Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill

I move, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a third time.

If I may, just before I begin, because it’s quite an unusual time to be about to start a final reading of a member’s bill when we’ve got the extraordinary scenes outside. I just want to make a short acknowledgment, in particular, of the police efforts. And there are a number who have come down from the Bay of Plenty. I actually met them in the last 48 hours, and I just want to pass on to them my personal thanks, and I’m sure the thanks of the Bay of Plenty community for their service this afternoon.

This bill is really personal for me. When I was a young fella, we used to go to the Mount Maunganui beach for the summer holidays. We’d take 45 minutes to drive from Te Puna across to the Mount, and I would spend most of that week enjoying myself, playing cricket, and swimming in the Mount beach. And, really, I can recall like yesterday, actually, the sunscreen that we used: it was Coppertone sun protection factor (SPF) 4, possibly even Coppertone SPF 6 if we were really wanting to protect ourselves. You know, there was the coconut oil option, but my father always used to seek refuge from the sun under a beach umbrella. He was a redhead, which is why when I married a beautiful red-headed lady we have two red-headed daughters—actually, it’s because of my dad. But anyway, he avoided the sun quite a lot, but it still managed to chase him through his life. He had a melanoma cut out from him. So I can always remember him hiding under the shade of the umbrella, and me being less worried about the sun, and if I was really up for it, putting Coppertone SPF 6 on.

Fast forward to when I was 18. And again, I can remember this like yesterday, it was the America’s Cup challenge, our first. It was Fremantle. We were in Taupō, again a summer holiday. I had moved from about six to the age of 18, where I had decided it was time for me to get a tan. And so I laid out on the gravel of Lake Taupō seaside and managed to get second-degree burns the next day. And I am still paying for that: that lack of judgment of a young fella has seen a number of basal and squamous cells cut out of my face; in fact, I’ve got another one planned in a few weeks’ time. Skin cancer has been a front-of-mind consequence for me because of my particular skin type and some of the challenges that I had when I was younger, some of the choices that I made. But I’m fully accountable for that and have to own it.

But who is accountable for the very well-informed mum who goes to the supermarket or any of our chemist outlets and buys an SPF 50, on the assumption that it is an SPF 50, only to find that it’s not? Who’s accountable for those in our country who want even greater protection and find that the label doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, whether it is 30-plus, 40-plus, 50-plus SPF? Frankly, that situation is unacceptable, and this bill, that we have the last reading of tonight, is a small step to try and remedy that on behalf of New Zealand consumers. For it is absolutely critical in 2022 that if you need, as we all do, to protect ourselves from the sun, that if you purchase a product that has a claim of protection, that that claim can be matched by testing and actually has an efficacy that can be defended. And too often in this country, we have products that are being sold that do not meet that standard.

So this bill, as has been well traversed in this House, through a very good select committee, provides a strengthening of the consumer position, because what it does is it takes the joint Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, which is voluntary in this country but compulsory in Australia, and it lists that standard as a deemed product safety standard under the Fair Trading Act, which then triggers the Fair Trading Act regime—including the Commerce Commission, potential prosecution, and exposure to $600,000 corporate fine—if you are found to have been misleading consumers with the claims about your product not matching the reality for people who use it.

It’s a relatively simple bill. It seeks to strengthen the consumer experience, and I’ve been delighted with the support that it has had as it has gone through the House. I do want to acknowledge, of course, my parliamentary colleagues on the National side who are very supportive of this right from the first genesis. But also across the House, including, obviously, with the makeup of this Parliament, the Labour Party, who has decided to support this bill, knowing, of course, that the ultimate solution is the natural products or therapeutic and natural products bill, which is in its own gestation; in fact, it has been now for successive Governments that is pending, and may well—

Hon Member: It’s always pending.

TODD MULLER: It’s always pending, and it may well provide a more comprehensive regulatory solution for this issue. But I do acknowledge, I have heard through the grapevine, that it did get quite a debate at the Labour Party caucus. It was the Celtic stock, the red heads of the Labour Party, that swung in behind me to ensure this bill got supported. So I call out in support—we don’t do this often on this side of the House—but I do want to acknowledge Chris Hipkins, who I’m sure it must have played a fundamental part in swinging that debate.

Hon Member: We all supported it, mate.

TODD MULLER: I mean, you know, a man as suave as you, you know, with your hair, I’m sure you would have supported it in here anyway. But seriously, it’s a bill that I have a lot of personal stake in, you know, pride to have actually brought it to the House, for it to be supported, as I understand it will be, and I just want to acknowledge the House for their support.

One final comment, we did debate as a select committee when it should come into effect, its commencement date, and then some stock and trade provisions. Now, we got some pushback from elements of the sector saying that there should be a three-year transition. It is only 18 months from Royal assent. Frankly, I think that’s quite generous. But, I think in its own way signals that despite some of the sector’s positioning and potentially even protestation around the need or otherwise for this bill, there is an acknowledgment that, frankly, there still is too much in this New Zealand supply chain of product that doesn’t actually meet the joint standard with Australia. There is an updated standard, it’s 2021, it’s coming down the track. This bill enables and assumes that the Minister will make the requisite adjustments to the regulations when both Australia and New Zealand have landed agreed transitional arrangements. But it’s a good first step, it protects New Zealanders, and I have great pride in being able to put it forward this evening. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to make this remote call, my first one. It’s somewhat fitting, I suppose, after a long, hot Kiwi summer, to be here tonight and to be debating the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its third reading. I’d like to just take a moment to commend my colleague who’s just taken his seat, Todd Muller, for ushering this bill through up until this stage. It’s been really clear during this process that it’s something that he is very passionate about and something that he’s been quite rightly exercised about. So as one of those people from Celtic stock, not necessarily prone to quick burning, but I do congratulate him, and—yes, I do congratulate him.

Notwithstanding that sentiment, though, there are definitely some shortcomings in this bill—some shortcomings that, as Mr Muller pointed out, no doubt will be usurped by the proposed therapeutic products bill in due course. So, on this occasion, it’s not so important. We view it, on this side of the House, as a perfectly adequate stopgap measure.

