Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Hansard source

The health and safety of Australians is the top priority when Labor considers changes to nuclear and radiation safety. Labor takes radiation and nuclear safety very seriously. The bill that we are dealing with today, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill 2015, is an amendment bill which strengthens the powers of ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, which is responsible for managing radiation and nuclear safety in our country. Largely, this bill follows a review by the Australian National Audit Office that was conducted in 2013-14 and, in part, also captures some of the recommendations made by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, when they conducted their periodic reviews of our regulator. There are a number of changes to the licensing arrangements administered by ARPANSA, which have the effect of improving safety and efficiency and closing a number of loopholes that have been identified by the ANAO and also pick up some of the recommendations from the IAEA.

I note the recent submissions received by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the bill. There were five submitters to the bill and Labor thanks those organisations and individuals who contributed to the Senate community affairs inquiry process. I particularly want to thank the expert contributors to that process. In particular, Labor wants to acknowledge the contributions of ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the CSIRO and the supervising scientists in the Department of the Environment. Similarly, the contributions from the Department of Health were very welcome. They have always been professional and constructive when it comes to this issue. Labor also wants to put on record our thanks to Minister Nash and her office for the briefings that were provided to our shadow minister and his team.

I will discuss some, but not all, of the elements of the bill. It is a very technical bill which improves the safety of regulation in our country. I want to discuss the observation that there was general support from all of the witnesses for all of the amendments. Some concerns were raised outside the scope of the bill and outside the recommendations that have been picked up by the bill but, overall, there was general support for the bill. Engineers Australia pointed to a new safety standard that has been issued by the IAEA, and pointed out that reviews conducted by the IAEA's integrated regulatory review team of ARPANSA's activities have identified the need for strengthening the ARPANS Act. Engineers Australia said that the bill would provide:

The amendments go to clarifying the definition of a nuclear installation from nuclear waste to radioactive waste. This change is regarded as more appropriate and technically correct. The IAEA does not provide a definition of nuclear waste as all waste is captured under the definition of radioactive waste. The committee also heard evidence that there were different definitions in state and territory legislation, but it is not within the scope of this bill to deal with that. Frankly, that is a matter for states and territories to deal with.

The committee also made some commentary about ARPANSA's powers during an emergency. ANSTO discussed proposed section 41, which outlines the powers of the CEO of ARPANSA to give written directions to controlled persons. The bill reaffirms the internationally accepted principle of operator responsibility for safety, and clearly sets out that the powers of the ARPANSA CEO would only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances. ANSTO also noted that the principle of operator responsibility for safety reflects international best practice, as developed under the auspices of the IAEA, as well as being reflected in international nuclear safety treaties to which Australia is a party.

Mr Jack Dillich from ARPANSA highlighted in the inquiry that 'the proposed powers were intended to equip the regulator to address rare unforeseen circumstances'. To paraphrase, he said that this is something that would happen infrequently, if at all, but he thought it was important that those powers should be available.

I now go to a question that was raised in the Bills Digest, which I commend to the chamber. There are two issues I want to go to. The first is the change to information-gathering powers. The Bills Digest states:

… Item 29 would create a new section 44A in the ARPANS Act, providing for new information-gathering powers for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Commonwealth radiation licences. … The provision allows the CEO of ARPANSA to require that a controlled person provide information or documents, answer questions or appear before the CEO of ARPANSA to provide information, answers or documents.

It also recognises that:

… a controlled person is excused from giving the required information if giving such information would:

- be self-incriminating or expose the individual to a penalty or

- contravene an obligation under an international agreement …

It is our view that these requirements for information to be provided do seem reasonable. The bill provides that self-incriminating information may not be gathered compulsorily. The common law would provide a protection against self-incrimination. But I think having it explicitly in the bill is of use.

Finally, I want to go to the issue of changes to duration and scope of Commonwealth radiation licences. The bill brings in an opportunity to time-limit radiation licences, which is new for this act. Previously, all licences were issued for an indefinite period of time, which is something I was unaware of, but do now understand. I want to point to an interesting comment made in the Bills Digest:

… the use of time-limited licences more generally could be desirable. … An extension of this is that radiation exposure should be kept to what is strictly necessary …

Always, the intention is to limit any exposure to radiation. So we should be aiming to keep radiation exposure to what is absolutely strictly necessary. It further states:

… a requirement for licences to be renewed could be a useful trigger for a periodic assessment of whether the continued existence of the radiation source is necessary.

That is a welcome amendment to the act.

In conclusion, Labor recognises that the bill makes a number of improvements to the current legislation. We support the bill as it does improve the regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety and protection in our country. We are pleased to continue to work with the government in a cooperative way when reasonable legislative changes, such as this, are put forward.