Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a second time.

It is with great pleasure I rise to lead off the second reading speeches this afternoon on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It’s been an eventful few months since 9 April when we last discussed this in this House, making an in-person appearance somewhat of a novelty. So you can, I’m sure, understand my enthusiasm, and I’m sure it’s going to be reflected across the House.

The problem my bill is seeking to resolve is simple: how can it be possible in 2021 for manufacturers of sunscreen in this country to not have to demonstratively meet the sunscreen standard that we share with Australia? Both countries love the sun, both countries have high skin cancer rates, and both countries know the importance of sunscreen as part of the triple arsenal against the sun that includes a T-shirt and a hat, but only one country requires compliance with the shared standard, and it’s not New Zealand. This bill seeks to remedy this issue by making it compulsory for sunscreen manufacturers to meet the standards. It is currently voluntary and it must be mandatory.

This issue has vexed successive Governments. It appears that any move to require mandatory compliance was shelved over the years because of the pending arrival of a more comprehensive regime: an all-encompassing therapeutics products bill. It is expected that such a bill would create a regulatory framework for such products, be they sunscreen or more general skincare products, but the therapeutics products bill has never come. To be fair, it didn’t when we were in Government and it hasn’t yet in the last four years of this Government.

So this bill is focused on tightening the current regime to give consumers more confidence in the products they are using, but it does not seek to be an enduring solution. It does not enter the future debate as to whether sunscreen should be treated as a cosmetic product or a therapeutic product. This bill just focuses on ending voluntary compliance to the standard. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulations under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act, prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The bill requires the standard made to be the joint Australia - New Zealand standard for sunscreen AS/NZS 2604:2012. This joint standard includes prescriptive testing methodologies and labelling requirements for sunscreen.

The Health Committee, which I have to say was very ably chaired by Dr Liz Craig, received 36 submissions, overwhelmingly in favour of the intent of the bill, with no submissions opposed. The key themes from the submissions were: (1) a view that sunscreen should be regulated as either a cosmetic or therapeutic product; a view that this bill is simply an interim step towards a more comprehensive regulatory regime; suggestions for additional requirements beyond those in the joint Australia - New Zealand standard; and suggestions to reference the latest standard of Australia - New Zealand 2021.

Meritorious as some of the arguments were, the select committee felt it was appropriate to keep the bill aligned to its narrow policy intent, but there were technical issues that we had to work through. Firstly, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials held the view that the shared sunscreen standard may not fit the criteria of section 29, “Product safety standards” in the Fair Trading Act. A product safety standard made under section 29 of that Act must be one that addresses potential harm that is inherent in the good. The standard must seek to prevent or minimise the risk of injury to a person that could result from something intrinsic to the good, such as the flammability of material of children’s pyjamas, as an example. The select committee argued that sunscreen that had not been manufactured to the sun protection factor (SPF) claim on the bottle should be considered in the same light. To resolve the potential reading of section 29 in a manner that would exclude sunscreen products, the select committee agreed to make the standard mandatory in the primary legislation. The bill now mandates that the joint AS/NZS standard is deemed to be a product safety standard for sunscreen products and must be treated and enforced as if it were made as such under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. This attaches an overarching regulatory framework, including enforcement and penalties that would mean the Commerce Commission could enforce the standard and that all the necessary enforcement provisions would apply. A breach of a product safety standard carries a maximum penalty of $200,000 for an individual or $600,000 for a corporate.

Secondly, clause 3 of the bill provides a definition of a “sunscreen product”. The definition in the bill as introduced focuses on the intended purpose of the sunscreen. Several submitters suggested that the focus should instead be on whether a product makes a claim about sun protection, irrespective of its intended purpose. Clause 3 is now amended to align with this approach. The new definition means that legislation is applied to sunscreens represented as being primarily to protect from ultraviolet radiation. It would also apply to skincare products labelled with an SPF greater than 15 and insect repellents labelled with an SPF of 4 or more.