The bill allows for the provision of a regulatory scheme for an important safety product that is currently without one, and it’s a safety product that many of us no doubt take for granted. If it says “SPF 50” on the bottle, then we assume that that’s correct, and we make decisions for ourselves and we make decisions for our loved ones or people that we’re caring for based on that. And we should be able to safely do that, with confidence, so it is important. During the process, we’ve heard from stakeholders, particularly from—one that stands out is from consumer.org.nz, who have long highlighted the issues with sunscreen products which, when treated, too often fail to meet the actual sun protection claimed by manufacturers. And I think that bears repeating: sometimes, some products simply fail to show that they offer the protection from the sun that we think that they do. And, obviously, it’s neither fair from a consumer rights perspective; it’s certainly not satisfactory from a health perspective. And that really does bear noting.

It’s unfortunate, as Mr Muller said, that we are unable to update the standard for the sunscreen as proposed by the bill in the original form. Reflecting on that process of the bill, it was something that would have been good to do. But it’s perfectly reasonable, in so far as our counterparts in Australia are simply meant to do it themselves and it is important that we remain in alignment with our friends across the Tasman, with whom we share many regulatory standards, not to mention the rather large hole in the ozone layer. So given that, as such, the member’s Supplementary Order Paper, which reverts to the 2012 standard, is perfectly appropriate in this sense.

It’s also worth noting that those of us on the Health Committee sought to broaden the definition of the term “sunscreen product”, one that will apply to skincare products labelled with SPF greater than 15, and, for instance, insect repellents labelled with sun protection factor (SPF) of 4 or more. In doing so, it has this dual benefit of not only aligning us with Australia but, more importantly, it shifts the focus from the stated purpose of the product to the manufacturer’s claims regarding sun protection. So if a moisturiser, for instance, also in the small print claims to have SPF 15, then rather than being conceived as or perceived as a cosmetic, it should be held to the same standard and we have those manufacturers claims robustly protected. That’s the salient point.

So this is a bill that’s a good interim measure. As I said earlier, it obviously does have some shortcomings. Specifically, it doesn’t provide sufficient detail on a few important issues: it certainly doesn’t provide sufficient detail on frequency of testing, it doesn’t really provide sufficient detail on how to ensure that quality control during manufacturing, and it doesn’t really provide sufficient detail on the role that accredited labs will play throughout this sort of process. But the therapeutic products bill, as Mr Muller pointed out, will provide a much more comprehensive and a much more robust framework that will cover the regulation of sunscreen products, and we very much look forward to the introduction and look forward to the progression of that particular piece of legislation.

Given that, and with, I suppose, that backdrop in place, we will in the meantime support the passage of this member’s bill. And having said that, therefore, I commend this bill House.

The next call is a remote call on behalf of Dr Shane Reti.

Hon Member: It’s not on behalf of. He’s actually doing it!

Thank you for your help.

Hon Member: Sorry. Sorry.

Which I’m sure you won’t give me any more of.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a pleasure to speak on this bill tonight. And can I offer heartfelt congratulations to the member for getting his piece of work to this stage and getting his bill through the House. This is a nice piece of work. I did enjoy his walk back through sunscreens through his life. Mine probably starts with QTOL if I look back and work my way forward. And as he correctly pointed out, sun risk, a feature of several things: clearly, exposure to the sun’s rays; secondly, your ability to protect; and then thirdly, as he commented, a fair complexion or that genetic predisposition. And interestingly, he mentioned that he’d had a number of basal cells and squamous cells removed because of his fair complexion. I caught up with a 40-year-old gentleman about three months ago, and he has a syndrome called Gorlin syndrome, G-o-r-l-i-n, and that’s a syndrome where the DNA repair mechanism to the skin is faulty. And at the age of about three, they start developing skin cancers, basal cells and squamous cells. And he removed his shirt, because I’ve been fascinated in this condition, I’d only seen it in books, and he was like a patchwork quilt across his back. There must have been 70 incisions where cancers have been removed. Can you imagine that from the age of three or four? And so clearly that genetic predisposition—he could reduce that incidence by being sun smart like the rest of us would be, but he particularly is the beneficiary of a sunscreen that is compliant with best practice and compliant with the highest sun protection factor rating possible; so a beneficiary, without doubt.

I think that this bill, looking through the select committee process, the 36 submissions, I thought all of them added value and I thought there were particularly interesting parts segueing into what the therapeutic products bill may eventually become with discussions around natural products, alternative products, and this indeed sitting as a cosmetic. I think part of that discovery has exposed other parts of the process. If we look at where this bill is working, it’s working at performance standards and product claims. It was interesting to note that the manufacturing component currently has no statutory legislation, and so that may well be covered in the therapeutic products bill, be that good manufacturing practice or whatever manufacturing standard is determined. It’s another part of this process that makes it even better.

I think interesting also, I’ve mentioned genetic predisposition, the fair complexion—this must be one of those slightly unusual health situations where equity for Māori is less applicable because of Māori having a darker complexion. We generally get less melanoma than others. So odd in that respect—beneficial in that respect.

I also think there’s something interesting going forward to look at how we might measure the effectiveness of this bill as it moves through here tonight. It’d be interesting to have some sort of a snapshot before and after. What impact did the passage of this bill have on sun-induced skin cancers? Hard to determine, but, you know, if there was a 10 percent reduction in skin cancers for no other obvious cause, one might reliably point to, well, maybe it was the passage of good legislation. So it’d be good to snapshot before this bill is actually enabled. And that sort of leads to something which one of the other members has spoken about, and that is the ability to monitor compliance for what we’re looking to achieve here today. That manufacturers and retailers will adhere to the standards that we’re wanting to embody here, and how do we monitor that? Who monitors that? That’s all been part of the committee discussion, certainly under the Fair Trading Act. But it will be interesting to look and see how resources are applied, how often, how much, and what those findings are, because that is a large part of what we’re looking to do here tonight.

So in summary, this may be a small bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call—

Hon Members: He’s still going.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, sorry, Dr—so Dr Reti is finished, thank you. No?

Hon Member: You cut him off.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I won’t cut him off.

Dr SHANE RETI: OK, well, I will be shortly. That’s quite OK. I will be shortly. This is as good a bill as it was 30 seconds ago. So I want to commend the member. I really do look forward to applying it in practice. Well done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Apologies for the flopping around. Just trying to get our ducks lined up—always an interesting thing.

Kia ora. Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. It’s slightly confusing here—I’m speaking via Zoom—because we have occasionally some microphone feedback as I’m getting at the—I’m just going to talk over you so forgive me. If you want my attention just yell. Forgive me, we’re experiencing a little bit of microphone sort of input here, but I am absolutely delighted to be speaking this evening—lit, as I am, by the evening sun, so forgive me for the somewhat uneven lighting, to speak to the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its third reading.

I am part of the Health Committee—the very hard-working Health Committee and just wanted to add my thanks and congratulations to our chair, Dr Liz Craig, but also to thank Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House. It really has great value, although we’ve heard members say in previous speeches that we in Government will be introducing the therapeutic products bill, which we hope will be able to be a little bit more, or significantly more, comprehensive, but in the meantime this is such a pressing issue and we did with our Celtic skin recognise that it was of value to do something straight away. So I commend him for this bill. Also like to thank the hard-working clerks and officials for their input.

Fundamentally, as we’ve heard before, really what we’re trying to do is just to ensure that sunscreen does what it says on the tin. With some products it’s pretty clear that that’s not going to happen. You know, regardless of what advertising or what products say on the tin, I know that applying it to me is not going to turn me into Rachel Hunter for the simple reason that I’m not blonde—I mean, obviously no other reason. We can laugh but it is a serious issue. We’ve heard Mr Muller speaking about the impact of the sun on fairer skin. Certainly, I can speak to that myself.

As I said in a previous speech, I believe, I came from an area which had a great deal of sunshine and we were back in the—gosh!—1980s more keen to get a tan than to avoid the sun. And so you’d find us on our lunch breaks actually putting olive oil on our skin to try to get that tan. But, you know, not for long; a couple of decent burns would have us stopping doing that. I was chatting to a friend this morning and just mentioned to her that I was going to be speaking to this bill this evening. And she said, “Oh yeah, it’s really important because I, you know, I had melanoma.” and she’s a young woman, and I hadn’t realised that she’d had it in her early 20s. She did have melanoma successfully removed, has no long-term health outcomes from it, but she was really concerned to learn, as she did in our conversation, that the reason for this bill was that the tins were not accurate in representing, in some cases, what was really happening in the product inside. So she told me of her personal experience.

Another colleague was so alarmed when we spoke earlier—well, last year, when this first came to the House—that her children are being covered pretty much from head to toe, not in sunscreen but in clothing, and I think I’m having visions of us all in hand-knitted Victorian bathers trying to keep ourselves protected. I think having a decent sunscreen is probably preferable, although I think some might benefit from Victorian bathers. I’m not going to say who.

This year, we have seen, sadly, already three brands failed their Consumer New Zealand testing, and they were three brands that failed the year before, interestingly enough. I won’t name them but a quick Google search will bring them up. They failed either on broad spectrum or sun protection factor (SPF) claims and it’s pretty serious stuff because when we’re putting this sunscreen on our bodies we really do need it to work to protect us. We really do need it to do what it says on the tin. Otherwise, we don’t just risk a nasty burn—as I’ve received and I’m sure many of my colleagues have—but we actually risk skin cancer, and this is potentially fatal and we know that it is a significant cause of early and preventable death in New Zealand.

We need broad spectrum cover—and, you know, for those who aren’t aware, we’re looking at ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) cover. They do differ; they’re ultraviolet radiation. Neither of them we can actually see or feel but they do penetrate the skin. And with UVA, for example, and these shorter wavelengths, UVB—UVB with the shorter wavelengths does make a small amount of vitamin D. But I think it’s probably really important to realise that we don’t need a huge amount of sunlight on our skin to produce the amount of vitamin D for good health and certainly a decent sunscreen applied all the time isn’t going to stop us from having the vitamin D that we need. Increased levels of that, you know, UVB are going to lead to sunburn and also turn to cancer, whereas the UVA, it goes a bit deeper and causes ageing of the skin but also cancer. And both of them suppress skin immunity, which isn’t something that we need.

I guess what we’re looking at is an SPF reading which will tell us how long we can stay in the sun being exposed to those ultraviolet radiation levels without burning and without increasing our risk of skin cancer. So a lot of us choose the highest possible SPF so that we can guarantee the greatest amount of time outside because, let’s face it, none of us—we do enjoy being outside as much as we can, although today I don’t think I’ve got a great deal being in the virtual House from home, but I do like to enjoy going outside. It’s very much the Kiwi way to get out and enjoy this beautiful countryside. So, yeah, so we’re relying on that SPF really to give us that protection and, reading DermNet, a lot of us aren’t even applying it correctly: six teaspoons of sunscreen, as I said before, to the “mountains and valleys”, whatever that means, and two coats like painting a wall. I’m trying to have a little bit of a public service announcement here so that we will have a greater understanding of what we need to do.

But, as I said, we have defined “sunscreen” a little bit more completely in this bill than in the original draft and I think in part due to the interactions from my colleague Naisi Chen, who gave us a pretty comprehensive understanding of products that might be seen to contain some protection factor in her first reading speech. I was certainly blown away and learnt stuff, so it’s really good to see that we have got that. We have got that definition that basically, as my colleague Dr McLellan said, does include insect repellent that’s labelled with SPF of 4 or more. What I learnt in my research was that insect repellent actually can reduce the SPF of the products that you’re using so it’s more important that you have a higher level and you’re applying more frequently.

Obviously, you know, sunscreen is something that’s primarily to protect the skin from ultraviolet radiation. But also we’ve included here a product that’s represented as skincare with an SPF greater than 15 or a product that’s represented as a tinted base or foundation, which is something that a lot of us really do rely on actually on the day-to-day basis to provide us with that, you know, bottom-line SPF coverage.

