Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

Second Reading

[3.53 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Health and Human Services - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to bring this bill before the House. This bill is intended to replace the existing and somewhat outdated Radiation Control Act 1977. Tasmania has a long history of regulation of radiation with the first Radioactive Substances Act being passed by Parliament in 1954, more than 50 years ago.

In the second reading speech for the 1977 act, I see that one of the concerns of the time was the use of electromagnetic radiation waves in microwave ovens. Microwave ovens are of course now commonplace and are a good example of the safe and commonplace use of radiation in our everyday lives.

The purpose and objective of this bill is to protect the people of Tasmania and our environment from the risks associated with exposure to sources of ionising and non-ionising radiation whilst recognising and utilising the beneficial uses of radiation. Ionising radiation occurs naturally in the environment. It is present in the air we breathe, the food and water we consume and even the ground we walk on. Ionising radiation is also artificially produced by man. It is applied for many beneficial uses particularly in health care settings for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

One of its most common uses is in X-ray units in our hospitals, veterinary clinics, and dental practices. It is used to treat cancers by irradiating malignant tissue. It is also used in conjunction with pharmaceuticals which are administered to patients in order to perform brain and bone scans in nuclear medicine. It is used by Tasmanian industries to improve the quality of products that we produce and as an investigative tool in research. For example it is used in our mining industry in industrial gauges and assessing boreholes for mineral exploration and by the university for research into nutrient uptake in plant species.

Ionising radiation has enough energy to ionise, that is remove electrons from the atoms of, the matter through which it passes. Accordingly, it can be quite dangerous if used inappropriately or incorrectly and may cause injury and harm to people and the environment. Non-ionising radiation generally has less potential to cause serious injury and harm. Similarly, it is also naturally occurring and may be artificially produced by man. It is found in things like sunlight, light from light globes in our homes and offices, power lines, radio waves, microwaves, and lasers. Probably the most common risk associated with the use of non-ionising radiation is when it is used in a very focused manner, as it can generate heat which may cause a large amount of damage in a short time, for example, Class IV lasers.

This new bill will provide a more modern system for ensuring radiation protection and safety which is consistent with national and international principles. This bill and the principles it embodies follows considerable consultation and discussion at both a State and national level.

A National Competition Policy review of radiation protection legislation was undertaken from August 2000 to May 2001. The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council - AHMAC - approved a final list of recommendations on 31 May 2002. Consultation with Tasmanian stakeholders was carried out during the NCP review process. The NCP review made 19 recommendations, one of which was that uniformity of legislation should be pursued through the development of a National Directory for Radiation Protection.

A national directory was prepared and approved by the Radiation Health Committee in May 2004 and was subsequently approved by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Committee in July 2004. The national directory sets out an agreed framework for radiation protection in Australia, together with uniform regulatory elements to be adopted by each jurisdiction. Subsequent to the national developments, a draft version of this Tasmanian bill was circulated to key stakeholders in September 2004. A revised bill, draft regulations and a regulatory impact statement, were then prepared and released for public consultation from 30 July to 22 August 2005.

Key features of the bill include:

· incorporation of a broad objective - to protect the health and safety of people and the environment;

· introduction of a duty on all persons who use, manufacture, possess, store, transport, install, service, repair, dispose or otherwise deal with a radiation source and to take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that people and the environment are not harmed;

· obligations on persons using radiation sources to ensure that people do not receive a dose of radiation that is higher than prescribed limits;

· comprehensive licensing, registration and accreditation provisions whereby persons involved in manufacturing, possessing, installing, servicing, repairing, using, storing, transporting, disposing or otherwise dealing with radiation sources are required to obtain an 'authority'. These include for example:

· a requirement to hold a licence for a radiation source;

· a requirement to register a place where a radiation source is used or stored; and

· a requirement to be properly accredited to test and certify a radiation source;

· applications for authorities are to be administered by the Director of Public Health;

· requirement for radiation practices to prepare a radiation management plan to provide information prescribed in the regulations;

· powers for the Director of Public Health to renew, suspend and cancel authorities and to deal with abandoned radiation sources;

· requirement for immediate notification to the Director of Public Health if a dangerous radiation incident occurs which may adversely affect a person or the environment because of the emission of radiation;

· provision to prohibit dealings with any banned radiation source;

· confidentiality provisions to restrict disclosure of information that would damage commercial activities or relate to a person's health and identity;

· continuation of the nine-member Radiation Advisory Council, to advise on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters;

· improvement of the existing frameworks to enable better compliance monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities;

· provision to exempt people, dealings and radiation sources where the threat of harm is negligible;

· establishment of a register of all persons holding an authority;

· requirement for an annual report to be prepared and tabled in Parliament; and

· increased maximum penalties for those that fail to comply with provisions in the bill.

In developing the bill, a comprehensive legislative package was prepared which included draft regulations. It is worth noting that the draft regulations provide further details about:

· exemptions from provisions of the bill where risks are low;

· competency and probity-based criteria for applicants seeking an authority;

· information to be included in radiation management plans such as the type of radiation source, equipment, quality assurance procedures, training, radiation safety officer details, emergency response plans, signage and record keeping;

· radiation dosage limits for operators and the public;

· storage, transport and disposal requirements;

· the ability to issue infringement notices for certain contraventions as an alternative to prosecution; and

· increases in fees to allow partial cost recovery of the administrative costs and controls associated with regulation of radiation activities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is an excellent example of Tasmania updating and improving legislation to better reflect and adopt nationally uniform radiation principles and best practices. This bill will provide us with a sound legislative framework to protect Tasmanians and our environment from risks posed by radiation whilst simultaneously enabling the responsible and safe use of radiation.

