Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRadiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2078. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Radiation Safety BillFirst ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of theMinister of Health: I move That the Radiation Safety Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. The bill will repeal and replace the Radiation Protection Act 1965 and its regulations. It provides a much-needed update to our 50-year-old legislation on radiation safety. To achieve this the bill incorporates best-practice principles in radiation safety. It also enhances security measures that will provide a means for New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radioactive material. The bill remains broadly similar in scope to the legislation it is replacing. The bill will regulate the many beneficial applications in which ionising radiation is used on a daily basis in this country.It needs to be recognised that all use of ionising radiation carries some risk of harm. However where the justifiable benefits of using ionising radiation can be demonstrated those benefits should be available for New Zealanders while the risks are managed by applying state-of-the-art safety measures. In fact the majority of uses of ionising radiation in New Zealand are found in the health sector. By far the most well-known beneficial use of radiation is in the medical treatment of a range of cancers and other conditions by radiotherapists and nuclear medicine specialists.An example that people might be familiar with is the treatment of hyperthyroid conditions—or overactive thyroid glands—with small doses of radioactive iodine. This treatment usually involves ingesting the iodine in the form of a drink or capsule. The iodine is taken up by the thyroid gland and the radioactivity destroys some of the overactive cells responsible for the condition. The treatment is very selective in that it targets the thyroid gland and it is relatively permanent. The treatment is widely used for the benefit of many New Zealanders every year.Ionising radiation technology is also behind medical imaging technology which will be familiar to most people including CAT scans and X-rays. There is also a range of medical diagnostic techniques that use radiation technology to provide valuable information to clinicians about the treatment options that they can offer their patients. Veterinary medicine also makes use of similar treatments and technologies. Research institutes and universities are using ionising radiation for teaching and research purposes. There are also a number of industrial applications where ionising radiation delivers justifiable and significant benefits such as the non-destructive testing of the structural integrity of items such as aircraft and gas pipelines.As these examples indicate ionising radiation can be produced by radioactive material such as the iodine used to treat hyperthyroid conditions as I described and it can also be produced by irradiating apparatus such as X-ray machines. To ensure that both radioactive material and irradiating apparatus are captured within the scope of the bill the bill adopts the term “radiation source” to describe these two categories. However radioactivity that occurs at very low levels will not be subject to the bill. The bill achieves this by setting threshold levels for radioactive material which are published in schedule 2 of the bill. Radioactive material below the published thresholds will not be subject to the provisions of the bill.I am advised that we are all exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation every day mostly from naturally occurring sources and that these threshold levels are set at internationally accepted radioactivity levels below which no regulatory action is warranted in order to protect the health and safety of people or the environment. The threshold levels are in fact derived from International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations and are based on the published scientific literature used to generate these recommendations. It follows therefore that any material exhibiting a radioactivity at or above the published threshold levels will be subject to the bill.It is equally important to note at this point what the bill does not do. It does not regulate non-ionising radiation—non-ionising radiation such as that generated by electromagnetic fields produced by such things as cellphone sites power linesWi-Fi and other remote access technologies microwave ovens and ultraviolet tanning machines to name just a few. Non-ionising radiation will continue to be regulated under the relevant health safety environmental and consumer legislation that is already in place. The existing legislation will not be altered as a result of the bill.Significantly it does not alter in any way the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act the Nuclear-Test-Ban Act and the Atomic Energy Act. As you know these well-established laws deal with nuclear weapons and atomic energy. These matters are outside the scope of the bill. The bill has been drafted to ensure expressly that there is no doubt that these Acts are not affected in any way as a result of the bill. I can therefore assure the House that there is nothing in this bill that alters New Zealand’s position on nuclear weapons or atomic energy. As the title of the bill suggests the fundamental and overriding principle behind this bill is to ensure that the benefits of ionising radiation are available to New Zealanders in the safest way possible. In this regard the bill is comprehensive.The bill provides a clear safety framework covering the entire life cycle of radiation sources that fall within the scope of the bill including their safe disposal. It also introduces requirements around the security or physical protection of radiation sources to account for significant changes in the international environment around security matters. The bill also provides for the development of radiation safety plans the publication of codes of practice the development of emergency preparedness and response plans and the keeping of a register of radiation sources. As one would expect in an area where only the highest standards are acceptable the bill makes provisions for the appointment of enforcement officers with powers of inspection and the ability to issue compliance orders if required. In case they are needed offence provisions with significant penalties are also included in the bill.This bill has been a long time in the making. Public consultation began in 2002 and it was not until 2009 that the Government agreed final policy decisions. Officials developing the bill have been in contact with radiation users groups since 2009. Also included in the development of the bill have been emergency response agencies such as Civil Defence and emergency responders such as the New Zealand Fire Service the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defence Force. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has also been closely involved as enactment of the bill will provide a means for New Zealand to ratify the International Convention for theSuppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material among other protocol.I consider that the bill provides a comprehensive set of best-practice measures to ensure that the beneficial use of radiation can be available for the benefit of New Zealanders. At the same time the bill ensures that the risks associated with radiation use can be managed to the exacting standards New Zealanders would expect to ensure the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment. It gives me great pleasure that this important piece of legislation can now be considered and I commend it to the House.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour will be supporting this bill. In fact as the Minister of Police said when introducing this bill on behalf of the Minister of Health it has been a long time in the making. He also said that it was a much-needed update. But things travel very slowly under this Government now in its seventh year. When I was the Minister of Health I was the Minister who had undertaken the very first regulatory impact statement on this particular piece of legislation which was provided in 2004. So it started in 2002; by 2004 there had been wide consultation across many different groups on this particular piece of legislation to update the Radiation Protection Act 1965. So here we are in 2015 and this much-needed update is getting its first reading. I welcome it.I have to say to the Minister that there is a long list of these bills sitting on the Order Paper that started way back all those years ago when I was the Minister of Health—10 years ago when I was the Minister—and are still waiting. For example we have finally got a bill before the select committee that started way back then the Public Health Bill.