McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker for the chance to make this remote call my first one. It's somewhat fitting I suppose after a long hot Kiwi summer to be here tonight and to be debating the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its third reading. I'd like to just take a moment to commend my colleague who's just taken his seat Todd Muller for ushering this bill through up until this stage. It's been really clear during this process that it's something that he is very passionate about and something that he's been quite rightly exercised about. So as one of those people from Celtic stock not necessarily prone to quick burning but I do congratulate him and—yes I do congratulate him.Notwithstanding that sentiment though there are definitely some shortcomings in this bill—some shortcomings that as Mr Muller pointed out no doubt will be usurped by the proposed therapeutic products bill in due course. So on this occasion it's not so important. We view it on this side of the House as a perfectly adequate stopgap measure.The bill allows for the provision of a regulatory scheme for an important safety product that is currently without one and it's a safety product that many of us no doubt take for granted. If it says SPF 50" on the bottle then we assume that that's correct and we make decisions for ourselves and we make decisions for our loved ones or people that we're caring for based on that. And we should be able to safely do that with confidence so it is important. During the process we've heard from stakeholders particularly from—one that stands out is from consumer.org.nz who have long highlighted the issues with sunscreen products which when treated too often fail to meet the actual sun protection claimed by manufacturers. And I think that bears repeating: sometimes some products simply fail to show that they offer the protection from the sun that we think that they do. And obviously it's neither fair from a consumer rights perspective; it's certainly not satisfactory from a health perspective. And that really does bear noting.It's unfortunate as Mr Muller said that we are unable to update the standard for the sunscreen as proposed by the bill in the original form. Reflecting on that process of the bill it was something that would have been good to do. But it's perfectly reasonable in so far as our counterparts in Australia are simply meant to do it themselves and it is important that we remain in alignment with our friends across the Tasman with whom we share many regulatory standards not to mention the rather large hole in the ozone layer. So given that as such the member's Supplementary Order Paper which reverts to the 2012 standard is perfectly appropriate in this sense.It's also worth noting that those of us on the Health Committee sought to broaden the definition of the term "sunscreen product" one that will apply to skincare products labelled with SPF greater than 15 and for instance insect repellents labelled with sun protection factor (SPF) of 4 or more. In doing so it has this dual benefit of not only aligning us with Australia but more importantly it shifts the focus from the stated purpose of the product to the manufacturer's claims regarding sun protection. So if a moisturiser for instance also in the small print claims to have SPF 15 then rather than being conceived as or perceived as a cosmetic it should be held to the same standard and we have those manufacturers claims robustly protected. That's the salient point.So this is a bill that's a good interim measure. As I said earlier it obviously does have some shortcomings. Specifically it doesn't provide sufficient detail on a few important issues: it certainly doesn't provide sufficient detail on frequency of testing it doesn't really provide sufficient detail on how to ensure that quality control during manufacturing and it doesn't really provide sufficient detail on the role that accredited labs will play throughout this sort of process. But the therapeutic products bill as Mr Muller pointed out will provide a much more comprehensive and a much more robust framework that will cover the regulation of sunscreen products and we very much look forward to the introduction and look forward to the progression of that particular piece of legislation.Given that and with I suppose that backdrop in place we will in the meantime support the passage of this member's bill. And having said that therefore I commend this bill House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The next call is a remote call on behalf of Dr Shane Reti.Hon Member: It's not on behalf of. He's actually doing it!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for your help.Hon Member: Sorry. Sorry.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Which I'm sure you won't give me any more of."