I am proud to be able to say that Tasmania is the first jurisdiction to prepare both a bill and draft regulations following the introduction of the National Directory. This I believe elevates Tasmania to the forefront of the responsible regulation of radiation in Australia.

Many people have invested much time and effort in development and drafting this bill and draft regulations. I wish to conclude by thanking the tireless efforts of the Director of Public Health, Dr Roscoe Taylor, his legal policy and health physics staff and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their devotion to the task.

I commend the bill to the House.

[4.03 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this Radiation Protection Bill, as I understand it, replaces the Radiation Control Act 1977 and the Radiation Control Regulations 1994, as indicated by the minister. A number of the points of contention have been raised with me, particularly on behalf of dentists on whom this is going to impact in terms of the fees and some of the 'administrivia' that is associated with that. Their concern is as much about what is in the regulations. Having said that, we are, as I understand it, having a cognate debate on the Radiation Protection Bill as presented by you and the regulations, so it would be appropriate that I at least raise some of the points of concern that have been raised with me.

Having said that, I also recognise that this bill - and the principles in it - embodies considerable consultation and discussion at the national level in particular and to that extent also consultation at the State level, in 2001 or thereabouts when the initial review was done nationally. However, from the dentists' point of view they feel as if they had only three weeks in which they had an opportunity to respond to this bill and to the set of regulations that we have before us now. Looking at the letters which you sent to them as part of that consultation process, it is quite clear that they basically had only three weeks to take on board what was included in this bill. In fact you wrote to them on 25 July 2005 and you wanted the information in by the 22nd. You might argue it is four weeks, but it was fairly tight.

You might argue that that was so because there had already been considerable discussion in 2001, except that a number of the dentists do not believe that adequate attention has been given to the particular issues that they raised, particularly in relation to two issues. One is that there are 320 dentists on whom this is potentially going to impact, and half of the clients that are picked up by this bill are dentists. There is no dentist on the board, no representative of the ADA or anyone else on the council, of which there are nine members.

I think that is a fairly important issue that they have raised. Here we have a major issue that is to be controlled by a council, of which there are nine members, whose terms you are continuing within this act. Yet, there is no recognition of the fact that one of the major groups upon whom this bill will impact, the dentists, is unable to have a say or a view because it is not represented.

The second major point of contention that they would raise is whether this is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. If we look at the potential of risk, there is a big difference between regulating a nuclear medicine centre, or even a nuclear plant, with which there are radiation and health and safety implications, and a dentist's X-ray, because a dental X-ray, it is argued, has minimal impact on the personal health of the user and the patients who have the benefit of the X-ray. You are now going to apply a fee to each machine that a dentist has, whereas before it was more to do with the place and the machines therein. Similarly there are to be requirements in relation to the design of the place where the X-ray facility is provided; there are no safety implications in requiring the place to have three-ply walls as compared to the two-ply walls. There is no evidence for arguing that that is required of a dental X-ray machine. I am raising the point right at the very beginning, Minister, because I am hoping that you will be able to respond to some of the concerns that they are raising.

I was looking at the table that I was provided with, of the annual photon doses to monitors worn by occupation-exposed personnel in 2004. If we look at the average dose in dermatology for radiotherapists and dermatologists, we find it is 84ufc. Now I do not claim to be an expert on that, but I am looking at a table and I am sure there are lots of advisers over there who know exactly what that particular reference is, but let us say it is a quantity of measurement in the terms that I am dealing with here. For a dermatology assistant, there is an average dose of 282. That is a relatively high figure, and one might argue that there may be some degree of risk that needs to be monitored in terms of the equipment that is being used in a place where imagers are being used.

In the hospital radiotherapy departments, radiation gynaecologists have an average dose of 157; therapy radiographers 228; those nursing patients with radioactive sources in situ 208, assistants 168, installation maintenance personnel 186. Of course the average potential dose that they might experience is much higher than that. The highest number I am looking at, at the moment, is the maximum potential dose to be experienced by a therapy radiographer - being 3 570.

In the private radiotherapy practice area, for radiotherapists and gynaecologists the average dose is 60, therapy radiographers is 94, and for those nursing patients with radioactive sources in situ, 111. Further, the table goes on, dealing with small hospitals, large hospitals and private radiological practices, nuclear medicine departments, private nuclear medicine practices and pathology. But an example of the average dose experienced by a radiologist in a small hospital is 321. Interestingly, the lowest level of average dose for any person that is listed here under small hospitals is three, and that is the receptionist, and you would hope the receptionist is some distance away from the X-ray machine and/or place in which it is operated. But ranging from the medical practitioner at 21 for an average dose, through to 45 for a medical specialist, they are relatively low compared to the figures that I have previously provided. The point I make in comparing these figures will be evident in just a moment.

In a large hospital, radiologists have an average dose of 108, medical specialists 114, installation and maintenance personnel, 867. The lowest levels of average dose that might be experienced was receptionists, interestingly, with a figure of 12. With medical practitioners, 39 was the lowest. In private radiological practices, the level experienced, apart from receptionists, which is quoted as being at a figure of eight, is between assistants at 185 through to medical practitioners at 39. In the nuclear medicine departments, for the nuclear medicine technologist the average dose is 1 749, which is relatively high potentially, and the lowest is the receptionist at 242. In a private nuclear medicine practice the highest figure is the nuclear medicine technologist at 2 313, the lowest figure being the nuclear medicine specialist at 951.