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Deputy Speaker it is always good to see my favourite cousin in the Chair. Before dinner I was raising with the House the need for this bill and the slow pace at which it has proceeded. Going back to 2002 the Ministry of Health undertook a review of the Radiation Protection Act 1965 and then we had a regulatory impact statement which was prepared in 2004 that identified that there would be net benefits from drafting new legislation. At that stage the intention was to extend the scope of the legislation to include harmful non-ionising radiation but the Government decided in 2009 that the current regulatory regime was satisfactory. Of course when we are talking about non-ionising radiation we are including electromagnetic fields including cellphone towers Wi-Fi microwave ovens ultraviolet tanning machines power lines etc. They are not addressed in this bill. According to the Minister they will continue to be regulated under New Zealand standards.This was raised when I was the Minister and when we look at what has happened since then if we look at the inter-agency committee on the health effects of non-ionising fields at the Ministry of Health it says that the research shows that extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields cause very little harm to New Zealanders. So the fact that it is not going to be regulated under this bill but will continue to be carried out under New Zealand standards we do not oppose. Unless there is strong evidence to do otherwise then we would say that we should continue with the ministry’s current recommendations. Even the World Health Organization with regard to public health risks posed by electromagnetic fields has said that the epidemiological evidence is weakened one by the methodological problems such as the selection bias; and in addition there really is nothing to suggest that low-level exposures are involved in cancer development. So unless we have better evidence than what we have got then we would support continuing to regulate them through New Zealand standards.What this bill aims to do however is to protect the health and safety of individuals and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation—for example apparatus such as X-ray machines radioactive material that occurs naturally uranium and artificially manufactured cobalt-60. That is what the bill intends to cover. The explanatory note also says that this bill will cover the use the transportation and the disposal of ionising radiation—both as I said man-made and also naturally occurring—in quantities above the stated levels. There is a fundamental requirement that stipulates that the radiation use occurs only when the expected benefit outweighs the risk that exposure must be kept as low as reasonably achievable and that prescribed dose limits must not be exceeded. So that really is the guts of what this bill is about.The bill also does enact a number of other things that are important. It enacts New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It also allows for the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to be appointed by the director to undertake activities in New Zealand. International inspectors must be accompanied by an enforcement officer appointed by the director under clause 39 of the bill. So although these international inspectors have no powers under the bill the accompanying enforcement officers do and they would be authorised to exercise those powers to fulfil New Zealand’s relevant international obligations. The bill also introduces a new regime of authorisations for individuals or organisations using radiation material.So it is a bill that has in it some quite heavy penalties for those who contravene the authorisation or other provisions of the Act. It is a bill whose time has come. It is quite a technical bill. It is a bill that probably many people have already gone to sleep listening to me talking about but it is an important bill for the fact that it is about protecting the health and safety of individuals and the environment and as I said meeting our obligations under a number of international conventions.The Minister when he was speaking talked about the use of radiotherapy and how this bill would play a role in that. Of course radiotherapy is one of our foremost treatments for cancer in New Zealand. Ensuring that it is done the right way and the safety of individuals is protected is very important.The bill also as I said does not cover some other areas the non-ionising area and we have before us at the Health Committee the whole issue of the UV tanning machines. Of course this bill is not going to regulate them. They are under standards. I wonder whether this House will have the courage at the select committee to in fact ban those machines altogether. I think that rather than looking at a standard for our UV tanning machines—we do not need to do that—we could actually follow Australia which has already banned them. In fact I am told that their old machines that they no longer use are being transported over to New Zealand for us to tan and burn New Zealanders and lead to high levels of skin cancer—melanoma. It does not cover it. They will be covered by the standards but I would say to this House that we have got an opportunity to go past the standards by coming back to this House and actually banning UV tanning machines altogether.This bill is much needed. The update is much needed. It has only taken since 2004 to get it here in the House today but we welcome it and we will support it.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you to the member who has just resumed her seat Annette King for what I think is a really helpful contribution and continuing what is the good work in the Health Committee which will be considering after this first reading the Radiation Safety Bill. It will be the second bill before our committee. The Hon Annette King has just referred to the first one that we have been looking at. It is the one around the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. It is dealing with contact tracing first and foremost but also has provisions around the use of solaria or sunbeds. As was raised by the previous member and the Minister earlier this bill is to do with ionising radiation. I do not presume to be a chemist a physicist a scientist or anything of that nature—Hon Ruth Dyson: Where is Aaron Gilmore when you need him?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes I will not claim false accolades or knowledge. What we are talking about here is the radiation that liberates or releases electrons in order to create energy. This is electrons basically being taken off atoms and molecules which enables us to undergo an array of radiation-based therapies. Within the medical sphere most of us will know X-rays of course; CT scans have become quite popular as well; and a range of radiation-based therapies. One of the ones that the Minister referred to which this bill will deal with is the use of something like irradiated iodine which has been highly successful around thyroid cancers and the like. For the men on this side of the House brachytherapy—Hon Todd McClay: Oh what’s that?SIMON O’CONNOR: Well I am not really sure I want to indulge the House. It is to do with prostate cancer and the use of irradiated items that are put somewhere—but it is very effective. Again it is a radiation-based system for particularly the other side the other gender. But it can also be used for breast cancer in both males and females. What are effectively like irradiated plastic rods can be inserted into the breast and will be able to isolate the particular cancer. Again with something like brachytherapy an irradiated device or item it is very targeted and as modern medicine neurologists and others will tell you it is a fascinating technology that has been in use for a long time now. I share that briefly I say to my colleagues—briefly—to get a bit of context about what this bill the Radiation Safety Bill is about.We have heard from others who are wondering why the non-ionising forms of treatment are not being covered by this bill. It is a pretty logical distinction for things such as magnetic resonance imaging. People think of magnetic resonance imaging scans in the same way they would think of X-rays and CT scans but a magnetic resonance imaging scan is not using ionising radiation. It is using magnetism; it is non-ionising in the same way that sunbeds or solaria are and in the same way as a whole range of equipment. We have some noted in the bill—everything from cellphone sites power lines and Wi-Fi. Those are quite distinct. I know that some constituents often get concerned about these non-ionising elements. They would be wondering why we are not regulating for say the likes of smart meters Wi-Fi and cellphones in this bill. In terms of the non-ionising it is pretty clear when you read the research in good peer-reviewed scientific journals—in fact we can refer to the New Zealand national radiation authority—that these provide very little harm to New Zealanders. What we are talking about in this bill are these ionising