Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Amendment (3)?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The amendment requires that all body scanning equipment be tested for compliance with health standards prescribed by regulations. That might sound reasonable enough on the surface of it and it should apply to health regulations. The amendment in fact is redundant, because that is exactly what this bill does: all screening equipment used in Australian airports must of course comply with Commonwealth and state and territory laws and regulations.

ARPANSA, the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have each given consideration to the introduction of the millimetre-wave body scanners. The only health related regulation that applies to the use of these devices is the ARPANSA standard 'Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields—3 kHz to 300 gHz'. This is the amount of energy that is emitted by the millimetre-wave body scanner during a scan, which of course I might remind senators is thousands of times lower than the maximum permissible exposure level for the public, which is outlined in the ARPANSA standard itself. So it is simply unnecessary to replicate in the Aviation Transport Security Act a requirement to meet the standard that already exists.

I wish to turn to the additional matter that is being raised through these amendments—that is amendment (2)(3AB), the particular types of technology that are being sought to be deployed. This amendment would seek to limit the use of ionising backscatter X-ray equipment for security screening to certain, clearly defined and exceptional circumstances. The government's view on this matter is that we can assure members of this chamber that the government has no intention of introducing body scanners that use ionising X-ray technology for aviation security screening.

The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, in any event, is not the appropriate place for regulations of this type on the use of radiation technology. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 exists to protect the health and safety of people from the harmful effects of radiation. The Australian Radiation and Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency is charged with the responsibility of administering that act. Furthermore, each state and territory has its own legislation with regard to radiation protection so that any equipment that uses ionising radiation must be licensed for operation by either ARPANSA or the appropriate state and territory radiation authority.

ARPANSA, in connection with the state and territory radiation regulators, has formal mechanisms in place to ensure that any proposal to use ionising radiation on humans for non-medical purposes is fully justified before a licence is issued. The justification process is in fact rigorous and takes into account consideration of the benefits of the proposed activity versus the potential risks to human health. The justification is also assessed based on whether the same outcome can be achieved by an alternative form of technology. It is the government's view that the current radiation protection regulatory framework is robust, and it is there to ensure that the only equipment that meets the highest health and safety standards is in fact introduced. As such, any restriction of the type that is being proposed in this amendment would be unnecessary.