So then when I had a look at the average dose - we are talking about the annual photon doses to monitors worn by occupationally-exposed personnel - the 2004 figure for dentists in a dental hospital was 13, with receptionists at two, significantly below that which is indicated for all other professionals working within those settings, predominantly hospital settings and specialist areas such as private nuclear medicine practices and government nuclear medicine practices. In private practice for dentists the figure is 12 for an average dose, assistants 14, and receptionists three. For the government service, dentists eight, assistants eight and receptionists four. For the school dental service, interestingly, there is a higher figure for the installation and maintenance personnel, at 105.

My point is that these figures show that the danger associated with the use of X-rays within the field of dentistry is quite minimal compared to other contexts within which X-ray machines are used, in terms of the impact on both the user and the client. I am quite willing to accept that those who are involved in the installation and maintenance certainly would need to be registered and to be provided with full certification. That would be very sensible. The point being made by dentists is that -

Mr Llewellyn - But you missed the point of the bill.

Mrs NAPIER - The point that I want to find out from you, Minister, is whether you are going to exempt dentists from being covered by this. That is what I want to ask.

Mr Llewellyn - No.

Mrs NAPIER - Why would you not transfer the responsibility of that over to the Australian Dental Association, who already have investigative officers? If you are not willing to do that, I will also ask why you are asking for annual checks on equipment when dentists, if they even monitor some variation, would immediately bring in a technician to find out exactly what is occurring. Mrs Jackson is laughing -

Mrs Jackson - Yes, because I've heard this all before.

Mrs NAPIER - I am quite sure she would not be doing that at that expense of dentists because she would know that they are highly responsible professionals who know that any variation in the readings of their machines would need to be immediately taken into account, let alone the impact it might have on their insurance.

I am interested in exactly how you see dentists being covered by this because there is considerable concern at the significant increase in fees that would appear to be imposed within this bill. I am raising these first up so that you can answer them, Minister, because they are particular points of concern. This is particularly for those dentists who provide the after-hours and emergency services, at least in the north where they have multiple X-ray facilities and multiple dentists - or they try to. They might have anything up to nine X-ray facilities, because their aim is to have that number of dentists, but currently they are operating with three. So they may well be operating for quite some time with a low number of dentists and a low rate of return for services, yet they are having to pay for the checks that you are requiring under this bill for that equipment and for the place in which they are to be found. There is no problem with the concept of management plans, although one might argue that they would need to do that as part of their quality control system.

The concern that is raised is that the main change that you have made in this bill is to try to build in a user-pays method. The activities that are required under this legislation and that are to be under the control of the council - basically those registration database activities that are required and certification of installation and maintenance personnel and manufacturers and so on - are to be covered by a user-pays system. The concern that is coming from dentists in particular is that they believe they are paying far too much for the bill relative to risk. They would argue that the level of risk from the X-ray machines that are used by dentists is quite minimal, and I just read through those average figures to demonstrate that point. However, the level of certification and checks that you require under this bill are greater than under the previous bill. The fees that you are to charge are excessive relative to the risk that is posed by the X-ray machines that are being used. In fact, the dental fraternity will be subsidising the operation of the council relative to the services that need to be provided for other users. In a nutshell, that is the particular concern, apart from the fact that a number of people who responded to me said, 'This is just a bureaucratic nightmare. Next thing you'll be wanting to check up on my equipment within the dental setting'.

That is just putting in a nutshell the particular concerns that have come forward. Beyond that, I accept that this is coming from a national level. It has included an NCP review of radiation protection legislation - August 2000 to May 2001. It has been through the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, which approved a final list of recommendations on 30 May 2002, with one of the NCP recommendations being uniformity of legislation. I note, Minister, that you are first to introduce this - and I will be very interested to see whether this ends up being uniform legislation. Tasmania has been caught in that before. I remember when this State made important reforms in relation to gun laws, except that Tasmania went a step further than most other States so it really was not uniform legislation that went through. So, Minister, once again Tasmania is going in first without really knowing what the other States are committing to. It would be very interesting, I suppose, in hindsight to just see whether in fact all other States adhere to the recommendations that have been directed through the national directory of radiation protection that has been created.

I note that the national directory was approved by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council. Therefore, Minister, I presume that you have had ongoing input, as much as the previous minister might initially have had input into the framework that influences this bill. The national directory does set out that agreed framework for radiation protection in Australia, together with uniform regulatory elements to be adopted by each jurisdiction.

I am very supportive that we provide safe frameworks within which both ionising and non-ionising radiation can be used safely within our Australian community. If I recall, back in 1997 this bill was debated in the context of microwaves, and the safety debate -

Mrs Jackson - 1977.

Mrs NAPIER - 1977 - yes, that would be more accurate. Quite right.

Mrs Jackson - I think so.

Mrs NAPIER - In 1977, the debate we had was about microwaves. It was before my time, but I just remember in my notes seeing a reference to microwaves. In fact I am really interested, Minister, as to how you see microwaves sitting in this bit of legislation.