One of the things that Mr Muller was alluding to earlier was the stock-in-trade amendments and the discussion that we had around whether or not—what particular time line we should look at before these products—

Hon Member: Read it like you mean it!

SARAH PALLETT: I’m sorry, it’s not you, Madam Speaker; I’ll carry on talking. The stock-in-trade—we needed to balance the need for, obviously, getting products off the shelves as quickly as was reasonable with the harm that might be caused by having products still available that were not accurate. We’ve landed on 12 months after the legislation commences, so that’s 18 months from the date of Royal assent, I believe. Obviously, we really are clear in the committee that—all of us are clear and probably I would say in the House that we would like our manufacturers and our stockists to, basically, put products on the shelves that do what they say on the tin and keep everybody safe. In the meantime, those boys are going to be in protective gear. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora. E te Māngai, e te Whare, tēnā rā koutou. On behalf of the Green Party and as a member of the Health Committee, that heard this bill, I rise to take a very short call in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the sunscreen protection, or SPF, properties of sunscreen products.

It is also personal for me, as we have shared in previous ones. Fortunately, my Māori blood has given me some protection from the fierce Aotearoa sun, but that Irish blood is really, really strong, and so as an adult I’ve always used the highest-quality skin care and products that I could afford. So it was quite a shock when in my 40s, the little lump—a little tiny thing that was in my eye—suddenly grew really, really fast and turned out to be skin cancer. Now, I wasn’t well off, and when I went to the doctors, they said there was a minimum of six months, a six-month waiting list, but I would always probably be low priority. So I was able to, thankfully, loan the $2,000 it cost to spend 15 minutes in a private clinic to get it removed, and I’m thankful that it never came back.

Of course, it’s not just my experience. As noted by the Cancer Society in its submission to our committee, although skin cancer is largely preventable it’s our most common cancer. Over 90,000 new cases are diagnosed per year and around 500 New Zealanders dying. Contrary to popular opinion, and certainly my thinking when I was young, our brown skin does not protect us, and although, as our colleague Dr Reti said, Māori and Pasifika have much-lower incidence of melanoma, we get it worse when we do. We’ve got a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis. So along with the personal costs, substantial public healthcare resources are consumed in managing skin cancer.

Of course, prevention is better, and I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Dermatological Society, who recommended minimising time in the sun, particularly when it’s most intense; seeking shade; and wearing a broad-brimmed hat, wraparound UV protective sunglasses, and high ultra-protective clothing covering most of the skin. That is not how most New Zealanders spend the summer, and we try really hard just to get our kids to do that.

But of course, applying a broad spectrum SPF 50-plus sunscreen to areas not covered by our clothes. What this bill addresses is that when people actually use a broad spectrum sunscreen, what the label says is what they get; unfortunately, it’s not the case in Aotearoa where there’s a wide range of sunscreens available on the market in the guise of many different types of products, each with different formulation and ingredients, and no requirement to comply with the existing Australian - New Zealand standard or even to have the product tested.

The Greens have long supported consumer protections that ensure people can trust what they are buying. This bill would increase consumer trust in the claims of sunscreen brands. It would do this through the mandatory regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to prescribe a safety standard in line with the Australia - New Zealand 2012 or later sunscreen standards as adopted by the Australian authorities. A mandatory standard will reduce skin cancer and it will save lives.

I thank the member, Todd Muller, for bringing it in—congratulations—and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Sorry, are you able to hear me? That’s better. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Apologies, I’m having some technical issues.

It is my pleasure today to take my first call during the historic sitting of Parliament, for the first time ever, virtually. I want to start off, first of all, by just acknowledging Dr Reti, who was talking about Gorlin syndrome. I actually had to look it up, because it is quite a rare syndrome, and I was looking it up on DermNet, which is the Bible that all doctors go to whenever they’re looking at something related to dermatological condition. It was founded by Dr Amanda Oakley, who is from Hamilton and has done a lot of good work in making sure that all this information about rare and very common medical conditions, especially around dermatology, is available to the wider public. But also, recently, I was at Pāpāmoa Beach during the summer break, not too far from Mr Muller’s electorate, and while lying on the beach, amongst all things that I could think of, what was really on my mind was the bill Mr Muller has just put forward, which is on the Table today.

We have one of the highest rates of skin cancers in the world, which results from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B rays, and one of the highest age-standardised incidence of melanoma in the world, with 35 to 40 people per 100,000 affected. Four thousand people get in situ melanoma, 2,500 get invasive melanoma diagnosed every year, and there are about 363 deaths from melanoma every year. We also spend quite a bit of money on it—$183 million a year is spent on skin cancers, and it is projected to grow to $298 million soon.

Now, the number one way to protect from skin cancers is to have a strong sun protection against UV exposure, and the application of a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen—sun protection factor (SPF) 30 or, ideally, even SPF 50-plus—is the best way to prevent a lot of these skin cancers. Unlike Australia, though, there is no mandatory standard for sunscreens in New Zealand, and it is important that one of the most crucial things that prevents skin cancer is well-regulated, so people can have confidence in the safety standards of sunscreen in New Zealand. Now, the Government is separately progressing the regulation of therapeutic products, which covers the type of products like sunscreens, but other products as well, as part of its proposed therapeutic products bill. The current bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, before us in the House, provides an interim measure in regards to sunscreen, while the Government’s therapeutic bill goes through its development and legislative stages.

We do support this bill, I support this bill, because it will help address the current gap while implementing a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand through the Fair Trading Act to ensure that they meet the standards laid out by the Joint Standards Australian/ New Zealand Committee on this topic. As I expressed in my first reading, while Mr Muller’s bill is an improvement on what we have at the moment, it does not address issues such as using accredited labs, how often testing should happen, and manufacturing quality control. Now, the Government’s therapeutic products bill will be new, and it will be a comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate a wider range of therapeutic products in New Zealand, and will be able to address the issues canvassed by the bill, as part of the more comprehensive and complete approach.

