Radiation Safety Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRadiation Safety Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 01 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Radiation Safety BillThird ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): on behalf of theMinister of Health: I move That the Radiation Safety Bill be now read a third time. As the House has heard during the passage of this bill it will repeal and replace the Radiation Protection Act 1965 and its regulations providing a much-needed update to our 50-year-old legislation in this area. The bill introduces best-practice principles in radiation safety into New Zealand law and enhances security measures which will provide a means for New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radioactive material. In doing so the bill meets the stated purpose of establishing a legislative framework to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation while allowing for its safe and beneficial use.It is fair to say that this is a carefully considered bill. Public consultation on radiation protection legislation began in 2002 and as a result in 2004 the Government decided that there was an overall benefit in developing new legislation. I am advised that many technical details including the overall scope of the 2004 decision were grappled with at this early stage. The policy informing the bill was reconsidered in some detail and in 2009 the Government agreed to a refined set of instructions for the new legislation. From there as you might imagine for a bill of this nature a considerable amount of science advice and review has occurred. In addition the emergency provisions of the bill have received input and even scenario testing from agencies such as the New Zealand Fire Service the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force. Also during this period care has been taken to ensure that New Zealand’s requirements under the international agreements mentioned in clause 3B were incorporated into the bill.The Health Committee made considerable improvements to the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its work in grappling with the content of both the bill and the science and technicalities of the phenomenon of radiation itself. Thanks are also due to submitters on the bill and the Regulations Review Committee for their high-quality input during the Health Committee’s consideration of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 131 which Jonathan Coleman lodged made some further minor adjustments to wording to allow the provisions of the bill to operate as originally intended.Regulations and codes of practice are being developed to support the bill once it comes into force. The bill also requires a central register of radiation sources to be established. A register and codes of safe practice are already in use under current legislation and will be upgraded to accommodate the requirements of the bill.The bill provides for a high degree of regulation insists on very high compliance standards and rates and shows very little tolerance for safety and security practices that fall short of these expectations. However at its core the bill allows for the benefits of radiation use to be made available to New Zealanders across the fields of medicine and other health services animal health science and research and industry.It is clear that all members have recognised this aim as worthy and the opportunity to update this legislation is timely. I want to thank all members for their support.There is so much more to say about this exciting bill. I do have more time on the clock and I would like to use it on this bill but I know that there are many other members who want to have their say. And so I am pleased to be advancing this much-awaited advance to our legislation and to commend this bill to the House.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I realise that the title of this bill is quite boring—the Radiation Safety Bill—but that must have been the most tired weary boring speech an acting Minister has made in this House. And it was a real disappointment that Mr Bridges could not lift himself up and be as excited about the passage of this bill as those of us who have been on the Health Committee have heard the submissions and have come into this House and supported a major change that is needed in this area.You see it is 50 years since the original Act was put in place and so we are changing a law that is 50 years old. So the members of the select committee—Scott Simpson: Was the member there?Hon ANNETTE KING: No I was not there. I was not there but I have to say that the member looks like he might have been there. He could well have been there. The original legislation is 50 years old and we in the select committee have worked very hard to get the bill through our committee and into the House. In fact the genesis of this bill was not 50 years ago—when I was not there—but it was in fact when I was the Minister of Health that I started the review—Hon Simon Bridges: Some 10 years earlier.Hon ANNETTE KING: —of this Act. Oh a very good interjection comes from the Minister because it is 11 years since I was the Minister of Health although on a daily basis you would think I still had the job if you listen to Dr Coleman. If you listen to Dr Coleman everything that ever happens in health is my responsibility. But I have to say that 11 years ago when I was the Minister of Health I started the review. So now in National’s eighth year of Government we have finally got around to passing the legislation. So congratulations to us all—Chris Bishop: The busy Government.Hon ANNETTE KING: Busy committee Mr Bishop—busy committee. Give credit where it is due.This Radiation Safety Bill replaces the Radiation Protection Act 1965. The purpose of the Act is for us to meet our international obligations relating to radiation protection radiation safety and security and nuclear non-proliferation under a range of international treaties.We acknowledged that we needed to update this legislation and we needed to keep pace with technological changes because think back to 1965 those of you who can think back that far—Hon Simon Bridges: Ha ha!Hon ANNETTE KING: Not Mr Bridges. He was not even in short pants then. But in 1965—Hon Simon Bridges: Annette had already been a Minister for several years.Hon ANNETTE KING: No I think I might have just left school Mr Bridges and I can remember the first time I did see television. But think forward 50 years on and you will see that there have been a lot of technological changes and we needed to make the changes in this legislation.I think the bill has got the wrong name though and I did put forward during the Committee stage Supplementary Order Paper 140—which I know my good friends opposite on the Health Committee would love to have supported—because I think it should have been called the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill”.I wonder whether Mr Bridges who made the previous speech knows the difference between ionising radiation and non-ionising radiation because I am happy to give a little lecture on what the difference is and on why this bill should have been called the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill”. People do not know the difference and we found that out at the select committee when we got submissions from people who thought they were talking about non-ionising radiation. So for Mr Bridges who said he knows but he has given no indication in his speech that he understood it at all ionising radiation is high-energy radiation and includes X-rays alpha particles beta particles and gamma rays that have ionising capability. Non-ionising radiation is electromagnetic energy and includes laser lights electromagnetic fields radio waves cellphone towers Wi-Fi microwave ovens ultraviolet tanning machines and power lines.So Mr Bridges they are non-ionising and unfortunately some of those people who came to our committee thought that we should in fact be legislating for them. They are regulated under standards not under legislation. So I think it was important that in fact we gave this bill that title so that there was no misunderstanding about what we were doing. I know that given the opportunity Mr Simon O’Connor and others on the committee would have voted for my Supplementary Order Paper. But the Minister in the chair who never said a word during the Committee stage did not say a peep and did not support my Supplementary Order Paper. So—Chris Bishop: Bulldust.Hon ANNETTE KING: No it was not bulldust Mr Bishop—it certainly was not. One of the reasons I thought it was important that we did give it the proper title is that the World Health Organization in respect of the public health risk posed by non-ionising radiation has said that the evidence is very weak and that in fact if you comply with current limits it has no effects on health.Debate interrupted.