Radiation Protection And Control (Licences And Registration) Amendment Bill

This speech is to indicate support for the Radiation Protection And Control (Licences And Registration) Amendment Bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:58): I rise to indicate support for this bill, which is really a technical tidying up as a necessary consequential amendment arising from unintended consequences of the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Act, which may have the unintended consequence of permitting unintended persons to lawfully handle radioactive substances and not to require new premises which handle radioactive substances to be licensed.

My understanding is that, currently, veterinarians, dentists, laboratories, and radiographers, as individuals or through their organisation, having responsibility for radioactive materials and/or machines require a licence to handle or to have radioactive substances on their premises. I understand that the mining industry falls under a separate regime, which is section 24 of the act, in which an operation is licensed, thereby authorising all properly trained employees under its umbrella.

This bill deletes sections 22(2)(a) and 29(3)(a) of the act, which provide the unintended exemptions from the requirement to be registered as either a person or a premise licensed to handle radioactive substances. I was advised in the briefing that industry is being consulted through ARPANSA's National Directory for Radiation Protection, which provides guidelines for state-based regulation training and so forth. We did have some discussion in the briefing as to the setting of the licence fees, which I understand is still in train. For the record, I would request that the government provide more details about the status of that process. It was talking about a licence fee for individuals of $75 plus a $75 application fee, which would vary depending on the number of machines.

A list of all of the classes of individuals and premises would also be appreciated because one of the concerns of honourable members on this side of the house is that we are not unnecessarily charging people additional fees which are beyond reasonable. With those comments, I support the bill.