Bond Ria: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBond Ria: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11033. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased tonight to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call in the Committee stage of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. In this call I specifically want to address in Part 2 clause 13 which inserts New Part 5 in the Act. I will say that this bill does not nearly go far enough towards fighting skin cancers and melanoma here in New Zealand. There have been a lot of calls taken in this House on the first and second readings that outlined good solid reasons why this Government should ban sunbed use outright here in New Zealand. Our minority report as mentioned by the Hon Annette King showed strong dissatisfaction that we did not go far enough to ban sunbeds here in New Zealand.Under the orders of Minister Coleman the Ministry of Health sought public views on artificial tanning safety measures with its consultation document entitled Reducing Harm from Commercial Sunbeds: Consultation document. I found that rather interesting that document which called for public submissions. I could not quite determine whether or not the commercial element was really given the same amount of consultation to submit from those people’s business perspective on the issues that they could see in the regulation of sunbeds or regulation becoming stronger in ruling the sunbed industry. So tonight throughout this call in the Committee I am leaning heavily on my experience as a business operator in the hair and beauty industry where the very equipment that we are addressing in Part 2 is actually what I used in my business.In my business we sold suntanning concession tickets to people but we had the good practice of ensuring that every client who came through the door who wanted to have a suntanning experience actually met my requirements. They had to have the correct skin tones and they were scored through a consultation process. And I can tell you that at times it was a really unpleasant situation and one that not only I but my staff were put through from mothers—mothers who wanted their 12-year-olds their 14-year-olds and their 16-year-olds to get browner. I used to sit there and think: “This is crazy.” As a parent I would never allow my child under the age of 18 to be on a suntanning bed. So New Zealand First completely supports the call to ban any users under the age of 18from suntanning services.It is quite prevalent too in what we have seen since 2009 when the World Health Organization released its finding that sunbeds were in fact carcinogenic. I can say it caused a pulse a shudder throughout the New Zealand suntanning industry. All of a sudden I saw in my industry disclaimers being written up from salon owners and tanning bed owners to ensure that none of the blame came back on them should those tanners who were not correctly assessed develop skin cancers or melanoma in the future. I found it rather disheartening for that to be a big part of the industry. I could understand on one hand why operators quickly scrambled to try to protect themselves—that was because of the level of investment in the suntanning beds. Some salons invested only about $10000 in second-hand beds that were here in New Zealand; other salons throughout New Zealand made a big investment of from $80000 to $140000.So what that did for the industry—and I am sure that the Government advisers themselves know this—was it forced a quick concession of sales that were deemed and called 1-month unlimited suntanning sessions. These were available for a cheaper price than under any other fixed sessions and started mostly—depending on what area you lived in in the country—for $30. So you could suntan any time any day—whether you wanted to go once or twice—for that whole month with unlimited sessions. And certainly you may be surprised to know that mostly men took up that opportunity—men did. That is reflected in the fact that men have been known to have a 40 percent increase in skin cancers and melanoma especially on their backs because often they do not check their backs. It is really good now that the industry is actually telling their clients that their wives must check their backs for any dark spots. We are trying to encourage men to not only get other health checks but ensure that they also get their backs checked.I want to add that women in New Zealand have a high incidence of skin cancer melanoma on their legs and that is because predominantly we know that we tend to like the sun and we sit outside and we sunbathe quite a bit. So this particular part in this bill really interests me because it was—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ria Bond.RIA BOND: Because it was—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You do not need to put your hand up.RIA BOND: Oh sorry. Ha ha! I have just got good manners Mr Chair.So that is why it was essential for me to come down to the Chamber tonight and talk about this particular part of the bill. From my 26 years in the industry I have to say that I stopped selling sunbed services in my business because I for one could not actually sit there with the thought that someone may in the future develop skin cancers and melanoma from a service that I offered to members of my community. I am quite proud of the fact that I recognised that that was not a good long-term thought to have.I also want to say that to be brown is sold to the industry as being sexy. We get reps who come into our salons and they contravene what the Cancer Society tells us—they do. The reps tell us that the Cancer Society will always oppose what the solarium society says which is that it is actually safer to suntan inside on a solarium bed because it has a controlled release of UV. They say that that is safer than suntanning outside. That is how they get their beds inside those industries inside those tanning clinics and inside those salons—and they make it easy for you to pay it off—and that is a concern because now many years later I know that that is not true. I started to investigate the true facts myself which led me to believe that I should not sell those services in my salon.I do want to say also that the whole sexy factor of being darker tanner—we see that in our reality shows on TV now and in the show Geordie Shore where even now they actually get to promote their own tanning products and that is affecting our young ones. It is also affecting women and men because they want to look better and I guess to have a little bit of brown or nice brown—it does sell sexy and that is the wrong message to send. It is the wrong message for our consumers and it is the wrong message for our community.I also want to say that the Dermatological Society states that it is really disappointed that the Health Committee decided not to ban sunbeds outright in New Zealand. I have to say as a former user that I certainly support that as well.I want to address the second reason why I had to come down to this Chamber today. I want to address the fact that this bill in no way whatsoever covers UV nail technicians or the nail industry—that is what has made me come down to this Chamber. We put our hands inside UV lamps when we get our nails done inside nail salons and we are exposed to UV. I am quite concerned about that—so concerned that I am hoping that the Hon Annette King would support me to make small amendments to her Supplementary Order Paper 80 which is a great Supplementary Order Paper by the way as it futureproofs up our UV exposure in this country.My amendments that I seek to table tonight to amend Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Annette King are to clause 13 in new Part 5 to replace new sections 113 and 114. Under new section 113 “Interpretation” I would like to add in the simple words “UV nail lamps” after the word “sunbeds” and before the word “sunlamps” and to add the words “UV nail” after the word “tanning” and before the word “services”. In proposed section 114 I would like to add the words “UV nail” after the word “tanning” and before “services”. Under subsection (1) I would like to add “artificial nail services using UV”. In subsection (2) I would like to add the words “or UV artificial nail services”. My explanatory note for that is simply that throughout this bill the nail industry has completely been forgotten about but consumers are still exposed to UV lamps on our hands and feet and that is just as important as on our bodies.I would like to commend the Hon Annette King for her Supplementary Order Paper. It in no way at all should be considered nanny State; it should be considered responsibility. It should be considered responsible to minimise the harm that UV exposure is causing here in New Zealand. We want to decrease the incidence of skin cancers that we have and also melanoma. So I would like to get support from the Labour Party the Green Party members across the Committee and the Minister to support my amendment of the Supplementary Order Paper of Annette King.I want to add to that that when I started as an apprentice I actually performed nail services in my salon and—