O'Connor Simon: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I did not actually think I was going to be efficacious in taking the call at this point but look I want to acknowledge what other speakers have been saying around this issue in Part 2. I would dispute one part. I am not sure whether it has been frustrating—that is just my opinion—but I think it has actually been quite informative. I am not supportive of the amendments to Part 2 to ban sunbeds and I would like to elucidate that a little.This Part 2 actually does two things—well it is all about sunbeds. Importantly just quickly to highlight for the Committee it is also introducing infringement notices. This is a small but significant change that the Health Committee recommended. The initial draft of the bill had what were effectively criminal provisions—that you could be fined—and I think it is important to raise here in the Committee of the whole House that the select committee thought it was important to have an infringement notice approach as well partly for the reason of proportionality. You do not want to always just go straight to a criminal prosecution. It is not always appropriate and it can sometimes be too heavy-handed. I think that proportionality is what also reflects certainly in my decision not wanting to ban sunbeds and that is because there is actually a very small number of sunbeds or solaria in New Zealand—around 200 or so and declining.It was intimated by the Minister of Health that it is also a philosophical approach and that it is one around actually allowing people to make choices—sometimes those we would think unwise but they are their choices nonetheless. Look the science on this is incredibly clear OK? Sunbeds are bad for your health. The increased chance of skin cancers including melanoma—there is no doubt that the use of solaria will cause greater harm. I think it is really important too when we are talking about solaria and skin cancers to know that melanoma is just one form of skin cancer—there are many many types. Just the simple use of a sunbed and what it might do—there are squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas and solar keratosis as well. So there are a whole lot of negative effects.I want to be very very clear—and I have been I think—in the constructive discussions that the select committee has had and in this debate. There is no doubt about what the science says. However in this case does it mean that it absolutely has to be banned? No I do not think so because of the analogy of something like smoking. The science in my opinion is pretty clear too around smoking and although some of us might like to see that banned as well we do not think from this side of the House that that is the appropriate response either. You know human beings make choices. We have heard from other speakers as well that eating certain types of fats has an effect. There is the use of alcohol. I know there is debate at times around the smoking of or the use of marijuana. There is no doubt scientifically that that is a harmful substance but there is not necessarily the universal call in the House for that to be banned too. So it is just trying to take a consistent approach.I really appreciate the work that the member the Hon Annette King has put into her Supplementary Order Paper 80. I actually think that this is a really good and constructive one; it is just that I cannot completely agree with it. In principle I understand where it is coming from but philosophically again I do not think it requires this House to ban sunbeds. I think it is actually a prudent approach and as we have done within Part 2 and within the provisions we have said that for under 18-year-olds it should be banned. The evidence is again abundantly clear that it is a much much higher risk to someone under 18 years of age so I think that is an appropriate step.I think too when we heard from Ria Bond—and she was drawing on her own experience in a salon; she shared some of that—you got an indication of how people can make their rational choices either to be requesting the service or as she explained in her own case to be choosing at many stages to allow that to happen but eventually saying no. I was quite interested by her amendments to the Supplementary Order Paper around nails. Personally I would need to go away and understand that a little bit more—it was something that never came up in the select committee. I am no doctor; I am no scientist. It would be interesting to know whether the difference of I think keratin in your nails versus the skin—whether that makes any difference. Again it is a pity it did not come up but I think it is worthwhile. I think the other element—