highly radioactive substances that need to be rightly regulated.This bill is about to replace the Radiation Protection Act of 1965. It has served us well. I know there have been some concerns from other side of the House that we have taken a while to get here. Well to use the axiomatic phrase good things take time. The previous Act has been working well but it is time for reform and you are seeing that quite clearly from the National Government in the health sector—a slow and steady approach that is making real differences. I think that when we consider this bill you can see that it is sitting on the back of great work that has been done particularly by this Government in the area of oncology—that is cancer treatment. There are really stunning results that the Government is turning around there. I think it is important to acknowledge particularly those working in the radiotherapy fields—the nurses doctors technicians and so forth who are leading the charge. But it is important that we make sure the legislation is correctly and properly up to date to enable them to do their job for Kiwis and in fact maybe for some in this House in the past or in the future.As has been noted the bill is about modernising the law. That is one of the key elements of this Parliament. It is replacing the existing Act and allowing for the safety and security developments since the 1960s to be incorporated. You will forgive me if I turn to the Bills Digest because there is one thing that I think is quite important here. Whenever we start talking about radiation people often jump to things nuclear for a variety of reasons and they are concerned that this might affect New Zealand’s status. To quote: “Nothing in the Bill affects or derogates from the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 and the Nuclear-Test-Ban Act 1999.” In fact: “The provisions of the Bill will apply in conjunction with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1945.”—Paul Foster-Bell: Oh.SIMON O’CONNOR: Mr Foster-Bell I did not actually realise we had one of those. So this bill does not affect the nuclear side but it does actually help New Zealand complete its international obligations around the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. So as people understand New Zealand signs up to an array of agreements from time to time. I think in the House prior we have talked about the bunker oil convention human rights conventions and so on. This bill is also helping to implement a variety of conventions around the radiological space.I talked a bit earlier around some of the human elements to this. I think it needs to be said that particularly in the veterinarian space this bill will also apply. They use similar techniques X-rays and the like for our beloved pets and it goes without saying that obviously there is the industrial and the research side. If you go to any of our universities you will often see the radiation sign up when they are conducting their own research. Again you just need to go to the medical labs and so forth and even our own private medical providers. The bill is ultimately going to establish that a person who deals with radiation must ensure—and I think this is very important because it affects medicine in general—that the expected benefits to people and society outweigh the risks. I am no doctor but I am assuming that when a doctor is making those choices around an oncological treatment like brachytherapy or radiated iodine—I knew I was going to get tongue-twisted on that tonight—will be trying to decide whether the use of this radiation is going to do more harm than good. By its very nature it is doing some form of harm in order to achieve a good in the end but this bill really wants to make that quite key.The bill is making sure that the magnitude of individual doses of ionising radiation that people are going to be exposed to is limited. You begin to see this if you actually go through the bill particularly from schedule 2 onwards. The House should surely look at schedule 2 but for those at home I point out that there are about 20 or 30 pages that list all the different types of radioactive material. I am sure that will be an ongoing list as to what are the acceptable levels but quite important and for those at home who are interested—and of course you can access the website easily enough—schedule 3 begins to outline the dose limits around radiation. What can look like big numbers at times—20 millisieverts or 50 in terms of radiation—are quite low doses. So we are working on that.Schedule 4 is in relation to the Radiation Safety Advisory Council. It is an important element of this bill. Along with dealing with what radiation can be used dosage and so forth we are going to establish a Radiation Safety Advisory Council. It is replacing what was known as the Radiation Protection Advisory Council. We are putting a whole lot of functions in play there again. This is a bill here that is modernising and a bill that I think is showing National’s commitment not only to good legislation clear legislation and timely legislation but legislation that has the health and safety of Kiwis in mind. Speaking as the chair of the committee there are two bills before us already that are immensely symbolic of that as we look at as I said earlier contact tracing how we can better work the epidemiological I suppose whakapapa—for want of a better word—lineage and genealogy of disease. What we are doing around sunbeds that non-ionising side—this bill is not dealing with that because it is being adequately approached there. Then there is this bill in particular around the whole use of radiation. I think that is somewhat of a summation of this bill and I look forward to it coming before my committee.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all commend the member who has just resumed his seat for that excellent contribution to a very good bill. A lot of people say of the member Simon O’Connor that he is no Rob Muldoon and I am sure that he would see that in two lights. He might see some good sides to that comment and some bad sides but I have heard people say more recently: “That’s right and he’s no Clem Simich either.” Clem came here to Parliament to give Wellington a message he said. I know that when he left a lot of us were still asking what the message was. I do not think they will be saying that about Simon O’Connor. I think he is very clear about what he wants to contribute in this House. He is the chair of the Health Committee now I understand. Is that correct? Yes he is and I am sure that he will do a very fine job of shepherding this bill through the House.I am not surprised that he got tongue-tied on occasions. I am not even going to attempt to say the terms that he used. I am not on the Health Committee so I do not have to fall into that trap but I actually think that he demonstrated a grasp of the key issues—not only the ones that are contained in this bill but the ones that have been omitted from the bill either because they were not considered a priority or relevant or because the Government made a conscious decision to omit them.I hope it is clear from the comments that our health spokesperson the Hon Annette King has made and from my introductory comments that Labour supports this bill being referred to the select committee. In fact it was a Government led by Labour in the early 2000s that started this process of getting to the Radiation Safety Bill in 2002 instigated by the Hon Annette King who is very knowledgable in this area. She has made some quite provocative comments to the House tonight which I hope are carried forward on to the select committee for the discussion and the submissions. In fact I will be joining in the audience at the select committee to hear the debate around some of the issues that I will mention later in the speech some of them that are omitted from this bill. The Hon Annette King said in 2002 that we need to start a review of this process and that was led by the Ministry of Health.One of the critical reasons for that is that this legislation we are now proposing to amend with this bill is actually dated 1965. That is older than you Mr Deputy Speaker or me—well pretty close to being older than you or me. It is in our age range but it is certainly in need of some substantial revamp given the technological changes that have happened in that time. It is also really important to recognise that people’s attitudes towards exposure to substances that damage deliberately or otherwise have changed quite markedly over that intervening time. People are much less reluctant now to be exposed to chemicals to treatments to therapies to medicines that in the past they would have just taken and said: “This might do me some harm but overall it is for the good.” So we are becoming a little more rigorous in our consideration. That extends also to where food is from how food has been grown and how food has been treated. That is another subject that I want to get on to later in my contribution.One of the purposes of this bill the