Certainly the objective of the bill is to protect people in Tasmania, and the environment, from the risks associated with exposure to sources of radiation whilst recognising and enabling access to the beneficial uses of radiation. In fact some really exciting technologies have now emerged. You just have to look, I suppose, at the significant improvements that have been made in chemotherapy and radiation therapies as a way of assisting people to recuperate, particularly from cancer. Some friends of mine are currently going through that fairly traumatic experience. It is just amazing, Minister, how localised now radiation therapy can be in trying to minimise the tumour and hopefully save lives.

I accept that there are varying degrees of risk. My argument right at the very beginning of course was, when we look at risk, it is a question of how much risk might be used by which you determine that an exemption might be provided relative to the cost impost that might be made. The argument is that the cost impact upon the patient in the NCP analysis is inadequate. Whilst it might be fairly accurate for a one-person operation, it is not accurate for larger operations where there have been an increase in the number of X-ray machines to ensure that dentists do not have to juggle their patients to get access to X-ray facilities.

Only the larger operations can afford to duplicate that equipment. Duplication of equipment of course that would be an advantage to Tasmania in that you have private dentists who are trying to attract more dentists into Tasmania, and particularly young dentists who need the support. The only way you will get dentists into Tasmania, as you well know, Minister, is to provide them with the facilities, the clinic and the setting, and say, 'Go to work'.

Mr Llewellyn - We got some the other day.

Mrs NAPIER - You are also aware that, if we are to encourage the private sector to be involved in supporting year 5 dentists who are now coming from the very good arrangement that has been established between the universities of Tasmania and South Australia to increase the number of dentists, they need facilities. They need the settings and you cannot do it with a one-dentist private operation. It has to be a multi-dentist operation. One of the things that this bill does is to place additional significant costs upon those multiple settings as compared to the single-dentist setting.

Mrs Jackson - Somebody has got to you, Sue.

Mrs NAPIER - They still have to be able to cover their costs and get a return. They are saying to me that the concern will be that if you -

Mrs Jackson - $600.

Mrs NAPIER - You say $600, and that is right. Potentially there is at least one dental practice that is going to be looking at that but the issue is they have only three dentists to cover that.

Mrs Jackson - No, I said it cost me $600 the other day.

Mrs NAPIER - Okay. Well one dentist is going to be up for $600 associated with the monitoring of the number of machines that they have at their centre. They only have three dentists at this moment -

Mrs Jackson - So $200 a year.

Mrs NAPIER - because it is almost impossible to attract and keep dentists.

Mrs Jackson - I hope their machines are safe.

Mrs NAPIER - Sometimes they get up to the five. The aim is to get up to seven or nine. They are saying that the cost could be redirected to patients, and some of it will be. Some of those machines may well be sold because it is not cost effective to return them and that means you reduce the number of dentists potentially who might be attracted.

Mrs Jackson - Come on, Sue, you will believe anything.

Mrs NAPIER - This side of the House has some understanding of the private sector -

Mrs Jackson - You have no understanding.

Mrs NAPIER - You understand the public sector.

Mrs Jackson - I understand that dentists do quite well.

Mrs NAPIER - If you want to continue this debate, Minister, I am quite happy for you to do that but can I suggest that you allow me to -

Mrs Jackson - You believe anything anyone tells you.

Mrs NAPIER - This side of the House has an appreciation of the fact that you only have 25 dentists per 100 000 people here in Tasmania, and the national average, as you well know, Minister, is 46.9 and even that is low. We desperately need to find ways by which the State Government can cooperate with the private sector and try to increase the number within the public sector to ensure that Tasmanians can get access to dentistry.

This side of the House has presented a number of initiatives by which we think you can get your waiting lists down and increase access to dentists for Tasmanians. We have a short-term plan and a longer term plan. It is not just about fiddling around with one or two dentists here and there. This is not the point of the debate at this stage unless I am interjected upon again, which would cause me to go into detail about the policies on that.

The sticking points, as I said, of this Radiation Protection Bill are some of the additional processes that have been built in, particularly if they apply in the regulations. There is an excessive impact on the private dental sector. One of the consequences of this might well be the discouragement of larger dentists to provide after-hours and emergency service on the weekends. If that is not made available, Minister, they are going to be calling on your accident and emergency department. That is where they are going to go and you do not really need that. The NCP analysis does not look at the financial impact on access to dentistry given the shortage of dentists in Tasmania, nor does it look at the impact upon your accident and emergency services if there is a reduction in after-hours and weekend surgery. It does not look at the impact that this bill is likely to have on the capacity of multiple private dentists to actively encourage and attract new young dentists into Tasmania. I could not see any evidence of a discussion about the implications of this bill upon that area.

I just put on the record that the important issues concern the exemptions from provisions of the bill where the risk is low, the fees which must be paid by holders or authorities, the method by which you determined the radiation dosage limits for operators and the public, particularly from the minimal level, and also the competency and probity-based criteria that are going to be used for applicants seeking an authority.

One of the issues that the NCP study is silent on is the extent to which you expect that there will be third-party recognition. If you are not going to require annual checking then how often does it have to be checked? Will you accredit people who are already providing that service? Is it the case that all they need to do is provide certification that is then directed towards the council, which just keeps a database of that?

I have attempted to wade my way through the regulatory impact statement of July 2005, which is quite a considerable document in itself, the Radiation Protection Regulations 2005, the bill and your own notes. A few trees have been cut down in order to provide all of that documentation. I do not pretend to be an expert in this at all but I do need to understand how this certification and assessment process is to proceed. If you do not agree with what dentists are saying to me, then what is your response to the concerns that they are expressing? Why do you not believe that it will impact on the capacity of the private dental sector to retain and/or grow the number of people who are providing private dental services within Tasmania? If you can come up with a good explanation as to why I and they are wrong, I am happy to hear those arguments.

From the point of view of the bill itself, you cannot disagree with the elements therein. What I am concerned about, though, as I indicated right from the beginning, are the regulations. The devil is in the detail in terms of how the assessment and accreditation is to be done. Is it to be done by government employees or is to be done by accredited other persons? I cannot see why, if it is to be done by third-party recognition, the council officer would need to be involved in recording that for a relatively small number of dentists. You seem to be suggesting in the analyses, or the NCP certainly suggests, that it is going to cost some $100 000 to operate this in terms of the way in which the fees might be levied. I could not see why that would be required for the relatively small number of dentists who might be involved in this system if all you are doing is ensuring that certification has been received from people who are authorised to do the check as a consequence of having done maintenance or an annual check. There might be a simple explanation of that, Minister, and if there is I would be very happy to hear it.

I would also be interested to know how the fee for radiotherapy practices, nuclear medicine diagnostic services, and even nuclear installations - as it might be relevant - was determined. I know it is a more expensive fee than the dentist fee might be, but the difficulty I see is that this bill is trying to deal with dentists' X-ray procedures, which are relatively safe or present minimal risk and also the understandably much higher levels of risk that might potentially be involved -

Mr Llewellyn - That is where you're wrong.

Mrs NAPIER - You can tell me that, Minister, because I have tried to read the documentation that has been provided here -

Mr Llewellyn - You told me that before, but you won't stop to let me have a go.

Mrs NAPIER - Minister, you should not be grumpy straight after lunch.

Mr Llewellyn - I'm not grumpy. I'm very happy.

Members laughing .

Mrs NAPIER - Since when should a Minister for Health look happy, with the figures that you have? But the reality is that currently dentists pay $57 for a radiation tax for the premises, and under the regulations it will be $160 if you have one X-ray machine and $540 if you have four. That is a significant increase on what they are currently paying.

So, beyond that, you cannot disagree with the bill itself, in terms of the safety parameters, and that is why I went into detail first, with the particular points of concern that are being raised as they apply to dentists and those who use machinery that is of minimal risk to both the users and the patients. If you recall also, Minister, I raised the point about the council. Why are you just carrying on with the council if in fact the point can well be made that the ADA is not represented on that council? At least half, if not more, of the operations that are going to be affected by this are of dentists, and one would have thought that dentists have a reasonable expectation that there would always be a representative of that profession on such a board that has such a potentially significant influence on the operations of that council.

The other point that was made - and I think it was a reasonable question to raise - is that a 60-page regulatory impact statement was done in July 2005. It goes into tremendous detail about the regulations that might be required. There does not appear to me to have been any analysis of the operational effectiveness of the council itself and the way in which it operates, and in fact whether there might have been a better way by which costs could have been reined in to ensure that this service was provided where there is potential for risk. It seems to me that that is where they are raising the question of the extent to which this might just be a recognition of certification, or whether it is actually going to require that people in effect be employed by the State. I do not think your bill suggests that and I do not think the regulations suggest that, although you might clarify that for me, because it seems to me quite logical that you would certify other persons who, by the nature of their trade, were involved in maintaining, installing and checking that kind of equipment. If it has not been done that way, then I would have thought that consideration should have been given to that, and at least some analysis made of the operation of the council and whether or not it could not have reduced the costs that are being applied to the customer. In the end it is not only the dentists per se that you are talking about. It is also about the clients who rely upon the services of the dentists. You will note that I have not pointed to any criticism on this matter coming from public hospitals, because they are not allowed to talk to me unless it goes through your office and even then you do not allow them to talk to me. I think that is counter-productive.

Mr Llewellyn - Not allowed to talk to them? You talk to them.

Mrs Napier - That is not what they tell me, Minister, when I ring them up to try to get a quick solution to an obvious problem.

Mr Llewellyn - Well, they probably don't like speaking to you; they use it as an excuse.

Mrs Napier - I do not think that will wash, Minister. They basically have been told, 'Don't talk to Mrs Napier; don't talk to anyone, go through the minister's office'. That is why you end up getting so much correspondence, because we cannot come up with simple solutions which we could have brought about with a quick phone call and a message to get a solution to an issue.

In terms of photon doses, in the areas of dermatology, hospital radiotherapy, private radiotherapy, the operations in small hospitals, large hospitals, nuclear medicine departments, private nuclear medicine departments, there is no question that we need to take every step to ensure that risks are minimised because of the potential impact that radiation may have upon clients and users, and installers.

The figures just do not hold up for dentists, and that is why I cannot see why we seem to have lumped them into the one. Beyond that, we will support the bill, but I have put on the record the concerns that we have that might need to be really closely looked at in the context of the regulations.

From the point of view of the regulations, Minister, I am asking for a clarification. Have the regulations been through the process yet?

Mr Llewellyn -They have been drafted.

Mrs NAPIER - They are drafted, and they are yet to go forward. Okay, which is why I am now putting it on the record that these are my concerns which, hopefully, that committee can take into account when they consider those regulations.

[4.42 p.m.]