Thirdly, the select committee reflected on what a sensible commencement date should be. Clause 2 provides that the legislation would commence on the date that it received Royal assent. Several submitters suggested that transition periods would be needed before the standard, and any future revisions, came into force, proposing time frames of 18 months and three years to allow time for existing stock and trade to sell. The select committee did accept it could be impractical for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the requirements immediately, so we recommend that the legislation come into force six months after it is enacted. We recommend amending clause 2 to this effect.

The select committee also received advice on what a fair stock and trade provision might be, and we landed at a further 12 months beyond commencement. Frankly, this is very generous, and the arguments received from the sector over the implications on their current stock, should they be required to implement to the current standard immediately, remains, in my view, an indictment on how loose the sunscreen regulations have been to this point. As our report to this House outlines, we have very strong expectations that manufacturers move with pace to the 2012 standard, and begin immediately to assess the various business changes, especially around labelling and product descriptions that will be required to meet the 2021 standard.

The final technical issue with which the committee grappled is which standard the mandatory compliance should apply to: should it be the 2012 shared standard, as envisaged by the bill, or the 2021 standard, which was published in New Zealand after the bill was introduced. The select committee naturally assumed it would be the latter, and that is reflected in clause 5(2) in the bill as reported back. Post select committee deliberation, it was brought to my attention that despite the updated standard being published in New Zealand, the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia has not yet adopted the 2021 standard or agreed transitional time frames. It makes sense to ensure whatever approach we take to mandating the joint standard is aligned with Australia, so I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House stage to return the mandated standard back to 2012. In discussions with Minister David Clark and his officials, who have been very supportive throughout this process, it was agreed that this was a sensible outcome, but the sector should be already moving to change their business processes to ensure compliance with the 2021 standard. I think I can say with confidence that it is highly unlikely that either the current Government or a future one would be open to any transitional arrangements to the 2021 standard that were beyond what Australian manufacturers already have.

In conclusion, I am proud of this bill. It is a step forward to protect New Zealanders. It is no panacea, it is not a comprehensive regulatory solution, but it does put a stake in the ground. It looks our sunscreen manufacturers in the eye and says, “Forget the reasons why it is too hard to comply; comply. The 2012 standard is there for a reason: to protect New Zealander consumers. Meet it, meet it ASAP, and start preparing for the newer standard that’s around the corner.” This issue is not going away. The momentum created by this bill will ensure sunscreen efficacy and protection stays front of mind of this House, and I seek the support of the House to proceed.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you so much for that. It’s as a member of the Health Committee that I rise happily in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its second reading. I’d just like to acknowledge Mr Muller. It’s lovely to have you back in the House, Mr Muller. We have a few members here who have been away from us for some time and so there are many people here that it’s lovely to see back.

I’d like to also acknowledge and thank the chair of the Health Committee, Dr Liz Craig, for her excellent work, the Health Committee members themselves, obviously, all of the officials, and clerks of the committee. I think, as Mr Muller has alluded to before, this was not a long bill initially but it did present some challenges, which I will explore in a little bit more detail later and, hopefully, add to the words of my colleague across the floor. It was really lovely for the committee to all be on the same page. We were unanimous in our support for the bill, for its intention, and for the amendments. We were supporting this bill because we all really agreed on the basic principle that we should be able to rely on the accuracy of labelling of sunscreen products, particularly important for sunscreen, because the consequences, as we heard in the first reading, can be dire and can lead to, as we have heard, increased carcinoma, which can be fatal.

We’re aware that the Therapeutic Products Bill, which we will be introducing at the earliest possible opportunity, will be addressing the issues found in this bill and more. But we strongly felt that it was important to support this bill because it would provide immediate and a little bit more timely cover. But the Therapeutic Products Bill will address other issues such as accredited laboratories and how often testing should happen. But, in the meantime, we welcome this bill.

