Hague Kevin: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It has been an interesting debate so far—very wide ranging and occasionally tangential. The Green Party generally welcomes this bill. It seems to us that it is obvious that our legislation ought to keep up with a fast-changing field in which New Zealand has both domestic and international obligations. I studied nuclear physics as far as stage 2 but I am far from an expert and I am very much looking forward to hearing what the experts have to say about the actual content of the bill at the Health Committee which I will be pleased to serve on.There is no reason why we should not be passing legislation to complete our implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism or our agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Indeed this ought to have been done quite some time ago. I do not think there is much that we need to worry about in relation to the international monitoring of our compliance with the production and use of nuclear technology. We also welcome the provisions updating the penalties for a lack of compliance from the 1965 level of a maximum fine of $10000 to a much more reasonable $500000. Coincidentally I think that 1965 was the year of “Yesterday” from the Beatles and also “Nowhere Man” “I’ll Follow the Sun”—Hon Ruth Dyson: No don’t sing it—it’s OK.KEVIN HAGUE: If only Brendan Horan were here. So although we welcome the updating of the legislation the extraordinary degree of harmony in the House over the content of the bill makes it all the more puzzling that it has taken so long for this entirely non-controversial yet urgent bill to actually reach this point. “Slow and steady progress” Simon O’Connor said. Well it is certainly slow. As for steady I think we will have to wait and see.When the regulatory impact statement for this bill was produced back in 2004 the review of the existing legislation the Radiation Protection Act 1965 noted primarily that the legislation does not enable the regulation of non-ionising radiation in practices involving exposure to naturally occurring sources of radiation. This is inconsistent with the Australian National Directory for Radiation Protection. New Zealand is a member of the panel developing the directory and it is a quote from the statement.We do not know why exactly the recommendation to include non-ionising radiation was not pursued by the Government. Simon O’Connor in his contribution argued that that was kind of self-evident. Really the only difference between ionising radiation and non-ionising radiation is in the level of energy: is the level of energy in the radiation sufficient to dislodge electrons from the orbit of an atom? Well that seems to be a fairly slender basis on which to distinguish in the New Zealand legislation.Barbara Kuriger in her contribution just now said that the principal use of ionising radiation was in the health sector and indeed there is significant use in the health sector. But I would argue that actually the greatest use is probably in the houses of most members of Parliament in smoke alarms which all contain pretty much a radioactive isotope of americium. These are subject to the bill and yet the solaria or tanning beds that some of us no doubt might use on occasion are not. There seems to be no rational basis for that difference. Non-ionising radiation as has been covered is used in technology from magnetic resonance imaging to microwave ovens and lasers and also of course in cellphones and Wi-Fi works on radio frequencies that are regulated by New Zealand safety standards.As the bill sets out for ionising radiation non-ionising radiation can also be both helpful and very harmful. So there is no rational reason for distinguishing these two forms of radiation and saying we are going to regulate one by statute and the other through standards. It simply does not make any sense. So let me disabuse you Mr Deputy Speaker and indeed the House of the notion before it begins that the Greens want to regulate all forms of radiation. That is not only literally impossible but also undesirable. However if we are passing legislation controlling the safe use of radiation there is no reason for us not to also be exploring the safe use of non-ionising radiation as well as of ionising radiation just as Australia has done.In Australia the provisions in legislation are aimed at controlling only the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation and currently are used for example in the setting that has already been mentioned this evening: the regulation of sunbeds. Interestingly when a review of the existing legislation was undertaken in New Zealand in 2003 a submission to the Ministry of Health from the Cancer Society asked for exactly the same provisions as exist in the Australian legislation to decrease our very high rate of skin cancers. And as others have mentioned this evening the Health Committee has been hearing many submissions relating to solaria and sunbeds in relation to the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill which Simon O’Connor has mentioned. That bill contains an age limit currently of 18 and essentially puts in practice a code of practice that is currently voluntary and makes it a mandatory code of practice.I do not want to talk too much about the submissions that we have heard but my contention to the House is that the Health Committee which has now finished hearing evidence on the bill has not heard any evidence to support an age of 18. The evidence that we have heard all supports in fact taking the same kind of action that Australian states have taken in banning these things altogether. What I am saying is that just the strength of evidence of the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation makes the argument that is used to justify the provisions of this bill equally applicable to non-ionising radiation. There seems to be no reasonable basis for the alternative approach that the Government has preferred which is in fact a hodgepodge of different regulations and safety standards rather than a consistent approach to regulating the harm associated with non-ionising radiation.It is agreed that certain forms of non-ionising radiation such as UV light and high-intensity lasers can have harmful biological effects. It is recognised by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection which produced the advice used by our Ministry of Health that for example static magnetic fields can cause biological interactions such as vertigo and other sensory perception such as nausea visual sensations and a metallic taste in the mouth as well as the possibility of acute neuro-cognitive effects.It seems bizarre that the approach preferred by this Government will see the X-ray machine in the radiology department of a New Zealand hospital regulated by this legislation but the magnetic resonance imaging equipment just down the corridor not regulated by the legislation. We will be supporting this bill but listening with great interest to the submissions at the select committee and wanting to know why the same standard of safety ought not to be extended to non-ionising radiation. Thank you.