Page 2326 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bill protects people and the environment through the imposition of safety duties. For the purpose of this bill, a safety duty means a duty under any of clauses 12, 13 and 14.
Clause 12 creates a general duty to ensure no harm. This requires that a person who deals with a regulated radiation source must take all reasonable steps to ensure that no harm results to the health or safety of people, property or the environment from radiation emitted from such source.
Clause 13 pertains to radiation exposure. This provision requires a person who deals with a regulated radiation source to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dose received by a person, other than in a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, is not higher than the dose limit for that person for a stated period.
The third safety duty is contained in clause 14 and concerns diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. This duty requires a person who uses a regulated radiation source for such procedures to ensure that a person treated at the request of a doctor does not receive a dose of radiation from the procedure that is not in accordance with the doctor’s request.
The bill contains a broad range of offences. There are offences relating to the failure to comply with certain aspects of a safety duty; failure to comply with conditions of a licence; conditions of registration and dealing with a regulated radiation source without a licence. Owning an unregistered regulated radiation source and dealing with prohibited radiation sources are also key offences, as is a failure to notify the radiation council of dangerous events.
The safety duty offences in clause 53 to 56 of the bill are the most important offences in the bill. A review of the offences recently identified an oversight in the drafting of the offences. Accordingly, the government proposes three amendments to clarify the offences. Clause 53 is the base offence. Under this provision a person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with a safety duty. Absolute liability applies to the existence of the safety duty, the effect of which is that a person owes the safety duty irrespective of whether or not they are aware they must comply with the duty. Strict liability applies to their failure to comply.
Absolute liability also applies to the first element of the more serious offences established in clauses 54, 55, 56 containing paragraph 1 (a) of each clause. In this regard the high level offences are consistent with the base level offence in clause 53. However, unlike the base level offence in clause 53, clauses 54, 55 and 56 do not apply strict liabilities to other elements of the offence, particularly in regard to the element contained in paragraph (b) that the person failed to comply with the safety duty. The effect of this is that section 22 of the Criminal Code supplies a fault element, obliging the prosecution to prove that the person intentionally failed to comply with the safety duty. This creates an inconsistency with clause 53, and it was not intended to require the prosecution to prove intentional failure to comply.
I will speak to the amendments when we have the opportunity to move them later today. I thank members for their contributions and their support today. I thank staff from the Department of Health for their work on this bill. Overall, the bill represents a sensible, workable scheme for regulating the use of radiation in the territory in accordance with national standards. I thank members for their contribution to the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .