Dean Jacqui: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:4086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I enjoyed Barbara Stewart’s contribution to this debate along with other members of the Health Committee. The Health (Protection) Amendment Bill has been through a good process in the select committee and the House and I along with others acknowledge the good work that the committee has done. I felt for the member Barbara Stewart when she described her experience on a sunbed receiving what I suspect was quite a bad burn in the process—and have we not all done that? I too have done that and I recall getting bad burns on a number of occasions. But that was simply being out in the sun as a child on the shores of Lake Taupō back in the day when as children we would be out in the sand digging catching tadpoles swimming and doing all of the things that kids do.I vividly rememberbeing badly sunburnt. I come from a medical family—mum was a nurse and dad was a doctor. The point I am trying to make here is that the perils of sunbeds are known and are not contested except by the one proponent of sunbeds who came to the committee. Just as you can receive a bad burn from a sunbed so you can from the sunshine. I guess that these days parents and schools—thank goodness—take a lot of care of kids so we do not get to see that degree of burning. I highlight the issue just to say that we need to be very careful that we do not overly prescribe nanny State provisions as somebody today said. Maybe I agree with the position that you cannot protect New Zealanders from every little bit of harm. I acknowledge that tanning beds are dangerous. So is alcohol but we are not banning that are we? It is that same principle of banning versus regulating.Hon David Parker: How about water?JACQUI DEAN: Good point—a very good point. Do not make me lose my track. That is very unfair. The point I was trying to make was that—Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s still a very good story.JACQUI DEAN: Yes drinking Ruth. Yes it is all about the drinking is it not? The point I was trying to make is that the position we came to in the committee was to restrict the use of tanning beds to those people aged 18 years and older.I was walking along Lambton Quay the other day with this in mind. I happened to go past a sandwich board that was extolling the virtues of tanning. As we had just had that conversation in the select committee I picked up a brochure took it back to my office and had a look at it. I think what needs to happen in the tanning industry with solaria and sunbeds in the face of the scientific evidence is for some responsibility to be taken and for some acknowledgment to be given that there are dangers associated with sunbeds. In some people’s eyes there are benefits. That is fine. I acknowledge that there are benefits in some people’s eyes but there certainly are dangers. I also just want to make that first point again. The dangers of burning are not just with sunbeds; it can happen any day of the week outside in the sunshine.The member is also right in saying that there was one submitter who had quite a different view on the scientific evidence and that was interesting. I thought it was a brave attempt by that submitter to fight her corner. It was a female submitter. I do not recall her name. Why not fight her corner in the select committee? The fact is that she was an importer of sunbeds and from memory had franchises for sunbeds. Why not fight her corner? I know that I have got it all round the wrong way because the provisions relating to sunbeds—Part 2 clause 13 of the bill—include the new provisions that provide for infringement processes to deal with people who do not comply with the new regulations around sunbeds.I also thought about the contribution made by a Labour member who said that there are some health benefitswith solaria in a very narrow range and that they relate to depressive illnesses relating to winter and also to psoriasis. I do know a couple of people who suffer from psoriasis and I do know that occasionally they will take a course of sunbed sessions because that provides them with relief. The member Louisa Wall said that yes there are sunbeds available at hospitals. You can go to the hospital—you can if you can find a car-park—make an appointment go in and have treatment. Or you can go to the solarium during your lunchtime and get your treatment there. So I do not think that with sunbeds we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some beneficial aspects to sunbeds. I will leave that to one side but that was the major cause of disagreement within the committee over this otherwise accepted bill.Kevin Hague mentioned in his speech tonight—and he gave some very thoughtful contributions on this in the select committee—the issue of the need for contact tracing whilst at the same time protecting the privacy of some vulnerable populations. This was a point that was also considered very closely by the committee. On the one hand there is the need to stop the spread of some pretty infectious diseases such as gonorrhoea and hepatitis in some populations. STDs are not great diseases to have and they can hang around for many years and can cause all sorts of problems later in life—all sorts of health issues. They are not diseases to be taken lightly. But as Kevin Hague pointed out to the committee—and this was also backed up by submissions—the provisions around contact tracing need to be very carefully applied so that the rights of individuals are not necessarily impinged and so that the rules around contact tracing and the provision of information are commensurate with the potential risk that is posed by the disease.In this bill contact tracing is designed not to be a mallet but rather to be a process that has gradual interventions. The first stage of that is to attempt to gain voluntary consent from somebody who has presented at a hospital or a GP’s surgery and is found to have what is now going to be a notifiable disease. If that consent is not gained voluntarily then the bill introduces a duty on a person who may have an infectious disease or who might have been exposed to an infectious disease to provide the prescribed contact information. That contact information could well be clearly people whom they have had contact with—names addresses; that sort of thing—obviously so that the medical officers can trace those people and can confine the outbreak or potential outbreak.The practice of seeking voluntary consent for contact tracing will be the preferred method and the first option for managing the risk of infection. The provisions in the bill increase the range of infectious diseases that are notifiable thereby improving the surveillance of infectious diseases that are of concern including their long-term impact on health. The more quality information that is held about these things the more likely it is that any potential outbreak or spread of an infectious disease or STD can be contained. There are measures being introduced in the bill to protect the identity of individuals and to allay concerns that people might not seek treatment if they believe that their identity will be made public. The issue that Kevin Hague brought very clearly to the committee is that we do not want populations of people hiding away for fear of being publicly exposed as having a certain notifiable disease or STD.The approach taken in the bill and I congratulate the Minister on this approach is to use the principles of risk management and proportionality. Rather than as I said using a mallet to strike a walnut the principles of risk management and proportionality are brought into play in this bill. This is a good bill which is being well supported around the House. We do have a point of difference of course around tanning services—of course we do—but otherwise I am pleased to see that the bill is enjoying good support and good debate. I commend it to the House.