It was my pleasure to be on the Health Committee, through which this bill came. Although the Health Committee did not change the purpose of the bill, we did change the mechanism by which the bill operates. New Zealand and Australia have a shared sunscreen standard, the AS/NZS 2604, that specifies testing methods for sunscreens, and labelling requirements. In Australia, the standard is mandatory, whereas in New Zealand compliance with the standard is voluntary. As introduced initially, the bill required the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulation be set to prescribe a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The regulation would be set under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, which empowers the Minister to recommend product safety standards. The bill will require the standard to be NZS 2604:2012, or any New Zealand standard that was substituted for that standard. In the same essence, this would have the effect of moving the existing standard from voluntary to mandatory in New Zealand.

During the select committee process, however, the committee received advice that the empowering provisions of the Fair Trading Act do not appear to allow a product safety standard to be made for the purpose of mandating the Australia - New Zealand standard for sunscreen. The advice was based on the interpretation that section 29(1) is designed to prevent or minimise the risk of injury by addressing potential harm that is inherent in a product. So this was a problem for the initial bill as it was proposed, because the AS/NZS standard for sunscreen does not seek to prevent or minimise the risk of injury resulting from the intrinsic properties of the sunscreen. Instead, the standard sets out how products may be labelled in terms of the protective factors so that the degree to which a sunscreen product offers protection from adverse effects of UV radiation is disclosed to the consumers.

So, to address these matters, and to provide legal clarity, the Health Committee instead decided to recommend that the compliance with the standard should be mandated in the primary legislation. According to this, we had to replace clause 5 of the bill. What that does is it removes the requirement of the Minister to make a regulation, instead simply mandating in a primary Act that the standards apply as if they were a product safety standard made through regulation.

So, as introduced, the bill’s commencement clause provided for it to come into force the day after enactment. That was fine when the bill required further regulations to be made, as that process would give time for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the new requirements. However, as the committee amended clause 5, as I’ve just talked about, to provide for the product safety standards to be made in primary legislation rather than through a regulation-making process, the immediate commencement of the legislation would be impractical as it would give no time for the manufacturers and suppliers to make the required change. So the Health Committee ended up recommending that the bill commence six months after enactment, providing time. In addition to that, the committee also suggested implementing some stock-in-trade amendments, giving suppliers time to move old products. It is quite important, and I think my colleague, Sarah Pallett, alluded to this before as well.

The committee, at the end, ended up deciding that the existing stock-in-trade should be allowed to be supplied for up to 18 months after the legislation was enacted, so that’s 12 months after the legislation commences.

So I guess, overall, in summary, it is a great bill because it closes a lot of gaps that are present at the moment, which are causing harm to New Zealanders—not only in terms of their health and their lives but also it’s quite a financial drain on the health system if you’re spending over $200 million a year treating something which is easily preventable with a sunscreen lotion. We just need to be able to regulate these sunscreen lotions. I’m quite looking forward to the Government’s therapeutic products bill because it will be a little bit more comprehensive, and it will include other therapeutic products as well, not just the sunscreens. But until that happens, and until that legislation comes through, it is important that we have something in place.

So I’m quite in support of this bill, which has gone through quite a significant process in the Health Committee and, as we just talked about, has had quite a few amendments made to it to be able to come this stage. So I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I sense some frustration over here and some use of the mobile phones on the other side, and I thought I’d keep this pretty concise. First of all, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support Mr Muller’s bill. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting as a mandatory regulation. Tonight we will have gone the first step to actually showing New Zealanders that they can trust the efficiency of their sunscreen products, and to purchase adequate sun protection is—they know that it’s tested.

But, you know, going back in history—just to bring some context—sun protection in early civilisations in Egypt used the extracts of rice, jasmine, and lupin plants to help protect their skin from the heat. The ancient Greeks used olive oil—so it’s a good thing.

Hon Member: What was the SPF factor of that?

DAMIEN SMITH: Well—

Hon Member: We all used olive oil at some point.

DAMIEN SMITH: Ha, ha! Zinc paste has been used for a thousand years—not just the Australian cricket team and Shane Warne. Then came the Dark Ages and the mediaeval times, when there must have been no sun, because there were no records. But the 1900s saved us again. The simple story about Coco Chanel: she was on a boat in the Mediterranean in 1923 and she got too much sun. She came off the boat and her look symbolised health, and people wanted her glow. So it took off, sunbathing. But actually the origin of sun cream and the sun protection factor (SPF) rating system was by the founder of L’Oréal, Franz Greiter, who had the Piz Buin mountain product. He actually designed it for the back of his neck, and it was an SPF of 2.

So the unintended consequences showed that in 1946—and Ginny would appreciate this—along came the bikini. Clothes, as we know, should have an SPF of 50, but, in the 1950s, as Mr Muller pointed out, we had the Coppertone self-tan girl—and now we have “Muller man”. We had Malibu Barbie in the 1970s, and sunbeds—nobody’s going to admit to this—in the 2000s. But, you know, the concept of SPF goes as far back as 1962.

Melanoma is the deadliest of all skin cancers, and a lifetime exposure to sun does leave a person at risk for developing other types of skin cancer, like basal cell carcinoma. My daughter had a melanoma cut out of her leg at 13—she was a redhead—and it had to be sent to the United States for analysis because we hadn’t got the service here. If you can’t remove the lesions, it’s a pretty invasive process to take chemotherapy and radiation for this. Over 500 people a year do die from this condition.

So what we have now is a standard where—and I thought the earlier presenters were a bit flippant about the mandatory requirements that this actually does carry. We are actually prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen, which I think’s the first step, irrespective of other legislation that comes through. So, on behalf of the ACT Party, the healthiest thing to do is to use sunscreen, but also to use it in the proper fashion, because we do need vitamin D, and we do need some exposure to sun. Broad-screen, water-resistant SPFs of 30-plus with zinc and titanium every day does make a difference, and you can see it here, obviously. So in terms of the visible signs of ageing, I wish Mr Muller all the best, and it is critical that—[Interruption] Ha, ha! It’s never too late to turn your skin around. So, on behalf of the ACT Party, we commend the bill to the House.

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 $200,000 for an individual and $600,000 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.

Madam Chair—Madam Speaker. In person.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Matt Doocey—a five-minute call; though, I might make it four, just for that.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I must say, it’s great to be here in person, and, hopefully, we can wake up and have a bit of debate about what I think is this very important bill. And I must say, my first statement is to all New Zealanders: when they are out, in the summer, on the beach, on the farm—when they’re rubbing the sunscreen into themselves or their loved ones, they should think of Todd Muller. Todd Muller is the man that stood up for them, gave them confidence. He’s a man you can trust, Todd Muller. And that’s why we have this bill in the House today at its third reading. We can always think of Todd Muller when we get the sunscreen out.

And it does pose one question, when you think about this bill—and I think it’s been very harshly criticised by members of the other side. But it does pose the question: what have they been doing for the last five years? Why did it take for Todd Muller to come in and use his member’s bill to address a problem the Government should have done? I think what it shows is that every day we are looking like a competent alternative Government. And Todd Muller’s put his hand up for the consumer affairs Minister. I think he will make one of the best consumer affairs Ministers New Zealand has ever seen.

And then you start to think, well, who is the current consumer affairs Minister? Why didn’t he do this? And then, of course, we realise: because it’s David Clark. No wonder: the worst health Minister in 50 years, and fast becoming the worst consumer affairs Minister this country has ever seen. So I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague Todd Müller—

Todd Muller: Muller!

MATT DOOCEY: —Muller—for standing up for New Zealanders. And I must say, he’s worked very hard on this bill, and, I must say, I’m a bit jealous, though, because when I look at some of my member’s bills, I actually reckon that they were better than this. If you think of the prohibition of synthetic urine bill that I put forward—that, I mean! And these guys voted it down. I couldn’t believe it. And then they vote in favour of this bill. And what about my increasing penalties for killing a police dog bill: the Government votes it down, yet they support this bill? Where’s the justice in that? Oh, sorry, Todd Müller!

But on saying that, Todd and I came into politics at the same time, so we’re great mates. And I must say, this will go down as sort of a key victory for him. He’ll be able to update his Wikipedia, and, let’s be honest, he’ll be off to get some help from caucus members on that. And that’s something he can really say that he’s achieved, by raising standards for sunscreen in New Zealand.

Look, I think I’ve said enough. It’s good to be in the House and debating face to face. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

What happens when the whip needs to whip the whip? That’s the question for tonight—for that tirade from the person who couldn’t quite even get their own member’s name correct, in speaking on their own member’s bill that’s being heard a third time! So we heard about Todd “Müller” and also the fact that that member thought his own member’s bills were better than his own member’s, which I thought was quite apt in summarising the entire attitude of a self, kind of, mode—what we see opposite. But we are supporting this bill because it’s a decent bill, and that’s why. I’d say that the reason why Matt Doocey’s bills didn’t get supported was they weren’t decent bills. When you get a good bill, you vote for it, and that’s what this party stands for. So congratulations to the member opposite, Todd Muller. I think that you’ve made a good effort at actually putting towards a bill, and the reason why we support this bill is that we support taking a regulatory approach to the safety standards of sunscreen.

Look, I think every person can remember a time as a kid when you got really badly sunburnt. I remember it clearly, at a time of about 12 or 13, not having any sunscreen on or having some sort of coconut stuff someone had given you when you were at intermediate and you spent the day out at the swimming pool, and you get home that night and you go to have a bath or a shower, and you realise that you’ve actually caused some long-term damage to your own body. Many New Zealanders do that without actually wanting to, because they can’t be reassured that the quality of product they should be buying off the shelves is verified. So full credit to the member for bringing about a bill that has some good benefit for New Zealanders going forward—particularly given where we are placed in the world, particularly given we know we get burnt here more than we do in other countries. And it took me travelling to figure that out myself—that you don’t get as burnt as what you do in New Zealand.

I think it’s important that we note, also, that we have the therapeutic products bill coming through as well. This will provide an interim measure with regard to sunscreen while this bill goes through its development and legislative stages. Unlike Australia, as has already been mentioned, there’s no mandatory standard for sunscreens in New Zealand; so it is important that we do that in a country that has very high rates of melanoma, very high rates of people who need further protection and are outside, active, playing sport, and working. We should be protected in those spaces. We support this bill because it will help address the current gap that’s been identified in implementing a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand through the Fair Trading Act to ensure that they meet the standards laid out in the Joint Standards Australia/New Zealand Committee on the topic. As we’ve already expressed, there are types of products that fall into this that are proposed, as I’ve already mentioned, in the therapeutic products bill—a new, comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand. The therapeutic products bill will be able to address the issues canvassed by this bill as part of a more complete approach. It’s important that, while this is a great issue to address and resolve now, we need a wider approach for the long term so we do not see repeat instances of what this bill has brought around.

While it’s not a complete solution, this bill provides an interim measure in regards of sunscreen regulation, and we welcome that on behalf of the Labour Party. While the Government’s therapeutics bill goes through its development and through its legislative stages, we will support this bill because it makes a good change for New Zealanders. When you go to the shelf and you buy a sunscreen product that you are putting on your children at the side of the pool, you want to be reassured that what you do is doing the best for your young children and making sure that they are protected. If it says sun protection factor (SPF) 50-plus, it damned well should be SPF 50-plus, and it’s wrong for anything else to be sold to you, pretending to be so. Changes have been made by the select committee, and I think they’ve made some good improvements in general on the bill. I think it fits into a wider plan of making sure we’re looking after New Zealanders, and it’s great to see a National member stepping up and ensuring that they’re thinking about the wider wellbeing of New Zealanders and making some good improvements for that, then. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to be here. It’s the first time I’ve had the opportunity to speak in the House this year, so it feels a little odd to be doing so from Pāpāmoa—and I just would like to acknowledge that is the electorate of my colleague and friend Todd Muller, and so it’s a real pleasure to be here with you today, Todd, from home, recognising that this is the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. So first and foremost, congratulations, Todd; today was a day here back in the electorate where we needed sunscreen. And I would just like to make comment to the member Matt Doocey—I will not, I repeat, I will not, be thinking about Todd Muller as I put my sunscreen on my body. But thank you for that enduring image.

So as I say I’d like to congratulate you, Todd Muller, for bringing this bill, and for what I understand to have been a very collegial process through the select committee. I’m not a member of the Health Committee, and I’ve only had the opportunity to speak on this bill one time previously, so I haven’t had the opportunity to hear from the submitters. I understand that there was not one single submitter of the 36 who was against the bill, but some made some useful suggestions to make changes. I also understand that there was oral evidence given by seven submitters. So I think, while not a huge number, I think probably those who did inform the select committee were entirely on point, and very much able to speak directly into this bill.

I would like to acknowledge the Health Committee and my colleague and friend Liz Craig, who is the chairperson, who unfortunately doesn’t get an opportunity to speak on this bill tonight, but is here with us. I would like to acknowledge Liz because of the extreme amount of work that the Health Committee has undertaken in this last term of Parliament—it is an incredibly busy time for you as a select committee. I’d like to acknowledge also the Minister, the Hon David Clark, for the work that he did, including the work that he did in regards to working alongside Todd Muller around the Supplementary Order Paper and agreeing to that and working for a clear and clever workaround to something that, unfortunately, in the initial reading we hadn’t picked up as not applying to Australia and New Zealand. So with that, having said that, I also wanted to acknowledge some of the previous speakers that I’ve heard today, some of you have given me some opportunity to learn some more, and I have paid attention to the debates throughout each of the readings—just a personal interest of mine.

One of the things that people have talked about is the incidence or amount of melanoma and sun damage that we have in this country. I live at the beach; I grew up surfing; I spent many, many years in the sun. Yes, I was that person who had sun protection factor (SPF) 2 “tropicana oil”, which got me nice and tanned, and, as a consequence, at age 50—much like my colleague Todd Muller and many of us here—I’ve had bits of me cut out. I’d just like to acknowledge the skin clinic, Skinspots—they do a great job to keep me safe and to remove what needs to be removed at the time that it does.

So this bill is an important little piece of legislation in that who knew, who understood that when you went to the supermarket or the chemist and you picked up your SPF 50 and you religiously put it on your body—and you didn’t think of Todd Muller at the time that you did it—that, in fact, it’s not necessarily going to do what it says on the label? Who would have thought that we would have had a voluntary option as to whether we complied, whereas Australia has a mandatory system? Who would have realised that? And I think it’s really useful that the member has drawn this to our attention. And I’d just like to acknowledge Ginny Andersen and her statement, we do support bills that have good value and lots and lots of use, and this is one of those bills.

It is universally agreed in this country that we need to ensure that we are protected from our sun. In this country, we have the highest rate of melanoma in the world. In fact, we have a very high death rate as well for melanoma in this country. So, as a consequence, when we discover that five out of 10 sunscreens weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing with Consumer NZ looking to and doing a study, then it’s actually quite shocking. I think about my children and how I slather them up with sunblock, thinking that I was doing the right thing. And, of course, I was doing the right thing, but perhaps the product itself wasn’t doing what it said it was going to do. So I would just recognise and acknowledge that that research and those findings have perhaps fed into and led into Todd Muller’s bill—and useful, very useful to do so. I’d also like to, without going into who failed and who passed, acknowledge and recognise that—go google that information because it is actually really important that you get it right.

So, coming now to the bill, I am really particularly interested in the stock-in-trade provisions of this bill. So it shows to me—and I am an outsider only looking at the legislation and reading the reports on it—how thoughtful the submitters have been. It also shows how the officials have given such good and sound advice on this matter. So some of the submitters talked about stock and trade. So, essentially, we all know and recognise that stock is sitting on the shelves in supermarkets or chemists, etc. So that stock is sitting there and then that stock is, essentially, sitting and existing under the existing standards that we have, which is a voluntary standard and may not meet the standards that we would prefer, i.e., not necessarily do what it should do. And so it was felt that there needed to be a period of time in order for that stock to be used or that stock to be moved off shelf. As a consequence, in direct feedback—direct feedback—from submitters that this was put in place. So members have spoken about this. Once the bill is signed, there’s a six-month period and then there’s another 12 months while the stock is removed off the shelves. I think that it’s important, it’s practical, but, like I say, do go back—for those of you listening—and have a look at whether, in fact, what’s sitting on the shelves is something that you would be happy to purchase.

I am nearly at time, but I do want to just acknowledge once again that this is a good bill. It is a practical bill. We have the therapeutic products bill coming, so this will do in the interim. I commend this bill to the House.

A very good evening and it is my pleasure that I rise on behalf of National and as the member for North Shore to speak on the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, a bill that is in the name of Todd Muller, if I pronounce it correctly, by Prussian origin; family came here in 1862 and we do want to make sure that we get the pronunciation of that very clear. So, Todd Muller, congratulations on your second member’s bill, a bill that I know, as you’ve articulated, you have a personal stake in, and something that you have taken pride in also, in regards to pride within your community.

The bill is very simple and I quote Todd Muller when I say this: how can it be possible, in 2022, for manufacturers of sunscreen in this country to not have demonstrably met the sunscreen standards that we share with Australia? What it says on the bottle should be what is in the bottle—that last bit was my quote, not Todd’s, but the first part was very clear. Obviously, this standard is voluntary at the moment in New Zealand—compulsory in Australia—and I was a member of the Health Committee who went through this process in much detail.

I am encouraged to hear from the other side of the House, and as we’re advised, that the therapeutics products bill will be introduced, I think officials advised us, later this year to the House, which we do look forward to. But I think I do want to just acknowledge my colleague on the Health Committee Dr Elizabeth Kerekere; I just want to acknowledge your personal story that you articulated here to the House, and I know that you are not alone in terms of your experiences. We heard that from a number of members in their speeches this evening, so thank you for sharing that, and we do think about all of those individuals in this country that will benefit from this bill.

