Page 2323 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
each proposed subsection. The amendments make sure that it is quite clear that the strict liability applies also to paragraph (b) in each case. Given the seriousness of the equipment and the sources of radioactive radiation, I think it is something we should all take very, very seriously and we will be agreeing to the amendments. We support the passage of the bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.19): The ACT Greens support the Radiation Protection Bill. By all accounts it is high time that this legislation was updated and made nationally uniform.
Protecting our public from harm caused by radiation is, of course, an important matter. There are, however, a couple of points I would like to make about the bill. First, unfortunately, it appears that the bill does surprisingly little to ensure protection from radiation. The only thing compelling users of radiation sources to follow safety guidelines is the threat of charges for committing an offence. Severe as the charges may be, the bill therefore provides no real reassurance that persons dealing with radiation sources are doing so responsibly until after enactment. As I understand it, this leaves a full onus on each individual practitioner to comply with the safety duties set out in the act.
My second concern is based upon the support given to practitioners affected by this piece of legislation. There has been some concern raised surrounding fees and report writing expectations. As this bill covers the licensing and registering of radiation sources by all organisations, from nuclear medicine research institutions to private dental surgeries, it is possible that the fees and levels of reporting expected may overburden the little guys whilst being, of course, entirely appropriate for the larger organisations.
I think it is important to recognise the limit of resources available to all groups of people who need to comply with this legislation and we need to ensure that our expectations are realistic. Otherwise, we might end up with the situation where some people do not comply with the law simply because it would stretch their resources too far to do so. I note that the government’s amendment that would apply strict liability might not be quite fair.
I have also noted that the bill states little about the disposal of waste radiation sources, aside from the specific situation of dealing with a prohibited radiation source. Surely if we are designing a safer regime for dealing with radiation sources, this should include disposal. While the bill defines “to dispose of a radiation source” as burying it or releasing it if it is gas or liquid, it does not mention where, by whom and, more important, how. I think the public of the ACT ought to know that radiation sources here are being disposed of safely.
It would seem that protection from radiation, disposal of waste and general radiation source safety are presumed rather than specified. There are other legislation and codes of practice in place that are intended to ensure appropriate safety. Nonetheless, I would be more comfortable if these safety procedures had been linked to this regime in a more overt manner.
Next, I would like to comment on the evaluation of this bill. I see a monitoring process as integral to the effective introduction of new legislation. As with any untested system,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .