Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Health and Aged Care) (3:56 PM) —I will just sum up, as I understand that this debate is to be adjourned, and I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution. The Labor Party raises a number of points that I am happy to take on board. The first point relates to the nature of representation on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council. I am happy to look at a form of words around that. I point out that what the shadow minister is seeking to amend was a Labor Party proposal in the first place. While we are happy to look at it, I point out that consumers in this area are physicians in nuclear medicine. I would prefer that organisations had the opportunity to put names forward and that I make a choice after receiving those.

The opposition raises a point on international best practice: this is sensible and we are happy to take it up. The opposition raises a third point regarding the CEO. Naturally, we would follow the practices that are well established over the last 15 to 20 years of government for doing that.

On the issue of a representative of local government, I am very mindful of this. The member for Hughes was a very forceful advocate for this prior to the last election and, clearly, given that ANSTO resides in her electorate, the Sutherland Shire Council will have a specific interest. I will be mindful of that when making appointments.

This bill has been delayed as it was one that did not get through the Senate. Clearly, it is important that we have some nuclear regulatory framework in Australia, so I look forward to its speedy passage. Finally, in terms of the point about funding that I understand the shadow minister raised, section 55 of the bill does allow funding. In fact, the Commonwealth funding for this will continue. The issue of cost recovery is only if the organisation, ARPANSA, wishes to supplement its funding over and above the current budgetary appropriation.

I thank honourable members for their contribution.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Elson) adjourned.