Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in this third reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. During the passage of this piece of legislation I had the fortune of sitting on the Health Committee and I would like to say that this piece of legislation was a bill of two halves essentially. There was 100 percent support for the first half and that support was for a focus on infectious diseases. I too want to reiterate that the history of this bill originated from the Hon Pete Hodgson when the Public Health Bill was submitted to this House 8 years ago.We all agree 100 percent with Part 1 of the bill. I really just want to focus on increased notifiable diseases within the sexually transmitted infection (STI) space. Sexually transmitted infections are incredibly valid as a topic of focus. In addition to HIV/AIDS I really want to talk about gonorrhoea and syphilis because in 2014 the gonorrhoea rate in New Zealand was 70 per 100000. The implications in areas like Tai Rāwhiti for Māori and Pacific youth where actually the rate is four times that of the national average are that this will now provide us with information so that we can start addressing and managing some of these sexually transmitted infections. For me that is the value of this piece of legislation—that it is now going to be proactive. It is going to involve a public health perspective—not treating these infections as individual infections that actually have no ongoing interest or ramification in our community. It will now lead to a better-targeted approach and support because what we do know is that people who suffer from STIs end up with infertility issues chronic pain and issues with neonatal morbidity. There is also a relationship with certain types of cancers. So we support 100 percent anything that we can do to be proactive to protect our community and within that context ensure that there are not any privacy issues with individuals' information. That was the general consensus of the select committee.In terms of Part 2 I think there was an emerging consensus from the Opposition that we do not support Part 2 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill prohibits the commercial provision of artificial UV tanning services to under-18-year-olds. I just want to quote Minister Coleman from his contribution in this third reading. He said: A complete ban on the provision of artificial UV tanning services would prevent access to artificial tanning services by adults who are well informed and choose to take on that risk." He also made the point of saying that if you are over 18 then basically you are capable of making that decision. Our contention has been that actually young people are not in a position to make that decision and that it is more relevant to those who are under 35 or under 30 based on the international research. We would say that when we know a product is causing so much harm then actually we have a responsibility as a Government to protect all of our citizens. That information came from the International Agency for Research on Cancer which said that artificial UV tanning services increased the risk of melanoma to those under 30 by 75 percent. What is the relevance to us here in New Zealand? In 2012 2324 New Zealand citizens were registered with melanoma. In that particular year we had 354 deaths.I want to highlight one of the submissions that we received from dermatologist Louise Reiche from Palmerston North who led the charge at Palmerston North City Council. The MidCentral District Health Board region has a melanoma rate of 51.55 per 100000. It was her contention that 75 percent of those people diagnosed with melanoma between the ages of 18 and 29 had used artificial UV tanning services. That was her contention. She was supported in her submission and that of the Palmerston North City Council by Jessie Anitoni who started using tanning machines as a 16-year-old. She was diagnosed with melanoma. She moved to Brisbane and basically called for a complete ban on these UV tanning machines based on her own experience.I want to highlight that the first country in the world to ban UV tanning machines was actually Brazil in 2009. Australia followed them in 2014. But 2014 was an interesting year because on 1 July 2014 Auckland Council implemented a by-law that banned under-18-year-olds from using tanning machines. For the council it was a focus with operators on explaining the risks and also on ensuring that they displayed warning notices in their clinics so that people were informed and could make informed decisions about whether or not they used their machines. The relevance of that to this debate is that 30 percent of operators in New Zealand reside in Auckland and over 50 percent of the tanning machines are in Auckland. So in fact this piece of legislation is relevant only to the other 50 percent of tanning machines which are not used in the Auckland area.When you look at the options that this Parliament had rather than following Brazil and Australia this Parliament is actually following the Auckland Council. It does not quite make sense to me. I would have thought that as a responsible Government we would have followed what other countries have done based on evidence not followed what a local body entity has done—no disrespect to Auckland Council.In March 2016 research from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology said that New Zealand had overtaken Australia and become the most melanoma-prone country in the world. Six countries and their rates of melanoma between 1982 and 2001 were analysed. In 1982 the melanoma rate in New Zealand was 26 per 100000; today it is over 50 per 100000. Those countries that were analysed were Australia the UK the US Norway Sweden and New Zealand. When commenting on that piece of research Associate Professor Tony Reeder from the Department of Preventative and Social Medicine at the University of Otago said: "New Zealand has lacked high-level commitment and adequate investment in skin cancer prevention ..." Dermatologist Ben Tallon commented that we need to "wake up". It is time that New Zealand and this Government woke up. So in 2002 melanoma was identified as a priority in the New Zealand Cancer Control Strategy.In summary we do not support Part 2 of this piece of legislation. This bill is actually a sad indictment not only of the Minister but also unfortunately of the Ministry of Health. The ministry's mandate or its function is to improve promote and protect the public health of New Zealanders. I am incredibly disappointed that the ministry did not adequately advise the Minister—or if it did that the Minister did not listen to his ministry and ensure that this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill does protect New Zealanders. That is what is incredibly disheartening about the title of this piece of legislation—the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. It is actually a disingenuous title. We have missed the opportunity to protect the health and well-being of our fellow New Zealanders. Labour is supporting this bill but we categorically with the Greens and New Zealand First do not support Part 2. Thank you."