Williams Poto: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to just bring also some other aspects into the discussion particularly around the use of UV tanning services for treatment in hospitals. This bill sets about giving permission to provide artificial tanning services for people over the age of 18 and there is an exception to that age requirement if the person is receiving treatment at a hospital.I have a family member who is receiving just such a treatment for a particular skin condition and the reason I want to talk about this is that it is a carefully closely managed treatment. The UV treatment is delivered in very very short bursts it is managed by well-trained clinicians and it occurs in a hospital setting where blood tests are taken the condition of the skin is monitored very closely and medication is also applied. There is very very close regard given to the health of the person as they are undertaking this UV treatment. This is UV treatment that is very similar—but given in very light doses very small doses—to the type of thing that you would get sitting in a sunbed for 10 minutes.With the types of times that I am talking about when you are actually using this as a therapy we are talking about seconds. We are talking about tens of seconds perhaps 30 seconds; we are not talking about minutes. Only when your skin has been conditioned over several weeks and you have been closely monitored by these very well-trained clinicians—your blood tests are taken and you are very closely monitored—is it possible to actually have the treatment go to anywhere like a minute and a half. This is a clinical treatment versus what is going to be available to the general public over the age of 18 in a suntanning clinic using a sunbed for several minutes at a time.So there is an obvious risk that is identified by clinicians in the use of UV as a treatment for skin conditions and that has not necessarily translated in this bill to be determined as a risk for people over the age of 18 who are taking this risk with their health. It does concern me that we are not considering actually outright banning the use of sunbeds.It is interesting that we make reference to the work that is happening in Australia because in Australia they take much higher regard to the risk of melanoma through exposure to the sun and through sunbeds. In fact as an interesting point I had always thought that in Australia they had higher rates of melanoma but for certain melanomas we beat the world. I was really surprised to hear that. The Australians not only have taken the view that sunbeds themselves are dangerous but have also taken the added step of if you are a worker who works all day in the sun you are required by your employer to wear personal protective equipment which means long sleeves long trousers and a hat and to actually apply sunscreen. Their measures to protect people from the damage that the sun can effect far outstrip anything we do in this country and yet we lead the world in rates of certain melanomas.So this legislation could have gone so much further. In fact you could say we are actually quite negligent.