I’m personally convinced of the need to protect New Zealanders against inaccurate claims that, you know, a product will protect them from the adverse effects of the sun. As a child I lived in a place, the island of Jersey in the Channel Islands, that’s nearly as beautiful as New Zealand. Jersey in the 1970s, when I was very young, and the 1980s, was a tourist destination. It was famous not only for Jersey cows, which is where every single cow in New Zealand and everywhere in the world comes from, but for potatoes. The famous Jersey Benne potatoes originate from the Jersey Royal. We’re very proud of those but also of Bergerac. You’ll have seen in Bergerac, potentially—I think a lot of people in New Zealand have been fans—that Jersey is seen as an island in perpetual summer. Like most kids, I certainly remember that as the case. But it was a time of sunbathing. It was a time of sunbathing when people would actually intentionally go out into the sun, put olive oil on their skin, and try to get the deepest possible tan that they could. We would have a lot of tourists, as I said, because it was so beautiful. We’d get a lot of tourists from areas that are less sunny. Newcastle springs to mind immediately, not to disrespect Newcastle, it’s completely beautiful, but it’s not known for its lengthy hours of sunshine. The natives of Newcastle, Geordies, are often naturally pale as a result. When they visited our beautiful island and sort of sat in the sun for a while, they would find themselves often in the emergency department looking extremely red, a little bit like lobsters. I’m ashamed to say, at the time, we would often make fun as they sort of fluoresced down the High Street. But we didn’t know then, as we were chuckling, that these episodes of burning could lead them to have skin cancer in the future.

But, as I said, the legislation before us was a little bit more complex than we’d anticipated. As Mr Muller said earlier, as it was introduced, the bill required the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulations be set to provide a product safety standard under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. In essence, the intention of this was to move the standard from voluntary to mandatory. But we received advice in the committee that the empowering provisions of the Fair Trading Act didn’t appear to allow a product safety standard to be made for the purpose of mandating this Australian - New Zealand standard for sunscreen. Now, we did have quite a lot of conversation on this topic, and I remember not all of us, necessarily, concurred with this particular view, but we did come to a conclusion. The advice that we received was, as I said, that section 29(1) was designed to prevent or minimise the risk of injury by addressing potential harm that was inherent in the product. The feeling was that the product itself wasn’t the thing that was going to cause the harm. It was really a little bit like dancing on the head of a pin sometimes. But we did come to a conclusion and provided some legal clarity with the recommendations that you see in the version in front of you, which is to recommend that compliance with the standard should be mandated in the primary legislation. So, accordingly, we recommended replacing clause 5. What this does is it, basically, removes the requirement on the Minister to make a regulation. Instead, it simply mandates in the primary Act that the standards apply as if they were product safety standards made through regulation.

What we also did in our discussions and working through this legislation was to provide a new definition of “sunscreen product”. We, basically, expanded it to be a little bit more expansive. So moved to a product that “contains, or is represented as containing, any component able to absorb, reflect, or scatter ultraviolet rays and that is intended to be on the surface of human skin with the purpose of protecting against reddening of the skin caused by ultraviolet radiation and other ultraviolet-induced damage;”, with a few other components to that definition. I remember in the first reading my colleague Naisi Chen speaking at length and extensively and with great knowledge about the particular products that weren’t included in the definition. She certainly enlightened many of us about the various different cosmetic products that might be seen to, or were expected to, provide some form of protection against the ultraviolet radiation that you would expect from a product with an SPF factor. So, hopefully, what we’ve done here is we’ve expanded the definition to a point where it does provide a little bit more coverage, pun completely not intended.