Mr MORRIS (Lyons) - The Greens support the bill. We believe very strongly that there is a very necessary requirement to protect the community through appropriate State legislation to regulate and control all issues to do with radiation, including having exemptions for very minor areas. It is not my intention today to delve hugely into the dental area, as that I think has been covered quite well for the member for Bass, Mrs Napier.

Firstly, thank you very much to those who gave me a briefing last evening on this bill. That was not a moment too soon as it turned out, and it was very thorough and very good. I did, however, pass on to them some comments about how I think the process of educating members of the Opposition about what is going on in forthcoming legislation could be improved, but I do not need to go on about that here.

I think the process here is interesting in that it has taken so long; this process started with the NCP Review in 2000-01. It is not surprising that I did not know about that. I was not even thinking about the House of Assembly here in 2001, so no wonder I did not notice that this was happening. I did see the draft of the bill. I did know that there was a draft of the bill around some 12 months ago, so that gave me an inkling that something was going on. I must say the fact that that was made public in, I believe, September last year or thereabouts is excellent, providing time for people to think about and comment on these issues. However that is about where it stops because when we get to the regulatory impact statement, which really is probably the most significant document that has been produced for this process, we find there was only three weeks for public comment. That is far too little.

There were 100-odd pages of document and three weeks to comment on it. It goes to significantly technical matters. Given the time scale that this has been developed over, three weeks for public comment on the regulatory impact statement is insufficient. Anyway, I think I have said these things before. I think it would actually be a very good thing if there was an explicit timetable laid out by which the Government of the day - and it does not matter of which flavour - made a clear commitment to providing times for consultation. I would have thought that this would be a relatively complex document and therefore would probably want a minimum of two months to receive considered feedback. Also it would need to have quite a reasonable degree of advertising, not just slipping it in the paper one Saturday or whacking it in the bottom left-hand corner of the web site and saying goodbye. It needs to be much more broadly advised than that. But not to worry, we have it all the same and we do support the legislation.

One of the points I would like to start off with of course is that we are dealing with and commenting on the regulations as we go along. Let me start from the RIS, and it says here on page 4:

'In accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1992 it has assessed that the draft regulations do not impose a significant cost, burden or disadvantage on any sector of the public and therefore do not require the preparation of an RIS.'

And that is in relation to significant negative impact on business.

I, too, have been approached by a dentist in this State who up until now has been paying $57 a year since the latest rise from, I think, $55 or $56. He is now paying a whole $57 a year for the licensing of the radiation source machines within his business and he advises that that is now rising to $1 500. Whilst in the scheme of things we could have a debate over whether that is significant or not in percentage terms, I cannot see how anyone can describe the accumulated impact of the new fee arrangements that are proposed under the regulations to be other than significant. I think that the Government should consider at least having some stepping arrangements whereby, if it is true that the fees that the dentist is going to pay are to increase from $50 to $1 500 a year or thereabouts, that should be spread over a period of four to five years so that the impact is less significant. I would almost like to suggest that it is probably even a bit rough to increase the fees by 100 per cent a year for the next five years. You could do that for a couple of years and you would get there. But a 100 per cent fee increase in a year for more than one year would be significant. I think that that is something that does need to be considered. I accept the principle of changing the fee structure from having one licence for one premises or set of machines to moving over to having the machines dealt with individually. I think that is a reasonable proposition, however I think it is a bit rough to whack on all that fee change in one go.

The next point that I am really interested in is the Radiation Advisory Council. I am interested to know how much work they have to do. They are a nine-member panel and, as we know, the Australian Dentists Association is not represented on that panel at present, although I believe they have an opportunity to comment. It obviously costs quite a lot of money to keep the Radiation Advisory Council going and that will now be based on a fee-recovery process. Indeed, recommendation 18 in the regulatory impact statement says:

'Jurisdictions should recover the cost of their regulatory oversight from licensing and registration fees, except for activities of the regulatory authorities that are of public good nature.'

Whatever that might mean. Obviously dentistry is not one of those, bizarrely enough.

We have a situation now where the fees are intended to cover the costs of providing the service. It is not a principle that I am generally opposed to, although of course there is need for some exemptions.

I guess of more interest to me when I look at this bill closely is that it appears that finally we have proper regulation of a matter that is quite dear to the heart of the Greens, and that is trying to provide some protection for the community from floating nuclear reactors.

Mr Llewellyn - We're not going to expand the argument into that.

Mr MORRIS - Well, it appears from my reading that you have indeed provided it at last and that is good to see. Indeed, if you are not going to regulate floating nuclear reactors and associated material, then I would ask you to explain why. I cannot see under the exemptions - and I might even read the exemptions for you -

Mr McKim - Don't worry. We've got your policy here, too, Minister - your Labor Party policy, ratified last month.

Mr Llewellyn - Is it?

Mr MORRIS - And a mighty fine policy it is too. Before I go to the exemptions, perhaps I could read out your very fine policy, although it could be a bit firmer. I will read the whole lot:

'7.5.1 Nuclear Weapons

Labor believes that Australia should not be used to facilitate the global strategy of nuclear weapons. In accordance with these goals, Labor supports the concept of a nuclear-free South Pacific.

The Tasmanian branch believes that the Australian Government should take no active part in the development or use of nuclear weapons.'

We agree, Minister. Then there is 7.5.2 concerning nuclear-powered vessels:

'Pending resolution of concerns raised in the environment policy and bearing in mind the uncertainties and potential dangers of nuclear power, Labor opposes visits to Australian ports of nuclear-powered ships.'

Oh, really?

'Accordingly, visits of naval or air forces which are likely to be armed with nuclear weapons are opposed by the Tasmanian branch of the ALP.'

Very good policy-making. You have obviously been hard at work. That is great to see. Of course, given that the odd one may slip through the policy net of the ALP, you do now have a process by which we can be reasonably assured that they will be well regulated. According to this, we have, under part 10 of the regulations, exemptions for servicing radiation apparatus; exemptions for small quantities of radioactive material; exemptions for certain large quantities which, when I looked it up, was very low-dose, very low levels; exemptions for excepted packages - it could slip through that one; exemptions for transport of radiation apparatus - perhaps they might get through on that one, but I do not think so; exemptions for certain radiation apparatus - again, I do not think so; exemptions for non-ionising radiation sources; exemptions for smoke alarms - that is one I would like to come back to shortly.

Mr Llewellyn - Smoke alarms?

Mr MORRIS - Yes. I do not think they will get through there. On it goes for about another 10 or 12 pages through to battery-powered X-ray units and the like and exemptions for students and trainees. Anyway, it does seem that at last there will be a requirement for ships, both those carrying radiation devices and those that are nuclear-powered, to provide management plans. That is a great move, minister. We approve of that.

Mr Llewellyn laughing.

Mr MORRIS - Indeed, let me come back to the very principles on which this bill is based, and in fact I think I can even refer to principles for a regulatory framework. This is from the regulatory impact statement of July 2005:

'The regulatory frameworks in each Australian jurisdiction must' -

and we have a definition of 'must' -

'follow the principles and requirements below to ensure that the objective of the legislation is met:

(a) Radiation protection principles, including justification of practices to ensure that the benefits outweigh the detriment, limitation of radiation doses (see Schedule 1) to individuals from all practices, and optimisation of protection and safety so that individual doses, the number of people exposed and the likelihood of exposure' -

which is the important bit -

'are all kept as low as is reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account.'

It goes on:

'The policy objective of the bill is to better protect the people of Tasmania and our environment from the risks associated with exposure to sources of radiation, whilst recognising and enabling access to the beneficial uses of radiation.'

Now, Minister, if you could convince me that blowing things up is a beneficial use of radiation then I will be very surprised. It could indeed end up being a long debate. It goes on:

'The new legislation provides:

an overarching objective - to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from harmful radiation.'

Very good. It also imposes:

'a duty on all those who use, manufacture, possess, store, transport, install, service, repair, dispose or otherwise deal with radiation to take all reasonable steps to ensure their actions do not result in harm'.

Terrific stuff, Minister - absolutely terrific. No wonder you are happy today, you have some good legislation -

Mr Llewellyn - That's right.

Mr MORRIS - and it is very pleasing to see.

Mr Llewellyn - Absolutely.

Mr MORRIS - It further goes on:

'Obligations on persons using radiation sources to ensure that other persons do not receive a dose of radiation that is higher than prescribed limits'

Then, of course, there is a requirement to notify the Director of Public Health if a radiation incident or dangerous event occurs which may adversely effect a person or the environment to enable appropriate action. Then it goes on talking about the schedule 1 radiation dose limits.

Finally, we are pleased to see that the bill does require an applicant seeking to possess a radiation source to submit with their application a radiation management plan. This is something that we have long asked for so we are pleased to see that that will happen.

Minister, if you are telling me that there is an exemption for floating radiation -

Mr Llewellyn - What I am telling you is it has nothing to do with nuclear warships or nuclear arms.

Mr MORRIS - In that case I would ask you to tell me how, because there is nothing that I can find. Perhaps you could point me to the section within one of the documents - the bill, the regulations, the regulatory impact statement, the NCP principles or any of the other documents that are associated with this - that gives exemption to floating sources of radiation. With that I will move on to the next point.

Mr Llewellyn - Trees.

Mr MORRIS - I am struggling with the trees I have in front of me, I can tell you.

Again, another thing that I am very pleased to see in here is that section 81 of the bill requires an annual report to be tabled in each house of the Parliament - a good and sensible thing. Further, it states in here that the regulations will expire after 10 years so therefore they will have to be reviewed within that period of time. Again, very sound measures.

Given that this bill is replacing a bill that is primarily dating from 1977, it is probably a little overdue. But be that as it may, this legislation is most welcome and I can indicate that we will be strongly supporting it.

[5.03 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Deputy Premier) - I thank the House for supporting the legislation.

In the second reading speech I thanked those people who had prepared this legislation because I think they have gone to considerable lengths over a long period of time to consult and develop contemporary radiation legislation for Tasmania, based on a national approach and a national model which, hopefully, the other States will pick up because it is based on that template approach.

At the same time they also have a draft set of regulations which has been promulgated and people have been able to look at. There has been some discussion about fees; that is one thing that obviously is in the regulations and there are still discussions going on about it. Mrs Napier spent a heck of a long time talking about radiation dosages, those that could be expected for various workers within the health industry and the like. I tried to say to her on a couple of occasions that really the legislation is about the machines, not the people. It is about regulating the proper use and efficiency, and checking the ability, of the machine that is producing the radiation to perform correctly. If it is performing incorrectly, if it is emitting larger doses of radiation than it ought to, then people are going to be affected.

Mrs Napier - Calibration of X-ray machines in dentists will show that up straightaway with the imaging.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Well, not necessarily.

