HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Radiation Protection and Control Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (11:44): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to control activities involving radiation sources and to provide for the protection of people and the environment from the effects of radiation, to make related amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1993, to repeal the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982, and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (11:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Radioactive substances are widely used and handled across a number of industries, including industrial processing, mining and petroleum operations, medical and health care, and research and educational facilities. South Australia is one of only two jurisdictions in Australia where uranium mining takes place and uranium is an essential contributor to the state economy. It is, therefore, essential that modern and effective legislation covers mining and all other aspects of radiation use.

In South Australia, the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 regulates activities involving radiation sources and provides for the protection of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. This includes providing for the licensing of certain activities and registration of certain items and premises which involve radiation sources. Parties that are regulated under the legislation include hospitals, dentists, veterinarians, soil analysis companies, mining companies, radiographers, radiologists and ports.

Despite the importance of this legislation, it has not undergone substantial revision since its commencement in 1982. As a result, many of the standard administrative and enforcement provisions are outdated. The new act proposed in this bill will modernise radiation protection regulation in South Australia and will implement a progressive risk-based approach that builds on and improves the current system. It will reduce administrative burdens on small business through the streamlining of licensing from the existing seven separate licence categories down to two licence categories: a radiation use licence and a radiation management licence.

In addition, registrations of equipment will be able to be included on radiation management licences providing a single document for businesses to manage their regulatory obligations, whereas the current system requires individual registration of equipment separate from licensing. The act currently contains no expiable offences and no head power to prescribe expiation fees for enforcement in the regulations.

As a result, enforcement of the act and regulations cannot take place without prosecution through the courts. This is an inefficient method for less serious offences under the act as it is time-consuming and expensive. Further, it does not provide an effective deterrent for recalcitrant licence holders who act in the knowledge that no expiation fee can be applied to them. Under the current provisions, such an offender must instead be notified when a breach may result in court proceedings and provided with an opportunity to correct their behaviour. If the prosecution does not proceed to court, the offender incurs no penalty and none of the costs incurred by the Environment Protection Authority in undertaking enforcement actions are recovered. The bill includes expiations for a number of offences and also for further expiable offences to be established via regulation.

The bill also provides for order making powers that can be utilised to obtain compliance without the need for costly court proceedings. Court proceedings are appropriate for significant offences and for applying a punishment as a deterrent to others, but achieving compliance on minor issues is much more straightforward with the use of orders. The review of administrative decisions in the current act is upon application to the Supreme Court. Thankfully, we have come a long way since 1982 and now have a less burdensome and much more appropriate avenue for review of administrative decisions through the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The bill allocates jurisdiction for administrative appeals to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The act currently contains a series of specific offences set largely within the licensing and registration requirements and relating to unauthorised use or handling. These offences are necessary; however, they are more administrative in nature and are not linked to the harm or risk of harm that a breach of the act might present.

Inclusion of harm in regulatory schemes where there is a risk of harm to human health or the environment is necessary to provide a suitable deterrent. The application of harm provisions to the environment is reflected in the national directory's objective of radiation protection legislation that 'legislation must include the objective of protecting the health and safety of people and the environment'. Of the Australian states and territories, only South Australia and Western Australia do not currently have harm elements within radiation protection legislation.

The penalty framework proposed in the bill draws on the approach taken in the Work Health and Safety Act 2013 and the Environment Protection Act 1993. Part 5 of the bill provides new offences relating to causing radiation harm, with clause 50 relating to causing serious radiation harm and clause 51 relating to causing radiation harm. Radiation harm offences will provide a significant penalty in circumstances where an individual, a group of persons or the environment is harmed or likely to be harmed by exposure to quantities of radiation beyond those lawfully permitted by the remainder of the bill. These provisions do not apply to matters where the harm is considered trivial.

The maximum penalty for recklessly or intentionally causing serious radiation harm of $5 million for a body corporate and $1 million or 15 years' imprisonment for a natural person is the highest penalty that can be imposed by a sentencing court and must reflect the worst possible offence that could occur. In practise, it is extremely rare that the court imposes the maximum penalty and higher penalties are reserved for the most serious, repeated and aggravated contraventions.

The maximum penalties for the radiation harm offences have been set with consideration to the nature of the legislation, the particular offences they relate to and the precedent set by other comparable legislation. Of particular relevance, sections 8 and 9 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 have a similar maximum penalty to the offence of recklessly or intentionally causing serious radiation harm, being $5 million for a body corporate for the offences of construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility and importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility where the potential consequences, in the worst case scenario, are comparable.

In addition, national commitments have been made through the Australian Health Ministers' Conference and the Council of Australian Governments to implement a uniform national framework for radiation protection. To this end, the South Australian government is committed to amending the Act to implement the National Directory for Radiation Protection that Australian health ministers agreed to implement in 2004.

The national directory aims to provide nationally agreed and uniform requirements for the protection of people and the environment that meet international best practice and ensure the safety of radiation use. These relate to radiation protection principles, management requirements for radiation sources and provisions for the future adoption of documents forming part of the national directory.

In 2006, the Council of Australian Governments also agreed to a national chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security strategy to provide a framework to strengthen and enhance Australia's existing arrangements. This included the establishment of a national regulatory scheme for the storage, possession, use and transportation of certain radiological materials to minimise the risk of such materials being misused.

A significant component of carrying out the Council of Australian Governments' decision is the implementation of the Code of Practice for the Security of Radioactive Sources. The security code, as it is known, sets out the various security measures that must be undertaken to maintain the security of sealed radiation sources. These security requirements have been developed based on the likelihood of unauthorised access and the consequences of malicious use. The bill is vital to ensuring the ongoing security of our radioactive sources and modernising the regulatory framework in order to minimise the risk to the health and safety of our community. I commend the bill to members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Brown.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT