Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (remote): Kia orana Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call this evening at the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill and it's always a pleasure to follow ACT parliamentarians in calls because Mr Smith should not be surprised. And he shouldn't be surprised because this is a serious piece of legislation. And because it is so serious that is worthy of the House's time this evening.I want to commence my contribution tonight by acknowledging Mr Muller who is the member in charge of this bill. Certainly it's a member's bill but it is the hope of all non-executive members of this House that their bill will be drawn from the biscuit tin. And so I want to pass on my congratulations to Mr Muller for being able to shepherd this piece of legislation through what appears to be its third reading later this evening.And I have to say you know when I look at—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to Mr Utikere the member will not interject when he is standing in the Chamber and not in a seat. The House will continue to show its usual level of respect to the person who is speaking.TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you Madam Speaker. When I look at this bill it is a sensitive piece of legislation. And having cleared all hurdles this evening—or about to clear all hurdles it seems based on the contribution from members all around the House this evening—I do think that is worthy of congratulations to the member who is in charge. And what I will say also is that I think that this particular piece of legislation has been approached in a collegial fashion and in a collegial way which we obviously all hope for a number of things around this Parliament.When we look at what the bill is seeking to do my sort of take on that is that it looks to provide some certainty it looks to provide some assurance and indeed it looks to provide some comfort to many many people. And I actually like others am surprised that there hasn't been something in place up until this point in time. And as Mr Muller has said in his contribution tonight it is also about accountability and I'll get to that shortly.The position of members on this side of the House is that we support an approach to regulating the safety standards when it concerns sunscreen and sunscreen products. And many colleagues have talked about the fact that this is an interim measure or a stopgap in order for us to get us where we want to be in the longer term. And many colleagues have pointed to the role of the therapeutic products bill which is something that not just this Government actually but many Governments have been looking to champion for quite some time. And it will come as no surprise that that's the case for members all around the House.My colleague Dr Sharma briefly touched on I guess the points of difference between the bill that's currently before the House this evening and the therapeutic products bill in what it seeks to achieve—which will be I guess more of a wholesome more complete approach to the industry or some form of regulation where it would look to address issues like the use of accreditation of labs. So not just using any laboratories up and down the country but making sure that there is a regulatory system in place for accreditation of the use and operation of those. So that's the first thing. The second I think we anticipate would be around the frequency of testing—how often things would be tested—the procedures by which the testing would be undertaken if there was some testing to take place. And then of course a third is I guess around that quality assurance—ensuring that those that are manufacturing products are doing so in an environment that is controlled in a quality sense.So this bill in front of the Parliament tonight doesn't seek to address those three issues but it's important I think that we are aware as a Parliament that that's something that we see in the longer term running alongside this as a short-term or a short gap measure. I am a member of the Health Committee—I have to say though that I joined the Health Committee partway through its consideration of this bill. I know that there were 36 submissions from individuals and also from organisations and that all of them—every single public submission that the select committee received—was in support of this bill. And I guess that's a rare achievement but it underscores the significance of a desire to ensure that there is a minimum standard—a threshold—when it comes to the provision and certification of sunscreen products for our communities all around the country.And so I want to commend members on the Health Committee and also Mr Muller for the collegiality in which they approached this particular piece of legislation because I think it actually also proves that even though you might have some submissions that come through a process that are fully in support that doesn't mean that the job is done. There is still an opportunity to provide that opportunity or avenue for good legislation to come out from that. And I think my view certainly is that has been the case in what's before the House this evening.Although the Health Committee didn't look to change the purpose of the bill it did seek to change the mechanism by which the bill would operate. And if we look at what the aim of the bill is—and I think it is important because when we get to third reading it's important for members to understand what it is that we're actually voting on. So when I look at the bill and the rationale for it the bill's aim is around improving the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor—the SPF which we commonly all know—of properties of sunscreen products. And obviously there is a positive flow-on effect if we were to do that. So that's the aim of the bill but the bill itself also presented an opportunity for the select committee to provide a few tweaks. And I have to say looking back through second reading contributions by members I learnt a lot from my colleague Rachel Brooking who took us through a number of different standards including actually the safety standards for children's clothing. So having a standard that applies to sunscreen products is really important because there are not many of them—I'm talking about standards per se—but also so is the penalty provisions for someone who contravenes those standards. So the bill by virtue of where it sits alongside or within the Fair Trading Act will allow for some penalties of up to $200000 for an individual and $600000 for a body corporate. So they should serve as fairly significant deterrents and that's certainly what we've heard out and about.The bill itself actually is quite short. It runs five clauses it has one schedule that is of one singular part. But even though it's a short bill it is still an effective one none the less. And I want to just point to clause 5(1) which identifies the standard. And I know that Mr Muller as part of the committee of the whole House stage did introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to amend what was introduced. And there was a lot of conversation in the select committee. I did join the conversation as a member of the select committee for that purpose as well at that time and where Mr Muller with the agreement of the committee of the whole House has landed is that it's appropriate to reference a standard that will be accurate in the New Zealand context but also in the Australian context. And as he has said the point of difference is that they're at different stages—it's the same standard—of status across the Tasman. But clause 5(1) in terms of that part of the bill effectively allows for that to happen under the Fair Trading Act whereas clause 5(3) is an easy mechanism to make changes. So where standards might be either added to or they might be varied or indeed they may be replaced there wouldn't be a need a desire or a requirement to have to bring this back through the Parliament to give effect to that change. It could simply be done by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—I've often referred to that as the Minister of or for Fair Go"—to progress that as he or she sees fit. So I think clause 5 of the bill even though it's a—well quite a big part of the bill because it's a small bill is still important none the less.Just to conclude I want to indicate that as I see it the crux of this bill is about trust and confidence for consumers in New Zealand. And when I talk about consumers I use that in a very broad description. We are talking about whānau and family members. We are talking about children who actually don't get the choice or the say in terms of sunscreen product. They actually have members of their whānau or others who apply sunscreen under the knowledge which is often unknown that actually SPF 50 is not SPF 50. So that is simply not on. And what this bill does is it corrects that. I commend the member and I commend this bill to the House."