RADIATION PROTECTION AND CONTROL (LICENCES AND REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, not that that is relevant because I do not expect this matter to take very long.

This is quite a small bill, but I note that the minister is going to move a further amendment to the bill. Basically, this is what we generally refer to as a 'rats and mice bill', where the government is seeking to tidy up what was an unintended consequence arising from a matter out of last year's budget—the statutes amendment legislation associated with that. We made some variations to the licensing regime under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982.

In making those variations, the statutes amendment bill inadvertently would allow that certain persons would no longer need to be licensed under the act, and also inadvertently would mean that the unsealed storage of radioactive material in certain places would not need to be licensed or registered. It is unfortunate that the unintended consequences arising occurred. I am not about to apportion blame for that. It is just unfortunate and the opposition certainly supports the amendments in this small bill to correct that matter.

The reality is that, notwithstanding a lot of emotion about radioactive material, we live in a world where radioactive materials are quite widely used, although the general public in a lot of cases is probably not even aware of that. There is a wide variety of uses for radioactive material in the modern world, not just in medicine but also in measuring certain things.

Some years ago I saw a chap working for what is now DTEI—in those days it was probably referred to as the highways department—using a radioactive isotope to measure the compaction that they were achieving in the construction of a road. They drilled a small hole and used that as part of the measuring mechanism to make sure that they had the correct compaction before they put the seal coat on top of the road. There is a wide number of examples where people are handling radioactive material and obviously the state wishes to make sure that that handling is done in a very safe and correct manner, and the licensing regime is all about that. We obviously support that and we support this amendment.

I think the minister has filed another amendment to change one of the definitions, and because it is impacting on the mining sector I will be asking him to explain that because I am unaware of the reason behind it. We will need to go into committee to insert that amendment. I hope the minister can give me a full explanation of that before we even get to the third reading. I conclude my remarks there.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (15:49): I will be brief. I thank the opposition for their indication of support for this bill, and I thank the member for MacKillop for his very excellent contribution on this particular bill. I think it would be appropriate to flag a proposed amendment from the government. Essentially, this amendment is a new clause that will amend clause 3A section 5, 'Interpretation' and he is quite correct to point out that it has an impact on the definition of mining as will be contained within this act.

By way of explanation, the Statutes Amendment Budget Act 2010 was enacted in 2010, and section 65(4) of that act is yet to come into force. It inserts into the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 a new definition of 'mining' and that new definition inadvertently uses the word 'excavation' instead of 'exploration'. So, this in-house amendment seeks to make that correction.

So, in essence, by correcting this, it will then be read properly into the act, so that it makes that particular change because, as I said, the Budget Act has not yet come into force. It does not appear in the current Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 and, for clarification, the in-house amendment needs to be read into section 65(4) of the Budget Act and that might assist in the views of my friend, the lead speaker from the opposition, as to whether or not there is a necessity to go into committee. We will have to go into committee, that is right.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

New clause, page 2, before line 12—Before clause 4 insert:

3A—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

Section 5, definition of mining, paragraph (h)—delete 'excavation' and substitute: exploration

Mr WILLIAMS: I am somewhat confused now. I thought I was confused before but now I am absolutely certain. I raised this matter and the minister gave an explanation and he suggested that—I think this is what he said—the budget measure had not yet been enacted so the changes which will flow from that are not yet in the Radiation Protection and Control Act but we are pre-empting the enactment of that act by moving this. Is my understanding correct?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is sort of correct. The Statutes Amendment Budget Act 2010 was enacted in 2010 but a section of that act, section 65(4) is yet to come into force. It inserts, as we have said, through this amendment, a new definition of 'mining' into the Radiation Protection Control Act 1982. What occurred is that that component of the act, section 65(4) of the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Act, is yet to come into force. The new definition inadvertently uses the word 'excavation' instead of 'exploration'.

I have a copy of the budget act, and in part 12 it makes amendments to the Radiation Protection and Control Act. Part 4 section 5, the definition of mining, has a reference to surface drilling for the purposes of excavation. What we say is that, for clarification, this amendment needs to be read into the budget act because it refers to our act and, of course, what we want to do is make sure that it refers to exploration as opposed to excavation, which was inadvertently inserted into the budget act. I hope that makes sense.

Mr WILLIAMS: It does make sense—I almost said it makes perfect sense. Notwithstanding the explanation, it might be because the copy of the principal act that I am reading from, which I got from the shelf over there, has not been updated. Under section 5 of the principal act under 'mining', it has 'mining in relation to radioactive ores', etc., then it has subsections (a), (b) and (c).

Then it goes on to say, 'but does not include surface excavating that does not intersect radioactive ores, surface drilling or geophysical processing', yet the amendment before us refers to paragraph (h) and there is no paragraph (h) in the principal act that I have here. I am wondering about the mechanics of what we are doing, because it is somewhat confusing. I do not have a problem with what the minister is trying to achieve. I just want to make sure that we actually get it right.

The Hon. P. CAICA: We will get it right if we allow this amendment to go through. It is not in the primary act yet, because it has not come into force yet, so that will be changed. As I am told, this is particularly a request that came from PIRSA which, of course, is the government body that is responsible for mining exploration; so it sought this clarification to make sure that it is consistent with the responsibilities of PIRSA.

Mr WILLIAMS: Now I know why I am confused. The minister's explanation, as I heard it, suggested that the amendment that has already been passed through the parliament but has not been promulgated and, as a consequence, does not appear in the principal act on the shelf over here, inadvertently used the word 'excavation' instead of the word 'exploration'. Notwithstanding that explanation from the minister, the principal act, prior to the amendment in the budget act, does indeed say under the definition of mining, 'but does not include surface excavating that does not intersect radioactive ores, surface drilling or geophysical prospecting'.

So it seems to me that we are not just attempting to correct what seemed a moment ago to be an inadvertent misuse of the word 'excavation' instead of 'exploration', but the principal act already had the word 'excavating' in it. So I would argue we are actually changing the meaning, not correcting a simple mistake.

The CHAIR: Well, they are different words, with different meanings.

Mr WILLIAMS: It seems to me that, if PIRSA has suggested this, for some reason they have changed their mind about excavation that does not intersect radioactive ores, surface drilling or geophysical prospecting, and changed their mind about something which was in the principal act.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It has no implications whatsoever on the current practices, save and except, of course, (and you probably know more than I know about mining) that you do not actually surface drill for the purposes of excavation: you actually surface drill for the purposes of exploration. It is changing that intent there to make it more consistent while still not having any implications whatsoever on the current practices that relate to excavation. Is that better, Mitch?

Mr WILLIAMS: I understand all of that, but we are amending something, and I do not know whether the words that are in the principal act in front of me have already been amended by the previous budget bill or budget act.

As much as it pains me, the minister did make a plea a minute ago, which was basically, I think, for the want of a better explanation, 'Trust me and we'll get it right.' I am prepared to. It is only a minor matter. I do not want to make too much out of it, but I must say that it is quite confusing. I am prepared to trust the minister, and can I assure the committee that I am not about to make a habit of it.

The Hon. P. CAICA: If I may just respond to that to correct the record. I do not think that I said 'Trust me and we'll get it right.' What I said was, 'If we pass this amendment we will get it right.' That is what I said.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (4 and 5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (16:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.