Radiation Safety Bill is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radiation protection. Obviously that is something that has to be a no-brainer across the House. There would not be a member of this House who does not want us to comply with international obligations but also with radiation safety and security and nuclear non-proliferation under a range of international treaties.I did enjoy hearing the member talk so passionately and give his absolute commitment that this bill would not undermine New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance. How well the National Party has progressed over recent years. It was just a few short years ago that that member’s leader was assuring the country that under a National-led Government the nuclear-free legislation would be “gone by lunchtime”. Those were his very words. And this member is not a new member either. He has been here a little while. He has proven himself to be—[Interruption] He is hungry clearly. He did not make it through dinner time. He is not a new member and giving the House that assurance is really a bit of an indication of how much the National Party has progressed but only in this area—only in this area.Sometimes you do get mixed messages from the National Party. I have heard members of the National Party say they are business-friendly for example. I have heard them say that at public meetings and here they are charging businesses and employees in New Zealand $350 million more than they need to and costing 700 jobs.Paul Foster-Bell: What’s that got to do with this bill? That’s got nothing to do with this bill.Hon RUTH DYSON: It has got to do with people saying one thing and meaning another. There is a term for that which cannot be used in this House so I am not going to. But I was giving that as an example of a second occurrence exactly in line with the contribution that the honourable member Simon O’Connor made when talking about this bill not undermining our nuclear-free status.The link is very obvious. Even for you Mr Foster-Bell the link should be obvious.I just want to raise a couple of matters. One is the issue that my colleague Annette King mentioned and that is the increasing international awareness and concern about the effects that sunbed treatments have on people. In Australia the use is now illegal I think for people of any age. It may be illegal for people under 18 for young people and for children but I am more inclined to think it is a prohibited activity for people of any age. I think that that is something New Zealand really has to turn its mind to. We have a very high incidence in New Zealand of skin cancers of all sorts. We know that they are often not just a lump that can be removed and you are all OK as long as you keep up with the checks. They can be fatal. They can take people’s lives much earlier than when that person needed to die. It has got to be a 101 responsibility of central government to say that if there is harm that is being done to people we need to educate people and perhaps protect them against it by intervention. That is something that the Parliament should at least give consideration to.Annette King threw the gauntlet down on that one and I really want to add to that challenge by saying it is not something I know enough about in terms of the impact the occurrence and the effect in New Zealand but it is an area that I would certainly like the select committee to be looking at and providing us as parliamentarians with more information. Should this be an area where we should be following Australia and taking better measures to protect New Zealanders against something that is clearly doing harm? I think most New Zealanders regard it as a little bit of fun and would not really think of it as doing serious damage particularly damage that could be fatal and cause their premature death.The next point I want to comment on which is not covered in the legislation is the Government’s consideration of importing irradiated fruit and vegetables. This is something that has pretty well slipped under the radar. I do not really know why we would even be considering importing irradiated fruit and vegetables from Queensland when we are currently hosting their fruit flies which we do not want. Irradiation clearly did not do any damage to them because they managed to make it over the border and cause a great threat to our horticultural and agricultural sectors here. Why are we considering importing fruit and vegetables that we actually have growing in New Zealand—apples peaches? These are apples that they will not take in Australia let alone allow it to have even more. Scallopini even. I have got a surplus of scallopini in the garden at the moment so if anyone is a bit short of them come and ask me rather than bringing in irradiated scallopini from overseas from Queensland.That is an area that is not covered in the bill because as Simon O’Connor pointed out in his contribution this bill does not go as far in terms of what areas it covers as the original 2002 consideration the review of the 1965 legislation and then the regulatory impact statement. It has been narrowed a bit. I hope that further contributions in this debate can explain to us—and I think it would be of benefit to all of the House as well as to the select committee—at what stage of the debate those considerations were made to narrow the parameters of the bill and what the reasons were for that. They may well be very justified.This is not a party political piece of legislation actually. It is one that as I have said was started by the Hon Annette King. We thought it was a good idea. It is a little narrower than it may have been. There may be areas that can be added during the select committee process. I hope that the deliberations are rigorous. I hope that despite the perhaps slightly dull nature of the name of the bill—and I am not referring to any contributions; I am not going to rise to that opportunity—there are a lot of submissions and that this receives rigorous debate. It is a very important issue and I am interested in its progress.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In 1969 man first walked on the moon. In 1965 the film The Sound of Music was released and the Beatles won their first Grammy. All are memories today and we look back fondly and say: “Oh what a great time the sixties were.” I know there has been comment from the other side of the House about some of us who can remember that and it definitely is within my age range. The Radiation Protection Act was passed in 1965. It is very true how times have changed and I have—[Interruption] He did. Is that when Winston came in? This legislation that we have in front of us is in fact obsolete. It does not reflect the current use of radiation sources and it is inconsistent with international standards.In 2015 it is clear that we need an overhaul of certain pieces of archaic legislation and this Radiation Safety Bill aims to modernise the outdated Radiation Protection Act from 50 years ago. In the past 50 years radiation technology has become far more intricate with the development of techniques that if in the wrong hands could become very dangerous and cause serious damage. Yet radiation technology has also developed for the better particularly in regard to oncology and cancer research and treatment.Seven years ago this National Government inherited some services around the treatment of cancer that were not adequate for New Zealanders where Kiwis needed to go overseas for their treatment. Thankfully now those days are over. This Government has since then invested more than $100 million to support cancer patients in New Zealand. Since then patients have received faster and more effective treatments and New Zealand is now in line with the international standards of 4 to 6 weeks’ waiting time for patients. Investment in radiation technology means that accuracy in targeting cancer is achieved and therefore more New Zealanders are receiving their treatment when they need to and on time. Those patients who need specialist attention in New Zealand benefit today by the Radiation Safety Bill which is before the House. This bill encourages the safe use of radiation techniques and technology and requires every person who uses that radiation source to ensure safety from any adverse effects of radiation.I recently spent some time with the mobile surgical bus. I was very lucky to be able to go and have a look at it as it was sitting outside a hospital in Taumarunui. It was performing a number of standard operations day visits and uncomplicated things that were expected to go without event and it meant that patients could have their treatment far closer to home. As we work in regional areas and we find now that more people obviously cannot live next to a major hospital we are looking more at primary care and we are looking at options for taking medical surgery and a range of other things around the country. I think it is really important in this safety featurethat this legislation is enacted because if it is taken up around the country in more places in the future then we need to be sure that it is safe.I have learnt a huge amount today in my limited knowledge about radiation. You know I actually looked up to see what ionising radiation was. I think the chair of our Health Committee before put it in some quite good words. I am not going to repeat them but it was a big long Wikipedia explanation of what it actually means. Patients actually do not necessarily need to know this. They do not need to understand what it means but they do need to know that it is well understood and that they are protected from any dangers associated with the use of this radiation. So the Radiation Safety Bill will enable the protection of the health and safety of all in New Zealand and it is also protecting the environment from the harmful effects of radiation if it is not used carefully and effectively and is not well monitored.This bill also has provisions for the safe use of radiation in health services and research where it is vital for development. This bill will also enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations. It needs to do this relating to radiation safety and security. The old legislation had no provision for the preparation of safety and security plans by licensed users of radiation or for the registration of radiation sources. This new legislation establishes that all sources of radiation must have relevant authorisation to source and use radiation technologies. At the moment as mentioned earlier the majority of users of radiation technology are those in the health sector who use it for diagnostic and treatment purposes. It is crucial that these services and sources are retained and regulated. However with nearly 4500 licensed users of radiation sources in New Zealand it goes without saying that there may be many sources that currently are not covering what is actually appropriate and that is what we are looking to change in the legislation as far as this bill is concerned.So we have to make sure that what we do and what people are doing out there has no potential to harm New Zealanders and their environment. This bill will ensure that the benefits from radiation usage will outweigh the risk of harm to people and any harm to society and it is imperative that this is adequately and accurately monitored and measured to prevent any mishap and harm that could result. Radiation should not be used unless it is fit for the purpose for which it is intended. Therefore this bill outlines provisions that all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the safe containment of a radiation source to minimise accidents should they occur.The bill outlines that the general public are not able to use up their own radiation sources and for warranted reasons. If anyone was able to use radiation at their leisure the security of New Zealand and the safety of its citizens would be in a very threatened position. There would be no way to regulate radiation use and no way to make it safe. On this note if people were to use radiation technologies out in the everyday public although they may think they are being careful they might not actually be safe users and they may end up doing more harm or more damage. This bill sets out the consequences of non-compliance—which are extremely justified—with regard to the high intensity of radiation and the damage that can happen when it is misused. To manufacture possess or control a radiation source or even to import or export radioactive material could have adverse damaging effects on New Zealanders and the environment. In summary the benefits of this legislation mean that New Zealand will be in line with international best practice. We will be able to give effect to relevant international standards thereby enhancing New Zealand’s international credibility. Thank you.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.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.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): One of the enjoyable things about a bill’s first reading is that come the day that the bill is introduced into this Parliament and we are required to stand up and make a contribution on it it means that suddenly we have to turn our attention to something that we might know absolutely nothing about apart from going to the dentist in this case where I get irradiated once a year. I am very lucky to be irradiated once a year—well to be irradiated only in my teeth is what I think I am trying to say. But what is interesting with a first reading is that we have not yet had the benefit of the advice from officials and we have not yet had the benefit of contributions from industry experts or anybody who cares to come and speak to us about bills such as the Radiation Safety Bill. So I have been listeningtoday with my notes and I have had a look at the bill and we will be looking at this bill in the select committee process in a great deal more depth.I have been listening this evening and there were a couple of contributions that have genuinely puzzled me. There is a point that a couple of speakers have made this evening—one was the Green member Kevin Hague and the other was Barbara Stewart the previous speaker from New Zealand First. They made quite a strong point around non-iodising radiation or non-ionising radiation—there you go 2 seconds later and she has her words right—whichuntil just now I had not realised was different from the radiation that is used for industrial medical and agricultural purposes. So that is news and it was news to me. But the point that those two speakers made was that non-ionising radiation is used in devices such as cell towers power lines microwaves etc. etc. and as the Green member helpfully pointed out it really indicates that a level of radiation is being emitted yes. They both lamented the fact that these devices—microwaves power lines and their ilk—are not included in the bill and for the purposes of the point I am trying to make I will talk about microwaves. It seemed to be their strong contention to the House that well maybe these non-ionising devices such as microwaves should be included in the bill.So I listened carefully as one does in this House to one’s colleagues across the House—particularly when they are supporting the bill which I think is very helpful—and it made me wonder about several things. First of all does that mean that these devices are unregulated? The answer to that is no because they are variously regulated by other pieces of legislation like health and safetylegislation environmental legislation and consumer legislation and if you are thinking about microwave ovens then I think consumer legislation comes very much to the fore.So I am thinking about the fact that those non-ionising devices are regulated under their own Acts of Parliament which brings me to the next point that they were making. They contended that devices such as our microwaves should be brought into this bill. I started thinking: “Well what would the impact of that be?”. So for the purposes of extending their argument and testing it I thought: “OK let us run through what would happen if the microwave were brought into this Radiation Safety Bill amendment.” and then I had a look at the main provisions of the bill. I have got a microwave at home as indeed most of us have. If the microwave and its ilk were brought into this bill clause 8 would ensure that “Every person who deals with a radiation source”—a microwave—“must ensure that people and the environment are protected now and in the future from the adverse effects of the radiation source …”. That is good so far. I do not have a problem with that. You have got to keep the kids away from the microwave make sure it is used properly and not put metal in it. Good I can live with that—that is OK.So then I moved on to the next provision which says that the bill establishes that “A person who deals with a radiation source”—a microwave for the purposes of my exposition—“must ensure that … the expected benefits to people and society” of dealing with the radiation source outweigh the risk of harm to people and society and to me that seems a little heavy-handed when one is talking about a microwave—just saying. Then I moved on to the next provision in this bill which says that the bill must “ensure that the magnitude of individual doses of ionising radiation” and I am thinking: “Do you put the thing on for 1 minute? Do you put the thing on for 30 seconds? How much time does it take to defrost a packet of mince?”. So if we bring that into this legislation are we then going to be requiring people to have—and I also read it in the bill—a licence?So is the Opposition in fact contending—Barbara Stewart: No.JACQUI DEAN:—well you know that is the argument. You are saying “No” now but that is the argument that the Opposition was promoting. It was that non-ionising radiation devices such as microwaves and power lines should be brought under the auspices of this bill. So are those members arguing that we need more regulation in New Zealand and should people—for instance me in my kitchen when I am defrosting my packet of mince—need to be licensed users of the devices?What I think I am trying to say to the House is that we are on the first reading of this bill and we have got a long way to go in the select committee process but I think we have to be just a little bit careful when we read our debate notes and we have a look at the bill there on the Table that we perhaps do not jump to conclusions that might indeed be disproved as we go through the select committee process. The last thing that I want to see—the last thing that I want to see—in this bill or in any bill is it adding more regulation that is unnecessary. I believe that it is unnecessary to bring non-ionising devices into this bill because to do so would first of all require the users—and so that is you me and all of us in this House—to then become registered users and to have a licence that would then need to be renewed every 12 months or whatever the regime would be. No we are not going to do that. It is nonsense.The other salient point—and I do not know why the members of the Opposition missed it because it was there in black and white in my notes and seemed to be obvious—is that the microwave in particular is regulated by its own piece of legislation such as the Consumer Guarantees Act. We have various Acts of Parliament that keep up safe from those devices. So that is the first point I want to make.The second point that I would like to make about this bill is the one that many of the other members of this House have also made. We talked about the Beatles. Somewhere in this debate we had a conversation about the Beatles and I think what that was speaking to was the fact that we have had radiating devices around since about the 1960s or even the 1950s and times have changed. The Radiation Protection Act 1965 has had its day.The use of radiating devices is now right through the world of medicine and thank goodness it is. We had a rather uncomfortable exposition by the chairman of the Health Committee who tried to tell us about the use of radiation in treating prostate cancer. We will leave that one right there thank you very much and the less said in the committee about it the better because some of us are quite delicate in that way. But radiation has got uses—seriously—for all of those of us whose family members have been touched by illness and cancer and we just thank God for it under those circumstances. It also has uses in agriculture. It has uses in science and space exploration where I was further doing my homework this evening.So what this bill does is bring up to date the regulation around irradiating devices. I do look forward to its passage through the select committee and I do await our submissions to tell me whether I am in fact wrong when I contend that there is no need for non-ionising devices to be brought into this bill because they are adequately covered in other legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call for the Green Party.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by picking up on the point that was made by Jacqui Dean just now around her confusion as to why the Greens were concerned about the exclusion of non-ionising radiation in the Radiation Safety Bill. The point that we are making is that we need a consistent regulatory framework for all forms of harmful radiation. And this is the important part—we are talking about harmful radiation. I do not think anyone is saying that no forms of non-ionising radiation are not harmful and that is the point. We recognise that some forms of non-ionising radiation such as ultraviolet sunbeds are harmful. There is a well-established scientific basis for that level of harm. What we are saying is that we need to bring that into a consistent regulatory framework.We do support the aim of this bill which is around protecting people from harm from radiation and protecting the health and safety of people both consumers and workers. It is abundantly clear as many people have said that the Radiation Protection Act is outdated and that current radiation laws are not really fit for purpose any more because they no longer take into account new technology new information changing attitudes and greater knowledge and understanding of the harm that can be posed by different forms of radiation. This is why Government regulation is so absolutely essential because consumers cannot possibly know when they are being X-rayed or are subjected to radiation for any purpose whatsoever what level is harmful to them. They cannot know if the equipment is working as it should be or that it is fit for purpose. I mean it is stating the obvious—most radiation is invisible and the harmful impacts are not immediately apparent. Sometimes it can take years for accumulated damage to become clear and with that an increased risk of skin cancer and so on.Precisely because of this we the public have to rely on expert knowledge and Government regulation and we have to trust. We place a huge amount of trust—we are placing our health and safety—in the hands of regulators. So we have to have trust that the system is robust and strong. For example I need to have trust that when I go to my dentist and have my 6-monthly X-ray that that is not going to place me at undue risk of some form of tumour in later life. This is the whole point—it is based on trust and it is based on trust in the Government and in the public health experts to set levels and use all the knowledge that is available to them in setting those levels.Whereas this bill is proposing to do that for ionising forms of radiation as my colleague Kevin Hague has said it is well-established that some forms of non-ionising radiation are harmful. This is just simple basic fact. I cannot understand why people are saying: “Oh well we don’t need to consider non-ionising radiation because it’s a different kind of radiation.” The impacts are the same. They have health impacts—some forms do. So the same principles need to apply to both forms of radiation. We need to regulate both of them.The point about microwaves that was made by Jacqui Dean earlier—every point that she was making could equally apply to smoke alarms. You do not want over-regulation of microwaves you do not want over-regulation of smoke alarms but that does not mean to say you should not have some form of regulation and that same regulatory framework should apply equally to microwaves and to smoke alarms. To include smoke alarms but not include microwaves is an inconsistent approach and that is what we are asking for: a consistent approach to both forms of radiation. By excluding non-ionising radiation you are actually going to feed public concerns around the health impacts of these because they cannot understand why. They already have concerns around food irradiation Wi-Fi cellphone towers and so on. I do not think it hurts to include these forms in this piece of legislation.The original 2004 regulatory impact statement proposed to include non-ionising radiation. Our argument is that the legislation should do and it would be consistent with Australia in that approach.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call from the Labour Party.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak following on from that considered contribution from Mojo Mathers on the Radiation Safety Bill. I do want just to remind people who are watching this debate that the contribution before from Jacqui Dean from the National Party is rather interesting when seen in the context that she of course is most famous in this Parliament for writing to Jim Anderton when he was a Minister and asking him what he was going to do to mitigate the risks and the serious harm caused to New Zealanders by their consumption of water. That is what Jacqui Dean is in fact most famous for in this House. I think it pays to remember that. It puts into context her kind of interesting little rant about microwaves when you know some of the background about what she is famous for.It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill if somewhat a surprise for me to rise and speak on this bill. I can only think that because it is replacing a piece of legislation that has taken the entire course of my lifetime to replace that perhaps that is why I was chosen to speak on this bill. I do want to just let the House know that Labour does actually support this bill going to the Health Committee because it does of course repeal and replace the Radiation Protection Act 1965. That will be replaced by the Radiation Safety Bill.Of course technology has changed quite a lot in the course of my lifetime. I am not going to go into too much detail about my earliest memories and how technology has changed over the course of that time.Clare Curran: Typewriter.SUE MORONEY: The linotype—we might go back to the linotype but I am not going to age myself that much. Suffice to say that we in this Parliament all accept that over that course of time there have been major technological changes and therefore we need legislation that will