That is all I want to say in regards to this. Todd Muller, congratulations, well done on your second member’s bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in the Whare, or the House, this evening as it’s always a real honour and a privilege to kōrero or speak in this House of change. Not only a privilege, as the member for the Ōtaki electorate, but also at this historic time where this House for the first time is sitting as a hybrid or a virtual Parliament. And so while I mihi to my colleagues who are taking a call virtually and, obviously, the other party members, I’m grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to stand in the Whare tonight to speak about this member’s bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill.

But first, if you will allow, I would like to lend my voice to the many others tonight across the Whare or the House just to say thank you to our police officers out there, also to our ambulance officers out there today on the forecourt this evening. I have been hearing from some of my colleagues who have spoken to some of the ambulance and police officers that they have been going since 4 o’clock this morning. So I just wanted to lend my voice to everyone else who has spoken in the House, across the House, tonight to say thank you to those people. Also just to mention I did hear that some of those police officers tonight had just graduated literally this weekend. So yeah, what a baptism of fire in terms of your first couple of days, and again I just want to say thank you to all of them and for keeping us all safe.

This is the first time I’m speaking on this bill. I understand it’s the third reading. But while it’s my first time, I just wanted to also say a mihi and a thankyou to Mr Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House. I think we can all agree how important it is, and while we might make light of us having to make a 10-minute speech on it, I actually know that even though it’s a simple bill, I really do know the effects it’s going to have for many. So I truly am genuinely meaning to say thank you very much, Mr Muller, for bringing this to the House.

The other thing about this bill is it’s for everybody, right? It’s for the benefit of everybody and it will ensure that people who do go out and buy sunscreen can be sure that they are buying a product that is of high quality and high standard and is, essentially, going to do what it says on the label, instead of currently being confused by the different 50-plus sun protection factor (SPF) or whatever numbers it is on the bottles or the tubes when you’re purchasing that sunscreen product. And I guess if you’re like myself and not au fait with all of that, you just kind of put your trust in the product that it is going to do what it says, and it has got that 50 SPF or whatever it says on the label, on the bottle. So you would expect when you’re purchasing that sunscreen, you’re going to get that full coverage. And also for your children, you’ll have that full coverage as that’s what it says on the bottle.

But we all know, and I think others have said this in the House tonight, and I, myself, have also purchased sunscreen—I’ve put it on myself, put it on my children, and then 10, 15 minutes later, you’re feeling the pain. And yes, as a brown person, I do get burnt. Many people ask me if I get sunburnt. This is really weird, and my husband, who’s African, he’s very dark-skinned—we call it “black is beautiful”, in our house. He’s beautifully black skinned, and many people look at us quite weirdly when we’re at the beach or the river and he’s putting on sunscreen. But I’m like, yep, black people burn too.

I guess that goes to my point as well, which is that you see so many products. You see products for kids, like Mr Muller mentioned when he first stood up, you know, especially for people who are light skinned or our ginger whānau. You need to be assured that you’re going to get the right products and making sure that essentially you’ve got that full cover. So again, you know, for us, that’s really important given that I’ve got three little boys and they’re always wanting to be outside in the sun playing, especially during this summer, whether it’s playing basketball, going for a walk, or going for a swim. Again, we need to make sure that sunscreen stays on, it doesn’t come off straight away when they hit the water, and that they’ve got full coverage for their beautifully mixed black-brown skin. So that’s really important for us.

But what I would mention here is that sunscreen, although extremely important and a necessary part of your family’s budget, can be really costly even at the supermarkets, and there’s such a range, again, right? There are so many products to choose from again, with all those different SPF 50-plus and you’re just really not sure. So given that you’re spending quite a bit of money—so a tube or bottle of sunscreen can range from $18 to $25-plus, which is quite a lot for a whānau of five, like mine. You’re want to make sure that when you’re purchasing it you’re getting your bang for your buck; you know, the money you’re spending, you’re going to get that full coverage. And a family like ours—like I said, I’ve got three young boys and they love to be out and playing in the sun all the time—we could easily go through three or four tubes or bottles, especially—[Audio issues] Someone wants to join my kōrero; ka pai, Penny; that’s all good. So I guess for a family like ours of five, we would want to make sure that—[Audio issues] Are you all good? We would want to make sure that when we are purchasing those three or four bottles over a summer, like we’ve just had, which has been really, really hot, we are getting our money’s worth.

So for me personally, I quite often would buy the Cancer Society one and, to be honest, that’s not me even looking at the 50-plus SPF; that’s just me looking at “Cancer Society”. And I guess for me, not knowing a lot and thinking: well, it’s the Cancer Society; surely the product will do what it says it does and will make sure that we get our protection from the UV rays of the sun in Aotearoa for me and my children. That’s how I would pick it. So a bill like this where it makes sure that there’s standards or there’s regulation around that to ensure that we truly are—when we go in, are purchasing a product that can be quite costly but very important to a family—going to get what we’re purchasing and it is going to give us coverage for us and our families.

For me also, I understand, and while this is a really good start—Mr Muller’s bill is a really good—start, I do also understand that this Government is working on therapeutic products, which my colleague Ginny Andersen also mentioned in her contribution, which covers the types of products that sunscreen will fall into, as part of the proposed therapeutic products bill that this Government is currently working on. However, this bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill from Mr Muller provides a really good interim measure until we’ve been able to go through the development and legislative work through the proposed therapeutic products bill.

We know that we have the highest rates of melanoma or skin cancer in the world. We know Aotearoa is hot. And we know that obviously, due to those high numbers, the current products as they are or as they are labelled certainly aren’t labelled properly, because we have got those high rates and it’s not doing the job it said it would. So, again, I just want to say thank you to the select committee also that made those changes. But, again, I thank you genuinely, Mr Muller, for bringing this bill to the House. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.