Radiation Protection and Control (Commencement of Proceedings) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2025.)

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (16:39): I am going to be extremely brief on this, as this is a very brief piece of legislation. The opposition supports the very simple change to allow radiation pollution to be brought into the same space as other pollutions, which will allow infringement notices to be issued rather than taking it through to the courts if they have not been able to finalise investigations within six months. As I said, the opposition is very happy to support this very simple piece of legislation. There is not a lot to say, so with that I support this legislation.

Mr HUGHES: I also would like to speak on it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Giles, would you like to be recognised?

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:40): I am just getting stuck into it, sir. It is a Thursday, so I am eager to go. I also rise to support the Radiation Protection and Control (Commencement of Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2025. As the member said, this is a very short bill. It is a very simple bill. I will get to the core of it in a moment, but of course I have to tell my personal radiation story. I am going to go off on a tangent but it is, in a loose way, relevant because some of the stuff in this bill does cover the sort of enterprise that I am about to talk about.

Many years ago, I had the great pleasure of doing some work at Olympic Dam on a number of occasions. I would go on the ground at Olympic Dam. In the days of Western Mining, the process to go on the ground at Olympic Dam was a little bit involved. You would be issued your overalls and you would be issued a disc that you would wear when you went on the ground. All workers on the site at that time would wear this particular disc, because what this disc did was measure your exposure to radiation, both on the ground and above ground in the met plant where the minerals from that polymetallic mine were processed.

When you came back from being on the ground, you would hand in your disc and it would be sent off to be analysed. Because I was only there on an infrequent basis, my radiation exposure was neither here nor there. But the thing about—

Mr Basham: It still made your hair fall out!

Mr HUGHES: Maybe that was the impact; I used to have hair then. When you were on the ground, one of the noticeable things about Olympic Dam was just the vastness of it, even back then, and it has grown massively since then. But it is interesting that the history of uranium mining around the world is not a particularly good history.

There were underground mines in the United States where the death rates through exposure to gamma radiation were high and lung cancer rates were really high. It was especially bad back in those days because a lot of people also smoked and it had a synergistic effect with radiation exposure, so there were a lot of premature deaths in the industry.

When you go to Olympic Dam—whether back in the Western Mining days or currently—there are massive ventilation shafts, so a lot of work goes into making that a safe working environment. In some respects, the thing that workers talk to me about occasionally now when it comes to occupational health and safety on the ground is not so much exposure to radiation but exposure to particulate from diesel engines on the ground in some parts of the mine. This is something that the company is addressing, and I think in the not-too-distant future we will see that a lot of vehicles that are operating on the ground will be electrified vehicles, to take away that hazard when it comes to diesel fumes. I will get onto this small piece of legislation.

At its core, as the member has already indicated, it is covering off on that very short period to take action if an expiation is served. At the moment, it is only six months. Given the complexity of some of the issues and becoming aware of some of the issues that might lead to an expiation, six months is just way too short. Essentially, the main amendment in this bill is to extend that period of time to three years. The discovery of a potential offence within that three-year period also gives you that extended period. My understanding is that it extends from the period when the offence is discovered.

Other states have varying periods of expiations, but this brings us in line with one or two jurisdictions where it is a three-year period. It is interesting when you look at just how many authorisations are administered by the EPA under the act as it is now. There are 13,918 radiation authorisations, which include 8,006 radiation-use licences—that is to use or handle radioactive substances and to operate radiation apparatus—and 4,890 registrations of premises, sources and apparatus.

As we know, there are low-level radioactive materials scattered around the place, in hospitals, laboratories, a whole range of places around the state. There are 986 radiation management licences for mining facilities, transport and the possession of radioactive materials. There are 36 accreditations for people who can test radiation sources and apparatus. There is a lot of work involved in this for the EPA.

An example of the sorts of offences that we are talking about include contravening a condition of accreditation or authorisation; noncompliance with an order; using a noncompliant radiation source; failure to ensure a radiation source is appropriately installed, operated and maintained; failure to prevent radiation exposure above certain dose limits; undertaking unjustified radiation procedures or unauthorised radiation research; and noncompliance with requirements for the safe transport of radioactive material.

All of this is geared to ensuring the safety of the public and workers. It is important that we properly manage the radioactive materials that exist out there in the community. Like I said, it is widespread. I know the industries in my area have all sorts of apparatus with radioactive components. Of course, the materials used in hospitals play an incredibly important role in the management and control of a whole range of diseases, including cancer, etc. Also, important radioactive materials are used in a series of diagnostic procedures. They play an important role.

The Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney produces a lot of this material. Not all that long ago, with the controversy in the state about Kimba, Lucas Heights was featured in the news. At the start of the process, Kimba was in my electorate. I thought it was an incredibly poor process that the then federal government had entered into to determine where best to store low-level radioactive waste, which I do not have a problem with, but I did not see the need for a national repository or storage for lower level waste halfway around the country. Of course, the long-lived intermediate waste that is produced at Lucas Heights actually needs deep geological disposal, and what was being proposed at Kimba was just an interim process.

We do have a responsibility to responsibly manage the radioactive waste that we produce in this country, but I hope that the next time we enter into a process we do it in a far better way than the last time and, indeed, on other occasions. It needs to be responsibly handled. Fortunately, when it comes to long-lived intermediate waste, Lucas Heights is licensed to manage that for some good years to come, so it gives us time to actually do the work that needs to be done.

The core of this is extending the timeframe when it comes to offences, expiation offences, to allow time to do the work properly and provide three years instead of the current six months. As the member said, for more serious offences, they are prosecuted anyway. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:51): I rise to speak in support of the Radiation Protection and Control (Commencement of Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill, though technical in nature, is an important step in strengthening South Australia's commitment to radiation safety and to the legacy of those who have suffered harm from radiation exposure in our history.

At its core, the bill seeks to amend section 82 of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021. As I understand it, under the current law, legal proceedings for certain offences must begin within six months of the alleged offence being committed. This has proven to be impractical and, in some cases, a barrier to justice. The bill makes a critical change: it extends the timeframe for commencing proceedings from six months to three years and, I understand, up to 10 years after the alleged offence in cases authorised by the Attorney-General. Importantly, this amendment will apply to both expiable offences and those subject to prosecution.

The purpose of this reform is straightforward. It ensures that offences under the act are not allowed to slip through the cracks simply because the investigative process cannot be completed within a six-month timeframe. Investigations into breaches of radiation protection laws are rarely straightforward. They require site inspections, technical analysis, expert opinions, interviews, reviews of complex documentation and, of course, legal scrutiny. All of this takes time, especially when dealing with industries where radiation is used in highly specialised ways. In some instances, an offence may not even come to the attention of regulators until many months after it is committed.

By providing more realistic timeframes, the bill ensures that our regulators have the capacity to properly investigate, build cases and, where appropriate, bring offenders before our courts. The current six-month rule creates the risk that serious offences may never be prosecuted. To place it into context, consider a case where unsafe handling of radioactive material occurs, but the consequences are only identified later after monitoring reveals contamination. By the time investigators complete their work, the six-month clock may have run out and those responsible could escape accountability.

That situation is not just a technical failing. It represents a danger to public health and workplace safety. It undermines confidence in our regulatory system and potentially exposes our community and environment to unnecessary risks. Extending the timeframe is not about punishing industry unnecessarily. It is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that all breaches are treated with the seriousness that they deserve.

Radiation is an invisible force. Used responsibly, it can save lives, advance science and potentially power industries. Used irresponsibly it can cause profound harm to people, to workers and, of course, our environment. That is why South Australia, like every modern jurisdiction, has a robust framework of radiation protection laws. These laws are not red tape for the sake of it, they are safeguards to protect our health, our environment and our shared future. We have these laws because we have seen, both globally and here at home, the consequences of when radiation is not properly controlled: sickness, contamination, loss of community trust and long-term environmental scars.

Radiation is all around us in beneficial forms. It is used in medicine where X-rays, CT scans, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine save countless lives each year. It is used in science and research where radioactive tracers help us understand biological processes and develop new treatments. It is used in industry where radiation sources are used in gauges, detectors and imaging to ensure quality and safety. It is used in mining where it plays a role in exploring and refining processes.

I am not claiming to be a technical expert on every use of radiation, but I can say with certainty that radiation plays a critical role in both our health system and our economy. If it were removed from our lives we would lose life-saving medical technologies, vital research capabilities, and many of the industrial processes that underpin jobs in the state.

We cannot speak about radiation in South Australia without acknowledging our history. The nuclear tests at Maralinga during the 1950s and 1960s left a deep scar on our state. Communities, particularly Aboriginal communities, were exposed to radioactive fallout with consequences that continue to echo across generations. For decades South Australia has grappled with the clean-up, the health impacts and the social legacy of those tests. It was a historical wrong and one from which we must continue to learn.

This bill, as I see it, is part of demonstrating our ongoing commitment to that legacy. By strengthening radiation protection laws, we show that we take our responsibility seriously and that never again should we turn a blind eye to unsafe practices or allow time limits to prevent accountability.

If anyone doubts the ongoing relevance of strong radiation protections, let them consider the recent case at the Whyalla Steelworks where a gauge containing a radioactive source went missing in 2023. That incident is a stark reminder that radiation sources, if mishandled or misplaced, can pose risks to workers, to the public and to the environment.

