King Annette: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): “Mr Waiter”—I mean Mr Assistant Speaker I rise to speak in support of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might call the member soon.Hon ANNETTE KING: “Mrs Waiter”? So this is a red-letter day in terms of health legislation. The Health (Protection) Amendment Bill which the Labour Party supports is one that has been waiting for its day to come—waiting for over 8 years 8 long years—because the Public Health Bill regarding infectious diseases was first introduced by the Hon Pete Hodgson. It was so urgent that we have waited 8 years for it to pass but putting that to one side we are pleased that we have reached the third reading of this bill.This bill does a number of things that are very positive. It improves the range of measures available to protect the public from harms associated with some diseases which include a range of infectious diseases that are notifiable to a medical officer of health. The key thing is that it is done without the identifying information of the patient or the diseased person. It will include HIV infection gonorrhoeal infection acquired immune deficiency syndrome and syphilis. There was a lot of concern from those who work in public health and staff who work in the health agencies that the management of this area over a sustained period was hindered by an Act that was not up to modern standards and up to scratch and in fact that it was long overdue for us to make these amendments.I have to say that the Health Committee worked very hard on this bill as it does on most bills and petitions. It is a very hard-working committee and its members usually find ways to come to agreement on most things. So we did agree on Part 1 of this bill and the three measures that it introduced which are contact tracing the increase in the range of diseases that are notifiable and the option for the management of individuals with significant infectious diseases. But we were not in agreement on Part 2 of this bill although I do believe that members of the Government opposite would have liked to support my Supplementary Order Paper 80 at the Committee stage which would have banned some sunbeds in New Zealand.It would have banned them because of the danger of them. You know I always like to think that we lead Australia in most things. We are very proud as a small nation that we can do things nimbly and that we can do things in a way that a big bureaucratic government process in Australia makes it difficult to do. Australia has banned sunbeds because it has seen the health risks of them and we should have done the same. But unfortunately our Minister of Health decided that he would ban them for those who are 18 and under. This Government is not going to ban them for an age group they consider old enough to make a decision. This is how the Minister has decided we will approach public health issues. So if you want to choose to smoke why are we wasting money on trying to help people to stop? I mean I found the whole argument about saying that the overriding issue and this is what the Ministry of Health said was that it would prevent access to sunbed services by adults who are well informed and who choose to take the risk of UV tanning for cosmetic purposes—well I think this was a very limp-wristed approach.I would expect a former medical doctor to have picked up this issue and led on it in New Zealand and to have said that we are not going to continue to allow people in New Zealand to use commercial sunbeds that lead to melanoma. I do not say that lightly because we do know that the use of sunbeds increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent as shown in the analysis of over 20 epidemiological studies. They concluded that the risk of melanoma is increased by 75 percent when the use of tanning devices starts before the age of 30—not 18 but the age of 30. Would we not listen to that sort of evidence? Would Professor Gluckman the Chief Science Advisor not be saying to the Minister of Health: “The evidence is overwhelming that if you use this product it increases the risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent.”? It increases the risk of a terrible cancer. And here we are about to spend tens of millions of dollars on a melanoma drug—a drug that is for advanced melanoma when it has reached the point where most people are unlikely to survive—but we are not prepared to take the opportunity to ban commercial sunbeds. We do not need them. You can get enough from the sun—the natural sunlight.What we also know is that those who operate the sunbeds are not always the best of folk when it comes to ensuring that those who use them ought to be using them. We were told at the select committee that the Consumer New Zealand survey found that 40 percent of sunbed operators failed to implement basic safety checks. The public health units carried out a systematic assessment of 97 establishments and found that only 35 percent of operators complied with a joint standard. Half-hearted regulation does not work in this area. Now we are putting in a regime that is a regulatory regime that has to then be checked and followed up and monitored and inspected. The cleanest easiest thing to do in this case would have been to ban them. If people want to use sunbeds in their own home that is their choice but there is no need for us to be providing commercial sunbeds.My worry is particularly for young people under the age of 30 who decide they need to look good and they need to be brown. They spend hours in these sunbed operators so that they feel that they look better while at the same time increasing their risk of melanoma. There is another thing that I found interesting: the Minister of Health has now decided that he is going to do further consultation on the restriction of sunbeds—at the same time as we are passing this legislation. Well we waited 8 years to get to today—we could have waited a few more months for his further consultation on what further restrictions he might like on sunbeds. It just does not add up.I think it must be half-hearted consultation because otherwise a Minister on top of his portfolio would have said: “Hang on. Let’s not pass this bill now. I’m doing further consultation on restrictions and maybe I’d like to include them in this bill or maybe on the advice I receive I would like to ban sunbeds altogether.” Knowing those who are in public health within the Ministry of Health I do not believe that they would support this move. I believe that they would have wanted us to take the public health approach which would remove something that is unnecessary in New Zealand: for people to become more beautiful by having a browner body when we have the sun available. I do not believe they would have supported a move that would see a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma for those under the age of 30 who use sunbeds in New Zealand.The Australians were clever enough to see it—and we have the highest rate of melanoma in the world; we are ahead of Australia now—and they have taken a sensible measure. I am very very disappointed in this particular measure and I am sorry that the Government could not see fit to ban sunbeds altogether which my Supplementary Order Paper would have done.We will support the passage of this bill because it does put in place some restrictions for those who are 18 and under but it does not go far enough. I look forward to the day when as Minister of Health I will move legislation that does ban sunbeds so that the cost of paying for very high-cost melanoma drugs when people are at the end of their lives will be unnecessary because we will do what we can to prevent it before people end up with such a nasty cancer.