Radiation Protection and Control Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2020.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:43): I believe that all second reading contributions have been made to this important bill and would like to thank members for their contributions. Among the contributions from the other place and this place, there has been mention of various radiation matters of strong community interest that are beyond the scope of the bill and what it is designed or able to regulate. It is important that I address these to ensure the committee stage is adequately informed.

Firstly, the bill does not and cannot have any application to the proposed national radioactive waste management facility. The national radioactive waste management facility is being established under commonwealth law that strictly prevents state laws from applying in every facet of its establishment and operation, including transport of waste to and from the site. Similarly, the radiation associated with telecommunications infrastructure, including the rollout of the new 5G network, is regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under commonwealth legislation. Commonwealth law prevails in the regulation of this technology.

Finally and relevant to one of the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mark Parnell, nuclear power is something that is completely prohibited throughout Australia under commonwealth legislation. The establishment of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant and enrichment plant or a reprocessing facility are all prohibited under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.

This bill continues the prohibition in South Australia of the enrichment or conversion of uranium, but this is largely symbolic given commonwealth legislation prohibits it nationally. As has been the case with the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, if ever there was the political will needed to overturn the commonwealth prohibitions on aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, such as enrichment or conversion of uranium, it would be highly unusual if the commonwealth laws needed to do so would allow state laws to continue to apply. The South Australian ban on conversion and enrichment of uranium would be made redundant if that were to occur.

There has also been comment made in the second reading stage regarding the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs. It is important to understand that the Roxby Downs indenture is applied through the Roxby Downs (Indenture Gratification) Act 1982. Section 7 of that act dictates that the law of the state is so far modified as is necessary to give full effect of the indenture, and the provisions of any law of the state shall accordingly be construed subject to the modifications that take effect under this act.

As such, the bill before us is subject to the indenture and the indenture act, and schedule 1 of the bill for the most part usefully outlines how the indenture applies to this area of regulation. There are some minor additional provisions that carry over from the 1982 act, but this bill does not add further dispensation or favour to the Olympic Dam mine. In fact, the bill introduces a number of stronger regulatory provisions that will apply to Olympic Dam mine as they will every other user of radiation in South Australia.

The bill includes a general duty of care that applies to Olympic Dam mine as it does every other person in South Australia. The bill also provides for order-making powers. These include radiation protection orders to gain compliance with the general duty, a condition of licence or any other requirement of the act. There are reparation orders that can be used by the EPA to require a person to make good any harm that has resulted from a contravention of the act. The maximum penalty for noncompliance with an order is $100,000 or a $3,000 expiation.

The bill also introduces major offences of causing radiation harm and serious radiation harm. The maximum penalty for the serious radiation harm offence is $5 million for a body corporate and $1 million or 15 years in prison for a natural person. These offences apply to Olympic Dam mine as they do anyone else should they offend them. To say that the Olympic Dam mine is, to quote the Hon. Mark Parnell, 'above the law' ignores the considerable new powers that the bill makes available to the EPA to regulate all radiation users and ensure all South Australians are safe and protected and can still enjoy the many benefits that radiation use brings.

The setting of limits for occupational exposure has also been raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell and features in amendments to the bill proposed by him. I will reiterate from my previous contribution that the South Australian government is committed to implementing the National Directory for Radiation Protection, which establishes a nationally agreed and uniform approach to radiation protection and safety. The adoption of national standards and codes of practice are a key part of national uniformity in radiation protection and reflect the best available international science. This includes for occupational exposure.

Radiation protection and safety is not only a South Australian concern; it is a global concern. There has been and continues to be significant international investment in ensuring radiation protection and safety standards remain contemporary and scientifically robust. While the South Australian EPA is likely humbled by the view that they should be given the imprimatur to set their own occupational exposure limits, to do so contrary to national and international best available science makes no sense and in practice simply would not happen.

The Hon. Mark Parnell quotes the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) in stating that the current radiation standards are deficient and not suited for 2020. The ECRR is an informal committee formed in 1997 following a meeting held by the European Green Party at the European Parliament. ECRR is not a formal scientific advisory to the European Commission or to the European Parliament. A visit to their website, which is euradcom.eu, may interest members, but not their old website, which according to their current website 'should be assumed to be in the control of the nuclear/military complex'. This is not a reputable authority on the matter.

