Dear Editor,
I did not intend to write this letter, but the emails I sent to where the government and parliamentary websites said to contact them were unsuccessful. I wrote that I should like The Radiation Safety and Security Bill 2022 to be redrafted to incorporate certain considerations, which I am listing for public consultation, which service the Government is either neglecting or thinking that information is consultation.
The first consideration is that while the Minister may appoint the seven members of the Radiation Safety and Security Board, he should have no remit to
1. select the chairman and deputy chairman.
2. fail to appoint a Board within 30 days of the passing of the legislation and when otherwise required (or else he should be fined one million dollars for every day over the 30 days, the fine to be paid into the Radiation Safety & Security Fund [S16].
3. determine the remuneration and terms and conditions of the appointment of members [S6(5)]; Parliament should do that in a separate budget for the purpose.
4. appoint suitably qualified inspectors [S11]. The Board should do that.
5. be consulted to establish qualifications and training for inspectors [S37(2)]. The Board should do that.
6. be consulted for the regulatory control of radiation safety. The Board can do that.
7. above all determine the appeal against a decision of the Board. That should be the remit of the Judiciary, which should be facilitated for urgency.
Ministers of Government should be answerable to citizens, through Parliament or public access. We do not want our Ministers to be otherwise occupied and fail in this duty; and we also do not want to provide the Minister the opportunity to give arbitrary decisions when a Board is to be constituted for such a purpose. Similarly, we should not want government employees to be on the Board, because we want access to our public servants; and we also fear they may not be truly independent of ministerial influence.
Appointment to the Board should be for 5 years, not 2 years. This is to allow continuity beyond the life of Governments [S6(4)].
Licensees should be required to comply with all the fundamental principles of radiation protection in S41, not just the chosen one in S44(2). S38(3) should be amended to expressly empower routine inspections and surprise inspections of licensees, for which latter no prior notice is to be given, and which must be undertaken by a minimum of 2 inspectors.
There are other inefficiencies and unclarities in the Bill. However, a very important consideration is that S91(1) should be redrafted to not have the potential to incriminate persons who discover, whether by investigation or otherwise, that public safety may be compromised. A sufficiently independent Board, as I am trying to encourage in this legislation, could be granted the power to hear whistleblowers on radiation safety and security, consistent with Part V of the Protected Disclosures Act of 2018, especially in the glaring absence of a Protected Disclosures Commission, for which no one has any penalty to pay.
Yours faithfully,
Alfred Bhulai