But, of course, it would probably be remiss of me to not add a little bit of a public service announcement whilst I was giving my speech here. Because it isn’t just about the Sun Protection Factor; you do need to make sure when you’re using sunscreen—you can’t get the healthcare provider out of me I’m afraid, and you never will. So I have to really share a little bit of information here. We need to be using our sunscreen liberally. Quite frankly, I don’t think I’ve been using enough the entire time I’ve been on this planet; six to seven teaspoons per application. I looked at derm—yes. Dr Webb is looking at me with alarm because I don’t think he’s been doing that either. There was some advice on DermNet New Zealand that said that you need to use it liberally, you need to use it early because it takes 20 to 30 minutes to absorb, and you need to reapply after half an hour, they said, so the mountains and valleys are protected. I’m not entirely certain what mountains and valleys they’re referring to, but, you know, I’ll take their advice to keep applying every two hours. So I think for a lot of New Zealanders that’ll be information that’s relatively new. It shouldn’t be. I mean, I think we’ve been sharing this information for long enough, but I think that the sheer quantity—I’m drifting slightly away from the bill, but the intention is to make sure that we’re providing really good and safe coverage for our communities and make sure that they do understand how these need to be used.

So, as we heard before, Sun Protection Factor is really part of the conversation that we’ve been having. A Sun Protection Factor of 30 will allow—oh, actually, I think I’ll go to 50 because it’s easier to do the maths. A Sun Protection Factor of 50 means that 98 percent of the ultraviolet rays are filtered through. So only 2 percent will get through. That’s really what we’re talking about here—making sure that if you have a label on a bottle that says you have that protection when you apply that product, as I’ve said, liberally to the mountains and valleys, that when you do that, you actually are going to get what it says on the tin, you’re going to have that protection, because we’ve seen that multiple brands have not been doing so. Multiple brands have been making claims for their Sun Protection Factor that haven’t been accurate. We really need to support this piece of legislation and to thank Mr Muller for bringing it to the House so that New Zealanders, as soon as is humanly possible, can be protected from the adverse effects of the sun. I commend this bill to the House.

Look, it’s a real pleasure to take a very, very short call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, second reading. I want to commend my good friend Mr Muller for his great work in bringing this to the House and, obviously, the outstanding work that’s taken place in the select committee that’s led to screaming bipartisanship, which is always a good thing. Obviously, getting these standards straight and sorted and aligned as they should be is really important. It’s important to me because I, along with Mr Muller, have a very good haircut, and I don’t know whether you noticed but it is catching on across New Zealand—this bullet-shaped look that we have. Each summer, Mr Muller and I go through a process of lathering ourselves up with great sunscreen to protect this bald dome, and each summer we get burnt. I can tell you as someone you know who really uses sunscreen quite a lot, because there’s obviously a lot more skin coverage to cover off when you look like this, it’s a very fantastic thing. So I just want to say that when we have got one of the highest rates of skin cancer, we’ve got one of the highest rates of melanomas in the world, and our skin cancer rates are at an all-time high. This bill is doing the right thing for New Zealanders. It’s doing the right thing for Mr Muller and myself too. Thanks so much. We commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with real pleasure that I rise in support of this bill in the name of Todd Muller, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Mr Muller, I just want to commend you for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. It is a hugely important piece of legislation and, actually, one that I can’t believe has never been brought to this House before.

I’m not and have not been a member of the select committee that heard the submissions and things for this piece of legislation, but I can imagine it would have been a really interesting process, and I was quite surprised when I was doing some reading about this piece of legislation and with various conversations I’ve had and heard about this that it wasn’t as straightforward as one thought it might be. I did find that quite surprising and quite interesting. I had just assumed that you could say in this piece of legislation that the sunscreen product had to do what it said it did and that that would be the end of it. However, it was with interest that I read some of the issues that did arise. So thank you, Mr Muller, for bringing this to the House.

I’d also like to acknowledge the select committee that have worked on this and Dr Liz Craig, who is the chair of the Health Committee. It’s important also never to forget to acknowledge and thank those that submitted. I think there were 36 submissions on this piece of legislation, and all were wholeheartedly in favour. There was absolutely no one against it. There was some discussion around things that they didn’t necessarily agree on completely, but they wholeheartedly supported this piece of legislation.

