O'Connor Simon: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:4077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill which is on its second reading here. Can I thank the Hon Annette King for her generous words. I think such generosity is probably costing me thousands of votes in my electorate at the moment—people who are going: “Oh what’s he doing?”. But actually in all seriousness I do want to acknowledge all the members of the Health Committee and in particular Annette King Kevin Hague from the Green Party and Barbara Stewart from the New Zealand First Party for the cooperative nature in which the committee is working—Louisa Wall as well as a Labour member and then my fellow National Party members Jacqui Dean Barbara Kuriger Scott Simpson and Dr Shane Reti. It is a fine committee and I think it is one that is working together because we understand that there is always politics in all things but health is one of those matters where we try to work together.I think we have heard in the speeches tonight two so far that by and large there is a lot of agreement but also—and it hints at the political nature or the difference of views—that you do not agree on everything. I am very pleased to see that members of the House from all the parties are supporting this as I understand it. This bill is in two parts. The substance of the bill is around contact tracing and the second part of the bill not as substantial but of course as important is around sunbeds.As the Minister pointed out we had 71 submissions. I thought that was actually a really good number in light of the nature of this bill. In fact I thought there was a very high quality of submitters who came before us. I cannot remember the exact breakdown of how many came to talk to us around the contact tracing side of things versus the UV tanning but I am sure other members will echo—well I hope they will—that it was the quality of the submissions and the quality of the oral presentations. These were people who are experts in their field. That is not to take away from the individuals who might come and choose to share their experiences. But I thought there were very high-level submissions to us. Twenty-two people were heard. It kept the committee busy but I can say for myself and I am sure for the others that actually it was incredibly fascinating as we would talk through the different issues.The first part of this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill is around contact tracing. For those in the House and particularly for those at home this is about how we work out whom a person with an infectious disease has been in contact with. The intention of this bill is to enable health authorities to better manage infectious disease outbreaks or to limit them when they arise. So we are talking infections and I hope my father listening at home is not going to blush. We are talking about things like syphilis gonorrhoea tuberculosis HIV and the like—so some serious diseases that are out there in the community or potentially so. With those I note that tuberculosis is currently under another Act. One of the elements of this bill is to actually take it from being a distinct Act of Parliament the Tuberculosis Act and integrate it into this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill.These are serious infectious diseases and when they arise we as a society need to move swiftly and promptly to limit their effect. One only needs to think of the measles outbreak. That is not—I had better be clear—one of the infectious diseases noted at the highest end of this bill. There are good reasons for that but I think of the outbreak—I think it was in Christchurch—and just how swiftly these diseases can spread and therefore consequently the State the health authorities if you will need to move swiftly to manage them.So we have introduced these extra diseases to be traced. A big part of that is: who are the people whom those with an infection have been in contact with? Up to now the provisions have not been sufficient enough or proportionate enough. To put it really simply if someone chose not to actually enable contact tracing to help with certain diseases it would not happen. So we are strengthening the ability of health agents to encourage and then enforce the information required so that we can make those contacts and better understand the spread of disease. One of the debates of course is around privacy and that was discussed at length. There was some concern from some submitters particularly around the use of the National Health Index number—that it could lead to the identification of particular people and consequently discourage them from coming forward.We heard from a good number of submitters who work within the epidemiological field who said that the need for this data is absolutely paramount. Having data such as the sex date of birth and the National Health Index number are very very important. One thing the committee did in a few of the changes it looked to bring about was to list principles which we are hoping will be clear not only to the public but to the courts if they need to get involved. The first principle above all others is that the intention of this bill is to protect public health not just the person with the infectious disease but all of us. That is the paramount principle.But we as a committee thought it was also really important to stress that the respect and dignity of the individual must always be noted and upheld and thirdly—although not in a priority order in this case—that a proportionate response is followed. So depending on the nature of the infection their proximity to people for example the length of the infection and so forth—what is the proportionate response? Because as indicated implicitly by Annette King in her speech there is the ability to bring about court orders to force an individual to release the information required. Again we would want that to be a proportionate response depending on the infection.I want to briefly touch on the question of acute hepatitis C. This was something that members on the committee will know about. We spent an enormous amount of time considering whether acute hepatitis C should actually be brought into the same level as gonorrhoea syphilis HIV and the like. We took a lot of advice and decided it did not require at this stage to be at that top level but I think it is really important for the House to understand and those submitters that it does remain on the schedule. It is still part of the Act. One has to think of this as a graduated bill a graduated response. Although it is not at the top level it is in there. It is a formidable disease and fortunately one that does not occur as frequently as some others but when it does it needs a lot of treatment. I am very pleased to see actually that there are a number of very good pharmacological options available now for people there.Briefly I want to acknowledge as the Hon Annette King did Kevin Hague’s contribution around appeals. It is really important and certainly for me that you always have consistency in legislation. The ability of a person to be able to reach through the respective courts to have their appeal heard around these matters is consistent so reaching the High Court makes a lot of sense. I think it is important though that the orders remain in place. The committee did debate this a bit that if someone is going to start going through the legal appeal process it is not going to stop the ability of the health organisations to engage. When it comes to infectious diseases we need to move promptly.I want to turn to the sunbeds the UV tanning beds. The science is very clear on this. It is unambiguous and I am more than happy to stand on the Government side and say this with the legislation as it is with a graduated response to UV tanning beds. This bill seeks to say that under-18s should not use them and that there should be regulation for those who do. Auckland Council amongst others has actually quite a good system in place already and it was really good that it came in and talked us through how it regulates sunbeds in Auckland. I think it is a model to follow. I want to be clear that it is not the model; there are a few we can look at. But we are looking at a regulatory approach. It is sort of that graduated approach or one step at a time.Again the science is very clear. As many members know I worked at Southern Cross before coming into Parliament so although I am not a doctor I involve myself with a lot of things medical and particularly in the dermatological and plastics field. Look there is no doubt about the issue of skin cancers in this country and the place that sunbeds can play in that. I think I heard from one of the experts one of the doctors I used to contract with that something like 7 minutes a day of sunlight is all that we need so where is the need for sunbeds in that case?I think we have come to a proportional response in this regard. We understand the science; we understand the information put to us by a number of medical experts in the likes of the Cancer Society. On this side of the House I think we are saying that we understand that and we understand the excessive risk for those under 18 but at this point we feel that an outright ban is probably not the best way forward. We will introduce a graduated approach to that. We will see that regulations are put in place.As any responsible group would do—in this case the Government the ministry or the Minister—we will continue to engage with the information. So I think we have landed in a good place and if I might say as I conclude I think it was good to put a bit of light on to this bill.