As a proud unionist and member of the Australian Workers' Union, I know how vital it is that workplaces are managed with the utmost care. There is no room for mismanagement when it comes to radiation safety. Workers have the right to go home safe at the end of each day, and that means having strong laws in place and the ability to enforce them effectively.

This bill is not just about adjusting a legal timeframe, it is about reaffirming South Australia's commitment to radiation safety and to accountability. It is about ensuring that breaches of the law are not excused by technicality. It is about protecting workers, families and communities. It also reflects our values as a state, values shaped by history, by responsibility and by a determination to safeguard both people and the environment.

This bill is an essential update to our laws that strengthens accountability, reflects the practical realities of investigation, honours our history and upholds community safety. Radiation is a powerful force for good in medicine, research and industry, but it is also a force that requires vigilance and control. This bill helps us maintain that vigilance. It ensures that those who misuse radiation, or fail in their responsibilities, can and will be held to account. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms O'HANLON (Dunstan) (16:58): I rise today to speak in support of the Radiation Protection and Control (Commencement of Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2025. On its face this bill is a technical amendment. It changes section 82 of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 to extend the timeline for commencing proceedings for offences under the act. But behind that narrow change lies an important principle, that when it comes to radiation, something invisible to the eye but ever so powerful in its effects, our laws must be practical, enforceable and capable of protecting the community.

At present, proceedings for offences must be commenced within the short timeframe set down in the Criminal Procedure Act. For expiable offences, that means just six months. Six months might sound workable for minor regulatory matters, but when it comes to radiation offences, it is clearly far from adequate.

Investigations in this field are complex. They require inspections of facilities, expert analysis of equipment, detailed interviews and often the engagement of scientists with highly specialised knowledge. Building a brief of evidence in this space is not something that can be done overnight and in many cases the alleged offence only comes to the attention of the regulator months after it has occurred. That means that serious matters risk falling away not because the offence is trivial, not because the evidence is weak, but simply because the law says time has expired. That is not an acceptable outcome in an area where public safety and environmental protection are at stake.

This bill fixes that. It extends the time to commence proceedings from six months to three years and, where the Attorney-General authorises, proceedings can be commenced up to 10 years after the alleged offence. That gives the regulator, the EPA, the breathing space it needs to properly investigate serious breaches.

I suspect that many people, as was the case for me before reading this amendment, do not realise the true scale of this field in South Australia. The Environment Protection Authority currently administers almost 14,000 authorisations relating to radiation. That is an extraordinary number. It includes more than 8,000 individual licences for people who use or handle radioactive substances or who operate radiation apparatus. Another 4,890 registrations cover premises, sources and equipment. There are 986 radiation management licences covering our mines, hospitals, industrial sites and transport activities. There are 36 accreditations for experts authorised to test apparatus and ensure safety compliance.

These figures demonstrate that radiation is not confined to a handful of specialised facilities. It touches every part of our community. In our hospitals, radiation is used daily in X-rays, CT scans and cancer treatments. Every time a South Australian goes in for diagnostic imaging, they are relying on a system that is carefully regulated. In fact, major cancer centres in Adelaide depend on radioactive isotopes for lifesaving therapies, something sufferers depend upon but which must be handled with absolute care.

In our universities and research institutes, radiation is used for advanced scientific research. At the University of Adelaide and Flinders University, laboratories use radiation in medical research, materials testing and innovative technologies. These are important areas for research, but they rely on strong safeguards. In industry, radiation is used in construction, food safety testing and non-destructive imaging. It is even used to check on the structural soundness of pipelines and aircraft parts.

Many South Australians never think about it, but radiation underpins safety and productivity in areas they depend on everyday. In mining, South Australia's long history with uranium at Olympic Dam and Beverley means we are home to some of the nation's most significant radiation management operations. The safe extraction, transport and handling of radioactive material is a serious responsibility, one we carry not only for our state but for the global community.

The offences that this bill relates to are not small matters. They include failing to comply with licence conditions, using noncompliance sources, exceeding safe dose limits and failing to ensure that radiation procedures are justified and authorised. If such offences occur, the community expects that they can be properly investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted. This bill gives effect to that expectation. It ensures that serious cases will not quietly slip away because of unrealistic time limits. It gives the regulator the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads and to take the time needed to build a robust case.

Some might worry that a three or 10-year period is heavy handed. Let me be clear: this is not about casting a net over trivial breaches, it is about making sure that when serious misconduct occurs, it can be dealt with. The overwhelming majority of nearly 14,000 licensees are doing the right thing. They have nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, they have much to gain because strong enforcement protects the integrity of their industry and their professional reputation.

