Stewart Barbara: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionStewart Barbara: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2089. Text is subject to correction.]BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):New Zealand First supports the Radiation Safety Bill as it basically will bring our legislation into line with the international principles of radiation safety. It is a very technical bill as we have heard from the various speakers tonight. We have heard that the Radiation Protection Act is now 50 years old and amendments are obviously well overdue. A lot has happened in the last 50 years—a huge range of technological and scientific changes—and we in this House need to be on top of what is happening.In New Zealand First we are very supportive of protecting the health and safety of our people and protecting them from the harmful effects of ionising radiation such as that produced by X-ray machines—and of course medical X-rays are the main source of exposure to radiation in New Zealand. Other uses that we have to be mindful of include the injection of radioactive materials or tracers into the body and in manufacturing determining the thickness of metal or checking for cracks or defects. There are many many uses and of course health and safety concerns are always balanced with the potential benefits of radiation use for medical research and medical purposes. So in New Zealand First we are very happy to support this bill’s referral to the Health Committee and we too are going to listen very carefully to what the supporters and the detractors have to say.We believe that although the principles of the bill are sound it does need to be tightened up in some areas and because we are not experts in this field it was easy to go through the bill to find out the areas that we thought needed to be a little more specific or tightened up. We know that that will happen at the Health Committee because it is a great committee. But at this stage we have got a few concerns that I would like to raise. One of the first ones is the effect of non-ionising radiation such as that emitted by tanning machines Wi-Fi routers and cellphone towers because these are all going to be regulated under various health and safety laws and standards. We would really like to know why it was decided to exclude coverage of non-ionising radiation for the purposes of the bill. Already I have been contacted about this very issue.We believe that these health and safety regulations need to be considered in their own right. There is growing concern out there in our communities about the potential harmful effects to our health as a result of exposure to radiation in our everyday lives. There are—and we have heard petitions on this at the Health Committee—many parents who are particularly concerned about their children being exposed to Wi-Fi radiation in schools. What it boils down to is the fact that it is important to have this information available to members of the public. It needs to be transparent it needs to be easy to find and it needs to be in one place.As we have heard from the Health Committee on a previous bill standards for minimum safety practices for sunbed operators are voluntary and they were issued in 2008. It is concerning that a Ministry of Health survey that was carried out in 2013 found that only half of sunbed operators were fully compliant with the guidelines. Given that we have the highest incidence of melanoma in the world New Zealand First believes that as a minimum we must enforce compulsory minimum standards for sunbed operators. Therefore it is timely to review these guidelines. It will be interesting to see whether or not these sunbeds are banned for commercial use but of course that is another subject for an entirely different day. We know that this bill is what is being referred to our select committee at the moment.Looking at the Radiation Safety Bill we see that it requires anyone wishing to manufacture possess control use import export perform a service in relation to or deal with a radiation source to gain authorisation from the Director for Radiation Safety. To manufacture possess or control a radiation source requires a source licence. It is not really clear whether a radiation safety plan is mandatory when applying for a source licence. The bill appears to be quite contradictory on this so that is one area that we are going to be looking at during the select committee process.We believe that it should be a requirement when you are submitting an application and that applicants are required to detail how they will comply with the requirements of the bill and the relevant regulations. These questions need to be addressed in the plan because they are critical to ensuring the safety of all New Zealanders. The plan has to identify any potential risks or adverse effects on people or the environment so it is really critical that we require applicants to complete these sorts of plans. We need to demonstrate that health and safety is really important for our people and for the security of our country so there have to be conditions in place when granting licences. One area of the bill that is quite interesting is where it states that only a “natural person” may apply for a licence. On an initial reading we all think that we are natural people but what it basically means is that it cannot be a corporate body. We are of the opinion that this term needs to be further clarified in the bill.Interestingly enough I have already been approached by a group of dental therapists who cannot be licence holders under the Radiation Protection Act. Only registered dentists can operate a licence under the Act and this means that a dental therapist has to work under the supervision of a dentist when they are actually carrying out X-rays or any form of radiography. We believe that dental therapists should be able to apply for a licence because let us face it we know that the Government wants to provide a faster more effective service and I am sure that the Hon Annette King will also agree with me on this one.The bill does require radiation sources to be registered but currently only records of individual licences are kept. New Zealand First supports this and encourages access to the register to be strictly controlled. We know that it will be the responsibility of the licence holders to register the source of the radiation but we would like to know that it will be followed up to ensure that it is actually done because we believe that it should be a part of the automatic approval process.The bill gives permission to the Director for Radiation Safety to seize a radiation source if it is suspected to be in the possession of someone without authorisation and of course we definitely agree with this. We would like to ensure that the process to agree acceptable radiation levels is really robust. We hope that it is so we will be listening carefully through the select committee process. We would like to know who or what body actually sets the acceptable levels of activity and whether it is likely to protect the public.We also noted with some amusement that there are lower occupational exposure limits for 16 to 18-year-olds. It must be queried as to why once you have your 18th birthday this suddenly means that you can move into this higher level of dose. Does it imply that some conditioning takes place in younger years or is it to do with one’s overall body weight? It is quite an interesting concept there yes.In order for this bill to be fully functional New Zealand First believes that there are a number of issues that need to be fully resourced. We need regular audits to assure New Zealanders that the Government does take their health and safety processes seriously and we will be very interested in the costs relating to this because we want this to carry on. We want the cost to be met by the Government; we do not want anything to be sacrificed. So New Zealand First supports this bill. We will be looking forward to working on it through the select committee process. Thank you.