Muller Todd; Rurawhe AdrianSUNSCREEN (PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD) BILLSecond ReadingTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure I rise to lead off the second reading speeches this afternoon on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It's been an eventful few months since 9 April when we last discussed this in this House making an in-person appearance somewhat of a novelty. So you can I'm sure understand my enthusiasm and I'm sure it's going to be reflected across the House.The problem my bill is seeking to resolve is simple: how can it be possible in 2021 for manufacturers of sunscreen in this country to not have to demonstratively meet the sunscreen standard that we share with Australia? Both countries love the sun both countries have high skin cancer rates and both countries know the importance of sunscreen as part of the triple arsenal against the sun that includes a T-shirt and a hat but only one country requires compliance with the shared standard and it's not New Zealand. This bill seeks to remedy this issue by making it compulsory for sunscreen manufacturers to meet the standards. It is currently voluntary and it must be mandatory.This issue has vexed successive Governments. It appears that any move to require mandatory compliance was shelved over the years because of the pending arrival of a more comprehensive regime: an all-encompassing therapeutics products bill. It is expected that such a bill would create a regulatory framework for such products be they sunscreen or more general skincare products but the therapeutics products bill has never come. To be fair it didn't when we were in Government and it hasn't yet in the last four years of this Government.So this bill is focused on tightening the current regime to give consumers more confidence in the products they are using but it does not seek to be an enduring solution. It does not enter the future debate as to whether sunscreen should be treated as a cosmetic product or a therapeutic product. This bill just focuses on ending voluntary compliance to the standard. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulations under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The bill requires the standard made to be the joint Australia - New Zealand standard for sunscreen AS/NZS 2604:2012. This joint standard includes prescriptive testing methodologies and labelling requirements for sunscreen. The Health Committee which I have to say was very ably chaired by Dr Liz Craig received 36 submissions overwhelmingly in favour of the intent of the bill with no submissions opposed. The key themes from the submissions were: (1) a view that sunscreen should be regulated as either a cosmetic or therapeutic product; a view that this bill is simply an interim step towards a more comprehensive regulatory regime; suggestions for additional requirements beyond those in the joint Australia - New Zealand standard; and suggestions to reference the latest standard of Australia - New Zealand 2021.Meritorious as some of the arguments were the select committee felt it was appropriate to keep the bill aligned to its narrow policy intent but there were technical issues that we had to work through. Firstly Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials held the view that the shared sunscreen standard may not fit the criteria of section 29 Product safety standards" in the Fair Trading Act. A product safety standard made under section 29 of that Act must be one that addresses potential harm that is inherent in the good. The standard must seek to prevent or minimise the risk of injury to a person that could result from something intrinsic to the good such as the flammability of material of children's pyjamas as an example. The select committee argued that sunscreen that had not been manufactured to the sun protection factor (SPF) claim on the bottle should be considered in the same light. To resolve the potential reading of section 29 in a manner that would exclude sunscreen products the select committee agreed to make the standard mandatory in the primary legislation. The bill now mandates that the joint AS/NZS standard is deemed to be a product safety standard for sunscreen products and must be treated and enforced as if it were made as such under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. This attaches an overarching regulatory framework including enforcement and penalties that would mean the Commerce Commission could enforce the standard and that all the necessary enforcement provisions would apply. A breach of a product safety standard carries a maximum penalty of $200000 for an individual or $600000 for a corporate.Secondly clause 3 of the bill provides a definition of a "sunscreen product". The definition in the bill as introduced focuses on the intended purpose of the sunscreen. Several submitters suggested that the focus should instead be on whether a product makes a claim about sun protection irrespective of its intended purpose. Clause 3 is now amended to align with this approach. The new definition means that legislation is applied to sunscreens represented as being primarily to protect from ultraviolet radiation. It would also apply to skincare products labelled with an SPF greater than 15 and insect repellents labelled with an SPF of 4 or more. Thirdly the select committee reflected on what a sensible commencement date should be. Clause 2 provides that the legislation would commence on the date that it received Royal assent. Several submitters suggested that transition periods would be needed before the standard and any future revisions came into force proposing time frames of 18 months and three years to allow time for existing stock and trade to sell. The select committee did accept it could be impractical for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the requirements immediately so we recommend that the legislation come into force six months after it is enacted. We recommend amending clause 2 to this effect.The select committee also received advice on what a fair stock and trade provision might be and we landed at a further 12 months beyond commencement. Frankly this is very generous and the arguments received from the sector over the implications on their current stock should they be required to implement to the current standard immediately remains in my view an indictment on how loose the sunscreen regulations have been to this point. As our report to this House outlines we have very strong expectations that manufacturers move with pace to the 2012 standard and begin immediately to assess the various business changes especially around labelling and product descriptions that will be required to meet the 2021 standard.The final technical issue with which the committee grappled is which standard the mandatory compliance should apply to: should it be the 2012 shared standard as envisaged by the bill or the 2021 standard which was published in New Zealand after the bill was introduced. The select committee naturally assumed it would be the latter and that is reflected in clause 5(2) in the bill as reported back. Post select committee deliberation it was brought to my attention that despite the updated standard being published in New Zealand the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia has not yet adopted the 2021 standard or agreed transitional time frames. It makes sense to ensure whatever approach we take to mandating the joint standard is aligned with Australia so I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House stage to return the mandated standard back to 2012. In discussions with Minister David Clark and his officials who have been very supportive throughout this process it was agreed that this was a sensible outcome but the sector should be already moving to change their business processes to ensure compliance with the 2021 standard. I think I can say with confidence that it is highly unlikely that either the current Government or a future one would be open to any transitional arrangements to the 2021 standard that were beyond what Australian manufacturers already have.In conclusion I am proud of this bill. It is a step forward to protect New Zealanders. It is no panacea it is not a comprehensive regulatory solution but it does put a stake in the ground. It looks our sunscreen manufacturers in the eye and says "Forget the reasons why it is too hard to comply; comply. The 2012 standard is there for a reason: to protect New Zealander consumers. Meet it meet it ASAP and start preparing for the newer standard that's around the corner." This issue is not going away. The momentum created by this bill will ensure sunscreen efficacy and protection stays front of mind of this House and I seek the support of the House to proceed.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."