When I think about growing up as a young child here in New Zealand, sunscreen was not something that was really—well, back in my day—hugely popular or even used. My memory as a child of sun protection was zinc—zinc across the cheeks and across the nose—and it’s interesting how certain items and smells you associate with summer and things like that. So it was zinc for me, as a child, and then, as I got older, it was the baby oil and the coconut oil that came out—sitting on the school seat at lunchtime, and roasting ourselves in it. I am quite a fair-skinned person, so you can just imagine how that turned out. I never turned out this beautiful golden-brown tanned colour that I had anticipated. I always went red and peeled, however.

The members of the select committee heard in a submission from the Cancer Society that there are approximately 90,000 new cases of melanoma in New Zealand each year and around 500 people die from melanoma each year, and, sadly, my stepmother was one of those 500 who passed away just three months ago from cancer, initially from a melanoma. So it’s very, very important that we encourage people to use sunscreen and that the sunscreen does what it says it will do.

Now, we heard that there was some conversation within the select committee about—and forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I am going to go to my information here, because it’s quite technical, and members have mentioned it before. As the bill was introduced, it did require the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulations be set to prescribe a product safety standard for sunscreen products, and we did hear that that would, in essence, have the effect of making this mandatory. In Australia, it is mandatory that the standard is met, but here it’s voluntary, which I find extremely surprising. But I understand that that was a little bit tricky in so far as within that particular Act it was more around things such as, for example, minimising risk to children from the types of pyjamas that they wear and what might happen should they be near heat or melt, and what might happen to that child’s skin as a result of that. It’s something that’s inherent and part of that product, whereas sunscreen doesn’t necessarily have something in it that causes harm to the person directly; it’s the sun rays that do that. So that was a little bit tricky, but there have been some changes made that accommodate that and make sure that it sits where it needs to sit.

There was also some conversation, I understand, around the definition of sunscreen, and that’s not something I would have ever anticipated would be a huge topic of conversation within this legislation, because I just assumed sunscreen is sunscreen is sunscreen—right? So there have been some changes made within that so that it’s defined as being something that is primarily to protect you from the ultraviolet rays of the sun, which is interesting, I thought, because I had assumed that that’s what sunscreen was, anyway.

Then we heard Mr Muller talk before about the fact that if this bill came into force on the day after enactment, there was some concern around those retailers who perhaps had stock on their shelves and what have you, and things like that. So the committee did come to some form of an agreement there whereby they would allow up to 18 months for retailers to be able to move the stock that they currently had. I also agree with Mr Muller that that is actually quite generous. I think that this is something that we actually do need to ensure is acted on as quickly as possible. However, that is the agreement that the committee came to and it is what they have added into this piece of legislation.

As Mr Muller said, he’s very proud to bring this piece of legislation to the House, and, actually, rightly so. It’s put a stake in the ground, which is something that he also said, and it’s quite apt that this has come before us prior to the summer months, which will remind us of how important it is to use sunscreen. Unfortunately, it’s not going to be ready for us this summer. However, in a couple of summers’ time, it will be all good to go.

One of the things I did want to also talk about was the fact that—with the note that I made when Mr Muller was talking—he acknowledged that this is probably an interim measure at this point. But it does get us through to the point where we can introduce the piece of legislation that the various members have talked about—the Therapeutic Products Bill—which I acknowledge Mr Muller has not mentioned. They did not bring it to the House and it has not come to the House yet, but I can assure that member that it is absolutely, definitely coming.

One of the other things that I wanted to talk about just briefly—as I come back to find my appropriate piece of paper, where I’ve made some notes—is that we need to have absolute faith when we purchase a sunscreen, whether it’s SPF50 or SPF30, that it does exactly what it says it will do. When I think that here in New Zealand, we have some of the worst cases of melanoma and the harshest sun—harsher than in other places around the world—it’s something that has been long overdue. I really acknowledge Mr Muller, again, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House, and I absolutely, wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The House is resumed. Members, when the House lifted for the dinner break we were on the second reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Call No. 5 is one to be taken by the Green Party, and I call Dr Elizabeth Kerekere.