It is also important to remember that South Australia is not acting in isolation. Other states already provide extended timeframes for proceedings in radiation and environmental matters. Victoria allows three years, or one year from when sufficient evidence is obtained. NSW provides for two years from the offence or discovery of evidence. Queensland and Tasmania have their own extended models. This bill simply ensures South Australia is not left behind.

Radiation is both a tremendous gift and a potential hazard. It allows us to diagnose illness, treat cancer, explore for minerals, and ensure the safety of our industries, but it is also unforgiving if misused or mismanaged. Our responsibility is to ensure that the safeguards in place are real, enforceable and trusted by the public.

This bill is a modest change on paper, but its impact is significant, it closes a loophole, it strengthens accountability, it gives the regulator the time it needs to do its job and it provides reassurance to the South Australian public that our system is up to the task of protecting them. In short, it makes sure our laws reflect the scale and seriousness of radiation use in this state. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (17:05): I rise today to speak in support of the Radiation Protection and Control (Commencement Of Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2025 Radiation is something that has shaped the modern world. When it was first discovered more than a century ago it unlocked extraordinary advances in science and medicine, but it also brought very real risks. We have seen both sides of that history, the lifesaving treatments but also the dangers when radiation is not managed properly. That is why strict regulation is not just desirable, it is essential.

Here in South Australia we are fortunate to have strong safeguards under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021. This legislation makes sure that anyone handling or operating radiation sources, whether that is in hospitals, laboratories or industry must do so under strict authorisation. It ensures that radiation can be used for its many benefits, while also making sure it is kept secure and cannot be misused in a way that might harm people or the environment.

I want to bring this closer to home, and in my electorate we are lucky to have the Flinders Medical Centre right on our doorstep. Every single day radiation technology is saving lives there. Patients undergoing cancer treatment rely on it. People needing CT scans, MRIs, X-rays, nuclear medicine, all of that is made possible by radiation. For many of those patients, time is everything; getting the right diagnosis quickly and starting treatment as soon as possible can mean the difference between life and death.

Today we acknowledge those who face a cancer journey on Daffodil Day. This is a day to raise awareness of the battle, but also to raise funds for cancer research, and I am glad to see many in the house wearing the daffodil.

In my role as chair of the Select Committee on Endometriosis, I have also been struck by the importance of imaging in women's health. We heard time and time again from women who have lived with pain for years before finally receiving a diagnosis. For too long endometriosis has gone unseen and undiagnosed. Imaging is central to changing that. Radiation-based technologies can help doctors detect endometriosis earlier, giving women answers sooner and sparing them years of suffering. It is one more example of how radiation, used properly, is not just a scientific tool, it is something that touches lives in the most personal way.

But the benefits can only continue if we are responsible. If radioactive materials are mishandled, if equipment is misused, if safety rules are ignored, the consequences can be devastating. That is why enforcement matters, and that is why the penalties in the act exist and why this amendment is so important.

Currently under section 82(1)(a) of the act proceedings for an expiable offence must commence within six months. At first glance that might sound like a reasonable timeframe, but in reality it is not workable for the kinds of cases we are dealing with. Investigations into potential radiation offences are complex. They involve site inspections, interviews with staff, reviews of documents and safety records, technical analysis from experts and legal advice. These are not matters that can be rushed, and in many cases the alleged offence might not even come to light until well after the six months has passed.

Under the law as it currently stands that means serious breaches could slip through the cracks, not because they were not serious but simply because the investigation could not be completed in time. That undermines the whole purpose of having a regulatory framework in the first place. It leaves community exposed, and it denies us the ability to hold people accountable for misusing or mishandling dangerous materials.

The amendment before us addresses this problem directly. It extends the period for commencing proceedings for expiable offences from six months to three years. That brings the Radiation Protection and Control Act into line with the Environmental Protection Act 1993, which already provides a three-year window. It gives the Environmental Protection Agency the time it needs to do its job properly, to investigate, to gather the evidence and to prosecute where that is the appropriate course of action.

Let's be clear, this is not about giving regulators a heavy stick or punishing people unfairly. It is about making sure the system actually works. It is about ensuring that when someone breaches the law, when they put public safety at risk, they cannot avoid responsibility simply because the paperwork took too long.

Our community places enormous trust in radiation technologies. They trust that the X-ray machine is safe. They trust that the radioactive source used in cancer treatment is secure. They trust that the people handling this material know what they are doing and that, if they do not, there will be consequences.

This bill is about upholding that trust. It ensures that our laws reflect the realities of proper enforcement. It ensures that serious cases can be pursued and prosecuted. Ultimately, it ensures that the benefits of radiation in medicine, in science and in industry continue to be delivered safely under a system that is robust and credible. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.