the dentist. It also covers the transportation disposal and use of that material. And I want to pay particular reference to cobalt-60 which is used in irradiation of food—particularly of materials that come through our borders that might have pests or other material on them that could pose a biohazard to New Zealand and have an impact on our agriculture and our export of products.It also allows for international inspectors to be appointed and to undertake activities in New Zealand through the International Atomic Energy Agency. It provides a regime for the authorisation of individuals and organisations using radiation materials. So here again I am referring to for example dentists who may use X-ray machines in the course of their treatments and those people whom they supervise to use those pieces of equipment. It provides within the bill the penalties for contravening these authorities. For an individual that fine could be up to $100000 and for an organisation it could be up to $500000.The director is appointed by the Minister of Health who then administers a register of those contracted sources—those who are using the radiation in their equipment. The director will also appoint inspectors who can seize a radiation source to prevent or mitigate any risk. I referred to cobalt-60 previously. That I understand caused some discussion particularly around the radiation of food products and there was some discussion that was held at the select committee about that. I refer to schedule 2 “List of radioactive material and acceptable activity concentration levels and activity levels” and also schedule 3 “Dose limits for ionising radiation” whether that be through occupational exposure or through public exposure.As I said I did not have the privilege of being on the Health Committee at the time that the bill was under discussion. I think I would have enjoyed the opportunity to do some scientific work; I did not have the opportunity to do that. I know that the committee is well considered and I acknowledge the hard work that it has done on this. I commend the bill to the House.