keep pace with that.One purpose of the bill is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radiation protection radiation safety and security and nuclear non-proliferation under a range of international treaties. Labour does acknowledge the necessity of updating legislation such as the Radiation Protection Act 1965 to keep pace with technological changes. We also of course support a high level of compliance with international best standards and our commitments to international treaties. Those things are paramount and this piece of legislation does address those issues.As has been well traversed in the debate thus far non-ionising radiation is not covered by this bill but it will continue to be regulated by Standards New Zealand. It was interesting to listen to some of the contributions from the National Party members on this. Of course I want to thank Simon O’Connor for reminding us that it was indeed his party that not that long ago did call into question whether our nuclear-free policy would remain.It actually was his party—Dr Megan Woods: “Gone by lunchtime” they said.SUE MORONEY: I had almost forgotten this actually until I heard his contribution but he did remind us that not that long ago his party said that the nuclear-free policy of this country would be gone by lunchtime—it would be gone by lunchtime. So it is interesting. Maybe that is one of the reasons it has taken the National Government so long to bring this before the House. Perhaps it is embarrassed about the stance that was taken by its party at that stage or maybe that is a dead rat that it is still chewing on; I am not so sure about that.However in my remaining minute I do want to just address the issue that last year more irradiated fruit from Australia was allowed into New Zealand. Labour’s policies of having an independent food safety council and having country-of-origin labelling will help to keep consumers informed about their food choices in that type of environment. Having a food safety council independent from the Ministry for Primary Industries is I think a no-brainer. That was proven about a year ago—or was it a little longer than that—when Fonterra had its scare over botulism.So these are very serious issues that do need to be addressed. They will not be addressed through this bill but I do wish the select committee and the officials good luck with their deliberations. Thank you.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 butof 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.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this first reading of the Radiation Safety Bill which will be referred to the Health Committee. I am a proud member of that select committee and I look forward to debating the issues that we have heard tonight with my committee members. I want to draw the House’s attention to the relevance of this piece of legislation to the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the process that began in 2002 with the Ministry of Health review of the Radiation Protection Act 1965 which sees us in the House tonight debating this updated piece of legislation. The aim of this bill is to “provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological scientific and organisational changes that have occurred over the last 5 decades while the current Act has been in force.” It also enables “ratification of key relevant international instruments.” Those international instruments are the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.The intention of this bill is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. What are the harmful effects of ionising radiation? They are burns and damage to tissues and organs. They lead to increased cancer risk and they also lead to brain damage in foetuses and to damage of foetal brain development. Of particular note is that non-ionising radiation such as that produced by electromagnetic fields—defined as cellphone towers Wi-Fi microwave ovens ultraviolet tanning machines and power lines—falls outside this bill. It seems to me that the difference between ionised and non-ionised is actually about low frequency and shorter wavelengths. So hold that thought.In terms of non-ionising radiation it is regulated in New Zealand under relevant health safety environmental or consumer legislation. Therein lies the relationship between this piece of legislation and the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. In New Zealand the Ministry of Health oversees the Inter-agency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-ionising Fields. We monitor in New Zealand research into extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields and radiofrequency fields. Every year this group reports to the Director-General of Health—and there are representatives from the Government industry the academic sphere and consumer groups—noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) every year has ongoing projects that investigate possible health effects of these particular cellphone towers Wi-Fi power lines and ultraviolet tanning machines. A report is actually due later this year. There has been research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer which the WHO oversees.Something that I have just read is that actually there is a finding that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic—that is they cause cancer. And the region at which radiation becomes ionising—so from non-ionising to ionising—is actually not well defined. The relevance to this piece of legislation that we are debating actually has to be seen within the sunbed issue—the ultraviolet tanning machines. We have had submissions before the Health Committee that these particular devices actually increase the risk of melanoma for users. In fact when we look at the statistics here in New Zealand there are 2000 new cases of melanoma every year and 350 deaths. So I think the point about all the debate that we have had in the House tonight between ionising and non-ionising is actually about what causes cancer. It seems to me that there is more and more evidence that is saying that these sunbeds actually do cause cancer and if that is the reality of that particular device or piece of equipment in New Zealand and if the Government is adamant that those devices should not be included in the Radiation Safety Bill then obviously it is incumbent on it to do something about that particular device in the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.The Cancer Society the Dermatological Society and Melanoma New Zealand—there have been a number of organisations that have made submissions to our select committee that say that in fact these ultraviolet tanning machines are causing cancer. So if the Government as I said earlier—and I noted Jacqui Dean’s contribution tonight. She is also a member of the Health Committee. We are not talking about microwaves and having them licensed. Actually we are very specifically talking about ultraviolet tanning machines. I think the select committee has got an opportunity in the next few weeks when we discuss the summary of submissions and take advice from the officials. I think the evidence is becoming more and more clear that these tanning machines should be banned as they have been in Brazil and as they have been in Australia. If the argument on that side of the House is that non-ionising machines are safe because they do not cause cancer when in fact what we do know now from current research is that these ultraviolet tanning machines actually do cause cancer and do lead to 2000 New Zealanders getting melanoma ever year and 350 New Zealanders dying every year because they have melanoma then it is going to be incumbent on the Government to do something about itwithin the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.A lot of people have talked about that tonight because the science is not so clear. It may be clear from other people’s perspectives that cellphone towers Wi-Fi power lines and ultraviolet tanning machines are not causing cancer but if the evidence is clear that they are then we as a select committee obviously have an opportunity to review that evidence and to make recommendations to this House about whether or not the non-ionising ultraviolet tanning machines should be taken care of within that piece of legislation. So as a member of the Health Committee I too look forward to the debate and discussion that we will have. It is timely obviously that we have the intersection of these two bills the Radiation Safety Bill and the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill because I think it is incumbent on all of us to always keep principles in the forefront of what we do—principles about health and safety and protecting the interests of all New Zealanders. So I look forward to those discussions and deliberations and hopefully we can have a constructive conversation about ultraviolet sunbeds. And if they do not have a place in our society I hope we have the courage as other countries have to ban them. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Todd McClay—Todd Barclay. My apologies.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): No worries. Mr McClay will be speaking on the next bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I was looking at him earlier. He is coming up next.TODD BARCLAY: I wish I could be speaking on a piece of legislation as fascinating as the tax amendment bill that is up next but unfortunately I will refrain and speak on the Radiation Safety Bill. Like a number of the members who have spoken tonight I am not a member of the Health Committee nor do I claim to know a huge deal to do with radiation but I think that as was the point made by Simon O’Connor earlier on all New Zealanders have an inherent level of appreciation and understanding of the level of dangers and risks associated with radiation. I think that given that originally this piece of legislation came into force in 1965 it is timely to review the current legislation and what it achieves. Just reflecting back to 1965 in fact I was not around. I was not even a twinkle in my mother’s eye at that point. My mother was only 10 years old. I think none the less it just goes to reinforce the fact that this legislation has been in place for quite some time and as times change and as new technologies develop and as new uses for radiation develop it is timely to review how we are legislating and regulating against such uses.I just wanted to pick up on a point that my colleague Jacqui Dean pointed out as well—while we are on the topic of sunbeds just before with the previous speaker. I wanted to make just a reflection on some of the points that Jacqui Dean was making around microwaves. I think they are equally as important potentially from a radiation point of view but probably more from a health and safety point of view. As a user of microwaves on a regular basis for Jimmy’s Pies every now and again you are always cautious that you do not leave a piece of metal equipment such as a fork or a knife in the microwave while you are heating up your pie. But just to concur with the points that Jacqui Dean made I think it is probably appropriate to keep that within health and safety legislation as opposed to the Radiation Safety Bill.As I said I do not sit on the Health Committee but I wanted to acknowledge Simon O’Connor his leadership of that committee and also the rest of the members who do sit on that committee. There is a wealth of experience including previous health Ministers such as the Hon Annette King. That experience cross-party provides a strong level of expertise in considering such an important bill as this. Some of the sources of radiation in New Zealand include medical X-rays industrial manufacturing and research purposes such as research assignments and other projects as talked about at universities and also from consumer goods such as smoke alarms. We have already heard about how the legislation is relatively outdated and it does not necessarily reflect the current use of radiation but going forward I think we have a responsibility for the safety of radiation sources for individual users.One of the points that has been mentioned tonight one of the fundamental changes is the fact that currently—dating back to the 1965 regulations—radiation licences are issued to individual users as opposed to organisations. This is probably an example of how the uses have developed and how organisations now more broadly are using the service. It is more widespread. From an organisation perspective and also an efficiency perspective in issuing licences you would want to ensure that the organisation more broadly takes greater responsibility for the use of radiation.I just wanted to pick up on a point that the Hon Annette King made when she was talking about when she was Minister of Health in 2005 when these regulations were initially first reviewed and how long it has taken for them to be implemented so far. I just pose the question: why did she not do anything a bit earlier in the piece when she had the opportunity as the then Minister of Health? But I suppose that it is a credit to the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman for taking forward the legislation now. It is great to see that the Hon Annette King who has such a strong passion about this can participate on it from the other side as a member of the select committee now.I just wanted to quote a pretty important statement from the regulatory impact statement which I think sums up the public policy objective around this. It says: “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.” There are a number of points that are quite salient too within that statement and I think we can see all of those points thoroughly reflected in the main provisions of this bill.I just wanted to talk a little bit about the duties of the licence holder. There are a number of duties that the licence holder must adhere to including with regard to the transportation of the source of the radiation in the first place. One is to ensure that the radiation source is properly maintained and stored. I think this is an important element with regard to the husbandry of the particular equipment that is so dangerous if not used and administered correctly. The second is around ensuring the appropriate security arrangements are in place to avoid accidental or miscellaneous use of radiation sources. It is important given that an individual organisation or user is issued with a licence to ensure the proper use of the radiation source so that it does not fall into the wrong hands and people who are not authorised or might not know how to administer radiation correctly find themselves in possession of such dangerous goods.The next point is not to abandon the radiation source which seems self-explanatory. Following on from that the disposal of the radiation source must be done only in accordance with the regulations. I think it is important on the one hand how you administer the use of radiation in a medical sense a research-related sense or any other industrial sense but equally so it is important how that radiation source is then disposed of following that. It is equally important to ensure that the licence holder properly accounts for and manages the use of that substance from the beginning right to the end to ensure again that it does not fall into the wrong hands. The next point is that the licence holder must comply with the requirements of the radiation safety plan if any is in place. It is another step that the bill introduces to try to ensure the proper use and maintenance of these dangerous goods.I wanted to touch just a little bit on the importance of the investment in radiation because I think one of the main drivers for this bill I suspect is the increased use over the last 50 years of this. I think we have seen it particularly in the health area because of the significant benefits it can bring to the treatment of cancer. I think that it is a shame—I think there would not one person in this House who has not either been directly or indirectly affected whether it be themselves a family member or a friend or an indirect family member by the harm from cancer. I think as we are investing more in trying to curb the existence of cancer we need to be ensuring that we are managing and monitoring the use of the mitigation substances in accordance with that.I think a lot of members tonight have already covered off the various uses of radiation. Just to touch on a couple again that are probably most commonly known to most New Zealanders who come into contact with it on a regular basis it would have to be through the use of X-rays CT scans in oncology regarding many types of cancer including breast cancer and prostate cancer and also in mammograms. Also of course we cannot forget about the extended and broader use of radiation within our universities and other tertiary institutions. I think that is equally as important as the use currently in the health system because the use at an academic level is to try to expand our knowledge and uses within the health system so that they are one and the same.The other point that the Labour members particularly Louisa Wall the last one homed in on quite significantly was the issue of the use of sunbeds. The point has already been made and I think it is worth reiterating that the Health Committee is currently considering this I understand through the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I think not to distort the purpose of this bill to the purpose of that one although there is an equally strong argument as to whether or not it is a dangerous use and whether it should be used it is just a question of which piece of legislation it most appropriately fits under. It is good that the chairman of the Health Committee made that point initially tonight and that we can reinforce that. To that end I obviously do not sit on the Health Committee but I support the contributions that the other members who sit on the committee have made tonight. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Health Committee.