The standards that are currently applied in South Australia, and will be continued if the bill passes, are derived from an international science-based governance framework which I will outline for the benefit of members. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was established in 1995 by the United Nations. UNSCEAR is the world's authority on the effects of ionising radiation.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that provides recommendations and guidance on protection against ionising radiation. It has more than 250 globally recognised experts in radiological protection science, policy and practice from more than 30 countries. The ICRP makes recommendations on radiological protection based on the advice of these international experts and using UNSCEAR publications.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was formed by the United Nations in 1957. It publishes safety requirements and guidance based on the recommendations of the ICRP. The most recent report of UNSCEAR to the United Nations General Assembly was presented in 2017. The ICRP published its most recent general recommendations in 2007, and more than 40 publications since that date. The IAEA published its most recent standards, including dose limits that are reflected in this bill, in 2014.

The recommendations and requirements of these internationally recognised bodies are reflected in Australia's radiation protection standards and are adopted by South Australia. ARPANSA has updated its Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations, which sets out the requirements in Australia for the protection of occupationally exposed persons, the public and the environment in planned exposure situations, as recently as January 2020, which also maintains the 20 millisievert occupational exposure limit. Therefore, the government states that the evidence is that the Hon. Mr Parnell is incorrect in saying that national occupational exposure limits are out of date.

If South Australia decided to have radiation dose limits that were contrary to international standards, it would be going against the world's authorities on radiation protection and would go against its national commitments to adopt Australia's national radiation standards. Stricter limits would also have to be applied equally to all occupations as there is no difference in the occupational limits applied to mining and those applied to other occupations that involve exposure to radiation. The national limit of 20 millisieverts is applied in all circumstances.

The highest individual doses are most often in the medical sector, in nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology, so the biggest impact of any reduction in an occupational dose limit away from the international standard would be to providers of medical diagnoses and treatment that would potentially limit their ability to diagnose and treat serious illness. Around the world, average natural background ionising radiation is between one and 13 millisieverts and in some places as high as 100 millisieverts and there is no evidence in these areas of abnormal incidences of harm.

To reflect on the Hon. Mr Parnell's second reading contribution, he suggests that all radiation is harmful and would prefer a dose limit of two millisieverts per year. This is about the level of background radiation that all South Australians receive each year. The types of radiation sources and activities that this legislation regulates provide benefits to all South Australians in one way or another. This may be through the jobs provided in areas of mining, petroleum, industrial processing and analysis, and health care, or it may be through the improved health outcomes of having access to modern medical imaging, radiotherapy and other nuclear medicine therapies.

A variety of medical imaging technologies use radiation such as X-rays, CT scans and PET scans. These are critical tools used in the diagnosis and treatment of a range of serious medical conditions. Improved treatments for many cancers have been made possible by advancements to diagnostic imaging as well as advancements in radiotherapy technology. This legislation supports the safe and regulated introduction of these new technologies.

The legislation also supports the safe introduction of world-leading technologies into the state that is putting South Australia at the forefront of medical treatment and research globally. One example is the cyclotron, which was constructed in 2013 and is housed at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI). The cyclotron produces radionuclides that are supplied to South Australian and interstate medical imaging facilities to aid in the identification and assessment of cancers and heart disease. Other radionuclides produced at the facility are used for the treatment of patients as part of nuclear medicine therapies.

SAHMRI also uses the cyclotron to develop radioactive traces that have shown promise in neurology for the early detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. The legislation will also support the safe construction of a proton therapy unit in South Australia, likely to be operational by 2022. This technology will be the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere and will greatly enhance cancer treatment options for South Australians as well as interstate patients. Currently, patients seeking this treatment need to go overseas.

These are excitements in nuclear technology and it is critical that our legislation is modern and agile to ensure that new technology is able to be adopted quickly and safely and that, more generally, the community remains protected from unnecessary radiation exposure. Again, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading debate.

Bill read a second time.