Mrs Napier - That's what the dentists tell me.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Well, dentists, with respect, are not experts in this particular area either. They use the machines.

Mrs Napier - You don't reckon they know what they're talking about; is that right?

Mr LLEWELLYN - I did not say that.

Mrs Napier - You just did.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Expertise with respect to radiation is not necessarily held by dentists, and that is another reason why dentists do not need to be on the council, frankly. You need experts on the council who know about radiation, not about how to pull teeth or how to look after teeth. Sure, dentists use a form of ionised radiation with regard to their X-ray machines, and providing they are using them proficiently and properly then really that is all that matters. That is in fact what checking these machines is all about; it's not about checking the dentists. I think a whole lot of the discussion that the member for Bass went on with was quite irrelevant in that sense.

Mrs Napier - You're saying that the stuff that the ADA and the dental fraternity gave to me on this matter isn't relevant? Is that what you're saying?

Mr LLEWELLYN - The dental fraternity are concerned because they will have to have licensed equipment and they will have to pay some money annually in order to make sure that that equipment is performing correctly.

Mrs Napier - They reckon a lot of the requirements under this are based on old-fashioned X-ray machines and technologies.

Mr LLEWELLYN - That are performing correctly -

Mrs Napier - They're out of date.

Mr LLEWELLYN - They are concerned that it might cost them a dollar in regard to that licensing procedure. They are objecting to the fact that they have been asked to contribute on the user-pay basis, albeit I do not think it completely cover the costs of the service, by any means. That is the concern of the dentists and the dental council. Some dentists do have, I understand, a large number of machines operating within their practice. Some of the issues within the regulations may be able to resolve that question. I think it has been factored into the fee schedules that if there are multiple machines and so on then the actual cost is less.

Mrs Napier - Not by much.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Well, again they are issues that are still able to be negotiated in the regulations if there is a need to do that.

Mr Morris - Pleased to hear that.

Mr LLEWELLYN - We obviously have to have contemporary legislation to deal with the use of more-sophisticated equipment, electronic equipment, equipment that produces ionised and non-ionised radiation, whether they be X-ray machines or microwave ovens in those two cases I mentioned. We can ensure that the population is protected from a safety point of view - all those things are good objectives. The legislation itself is based on a national model. Sure, we are the first State to introduce the specific legislation. Again, it is an issue for National Competition Policy as well. It was an obligation that we agreed to some time ago in the early 1990s.

I think those matters that the member for Bass raised are not related to individuals or to the dosages that various people receive but rather to incorrectly operating machines or leakage of radiation that might be occurring in a particular apparatus. That is the purpose of checking these, making sure that machines are regularly kept up to standard and so on.

The member for Lyons drew a very long bow associated with nuclear ships and nuclear weapons and so on. That is a responsibility of the Federal Government and this legislation by no means changes the -

Mr McKim - My word it does. You tell us which part of this legislation exempts nuclear vessels from the provisions in the bill. We will go through the clauses one by one and find out if you like.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Okay, we will be here a fair while, then, by the looks of things because there are a fair number of clauses.

Mr McKim - Just answer the question. Which part of the bill exempts nuclear vessels?

Mr LLEWELLYN - Mr Deputy Speaker, I made a statement in regard to it and it is certainly not the policy of this Government to change our current policy.

Mr McKim - It is the policy of your party.

Mr LLEWELLYN - It is a national imperative and in fact the party policy is a national policy, not the Tasmanian branch policy.

Mr McKim - No, this is Tasmanian ALP policy. That is the party you are supposed to represent in Parliament, Minister.

Mrs Napier - We want a guarantee it excludes radiation ships.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LLEWELLYN - So you do not like nuclear warships coming into Tasmania, then?

Mrs Napier - I said the opposite. We want a guarantee that it does exclude nuclear warships.

Mr McKim - And you want to know where it says it.

Mrs Napier - And where does it? Make sure you haven't mucked it up. Well, which one?

Mr LLEWELLYN - I am saying to you that this legislation is not intended to prevent nuclear warships coming into Tasmania -

Mrs Napier - Not intended, but how does it?

Mr LLEWELLYN - and it is not going to be applied in that particular way. I said that in the second reading speech.

Mr McKim - Where does it say that in the bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. I will just remind members that I am displaying a fair degree of flexibility here to allow the Deputy Premier to respond.

Mr McKim - It doesn't say it. You can't just get up on your second reading and say -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. Member for Franklin, I would just ask you to refrain from interjecting. There are due processes open to you to explore matters further in the bill and I ask that you let the Deputy Premier respond to the second reading.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether or not the contribution the member for Lyons made with regard to the points the member for Bass, Mrs Napier, made about dentists is any more relevant than when raised by the member for Bass. I think I have answered those points. However, I do appreciate the support of all members of the Parliament for the legislation itself.

Mr McKim - The Liberal Party might withdraw their support if you can't satisfy them.

Mrs Napier - Ships aren't caught up in this so -

Mr McKim - Where does it say that?

Mr LLEWELLYN - Maybe the member is going to change her mind but I am assuming that the Parliament itself supports this legislation. That is certainly what they said when they made their contributions.

Mrs Napier - It doesn't mean that we are not going to make sure you have that covered.

Mr LLEWELLYN - I have indicated that the bill that we have in front of us is certainly not designed to deal with that particular issue. It is an issue that is a matter for the Federal Government and always has been.

Bill read the second time.