Kia ora. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. As a member of the Health Committee who worked on this, I rise in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the SPF properties of sunscreen products. We received multiple submissions on this and they were overwhelmingly in favour of the bill; not one opposed the bill, which is the first time I’ve seen that in my very short time here.

Definitions are important and this bill provides one because what we had was pretty loose. The focus is on the intended purpose of that sunscreen, rather than what someone claims it is meant to do, particularly theoretical claims to prevent sun damage. Whether it’s a moisturising cream, an oil, a gel, or a spray, the manufacturer will need to now back that up.

As recommended by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the bill directs mandatory regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to prescribe a safety standard in line with the Australia - New Zealand 2021 sunscreen standard. This would replace the existing 2012 one, which is already mandatory in Australia but voluntary here. We note, however, that the Australian regulatory agency has not yet adopted the 2021 standard. That means that sunscreens have not been tested to it so it makes it a little bit unworkable at the moment. So we support the member’s Supplementary Order Paper, which will come up to change the language so sunscreens are required to comply with the 2012 standard or later standards as adopted by the Australian authorities—meaning as soon as they do adopt it, which we expect they will, New Zealand sunscreens will be required to comply with it.

As I mentioned during the first reading, we know that Aotearoa has the highest incidence of melanomas in the world. Although Māori and Pasifika are much less likely than everyone else to get it, when we do we have a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis; whereas for non-Māori, it’s predominantly men who get melanomas; for Māori, it is predominantly women, and we look forward to better data and statistics of takatāpui, trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau so we actually have a really clear picture across all genders in this country.

This member’s bill is in the name of Todd Muller, with whom I share personal experience of skin cancer—not with, but we both do—partly because of products which misled us as to their efficacy. This simple bill will reduce skin cancer and it will save lives and, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. As we’ve heard already tonight, we know that there is a problem in New Zealand with the standards for sunscreen being voluntary, as opposed to our friends across the Ditch, where it’s compulsory.

We also have heard a little bit in this House, in fact just with the previous speaker, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, about the consequence of sunburn or sun damage. We’ve heard from my colleague Jo Luxton earlier that not using sunblock perhaps made her go very red as a teenager. We’ve heard stories in this House tonight from the similarly named Christopher Luxon about also similar problems of being burnt. That, of course, is not nice—to get burnt—we all know that. But, in fact, New Zealand is the melanoma capital of the world. There are over 3,000 cases per annum and over 300 deaths per annum. It’s a huge amount of people. Melanoma can affect the young as well, and it can start off as some very, very small melanoma that can then result in death. I’ve had a friend—well, my friend’s brother—who, as a young man with two young children, died very quickly of this horrible disease. Then, of course, there are many other skin cancers that are not melanoma. There are estimated—because there’s so many, there’s estimates only—to be between 70,000 and 90,000 people per annum treated for these other skin cancers. This is an enormous cost to both the health system and to those 70,000 to 90,000 people.

We’ve heard a lot of people here talking about their relations. My grandmother had a basal cell carcinoma, and that resulted in a lot of radiation treatment for her, which would have been an enormous cost and burden on the health system. It was a cost for her because she did bring many boxes of chocolates to the people treating her. And, more seriously, it took a real toll on her health.

It’s also very relevant to me, because I think I may be speaking on this bill because I am the whitest person in the House, or close to it.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, I don’t know about that.

Oh, there’s some competition—I don’t dye my hair!—for that title. So, obviously, I burn very quickly, but I do—and I have to say this; and I’m nervous, actually, speaking on this bill, because my husband is an oncologist and he does specialise in skin cancer, melanomas in particular, and I know that he will be watching this. And he frequently tells me off for not applying the correct amount of sunscreen that we heard about from Sarah Pallett before—it was six or so teaspoons, and you’ve got to lather it on and in fact that you need to, if you’re my skin type, wear it, really, all the time. And so, of course, I do. I wear not only the sunblock that is provided in our household from my husband, which is the good Cancer Society brand, all around the house—whenever you’re near a door, there’s a jar of the stuff—but I also use it in my cosmetic products to make sure that I’ve got some on my face every day, and I really don’t know what the testing of that is, so this bill would be very helpful for me.

Now, it’s an interesting mechanism that this bill uses. I haven’t had the privilege of being on the Health Committee, but I’ve been looking at the bill, and it’s a very short bill. What it is, is it’s an interim solution, as we’ve heard. We’re really waiting for this Therapeutic Products Bill, but, in the meantime, what this very simple bill does is it uses a deeming provision to make a standard under the Fair Trading Act. It’s useful to have a look at that Fair Trading Act, because while it doesn’t insert a provision into the Fair Trading Act, it says that there is to be a product safety standard as if it was made under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. The purpose of the Fair Trading Act, in section 1A, “is to contribute to a trading environment in which the interests of consumers are protected;”, some other things, and “(2) To this end, the Act— … (c) provides for the disclosure of consumer information relating to the supply of goods and services; and (d) promotes safety in respect of goods and services.” So I can see why Todd Muller chose this Act as a vehicle to do what he’s trying to do, and that we all agree in the House today to make that voluntary standard a mandatory one.

Section 29 of the Fair Trading Act is the one in Part 3, and it’s around product safety. That is what Part 3 of the Act is, “Product safety”, and section 29 tells us about those product safety standards. That enables the Governor-General, “from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister”, to “make regulations in respect of goods of any description”, including “prescribing for the purpose of preventing or reducing the risk of injury to … the following matters—”, including “(a) the performance, composition, contents, manufacture, processing, design, construction, finish or packaging of the goods; (b) the testing of the goods during or after manufacture or processing:” and “(c) the form and content of markings, warnings, or instructions to accompany the goods.” Now, we’ve heard, and it’s set out in the report from the Health Committee, that there was advice that, perhaps, the wording of that section didn’t include products that are trying to prevent harm. It’s not the product itself that will cause the harm; it’s what happens if the product doesn’t work. It’s an interesting interpretation of section 29. So this is why there’s gone ahead and been this deeming provision, to make sure that it’s very clear that, in fact, we can have a product safety standard for sunscreen.

There are six product standards currently. They are for pedal bikes, baby walkers, children’s nightwear, children’s toys, household cots, and cigarette lighters. And now we’ll have this one. There are also a lot of standards, New Zealand—NZ—standards. I’m very lucky to be a member of the Regulations Review Committee. We were just meeting this evening, and the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Health Committee and said, “We are a little bit concerned that this standard is referenced as something that you can’t see in the law.” It’s referred to, but we can’t see it. You’ve got to go into the Standards New Zealand (NZS) website and download it, for a fee.” So the Health Committee thought about this and said, “Well, the fee for getting the PDF of the standard is only $107, and the people that will be most interested in this standard are those people who are developing these products, so they’ll be interested enough to pay that $107.” And that’s a fair argument. I think it’s interesting to look at the website, and it does give you a little précis of all the different standards, which you don’t have to pay for. So that gives you an idea of what’s in there. I didn’t pay the $107, so I just looked at that, and I could see the index and it looks like quite a complicated way that you go about testing in a lab to determine the SPF.

But it’s also useful to note that NZS has a lot of standards for a lot of different things that won’t always be found in regulation. This includes helmets for bikes; how you go about EV-charging stations, electric vehicle - charging stations; procedures for determining wind speed for structural design; methods for sampling road aggregate—I can see that the House is very excited about these—and specification for protective legwear for chainsaw users. That one was interesting. And another one: specification for preservative treatment of glued laminated timber products. So there’s a lot of different standards there that people can have a peruse on the website and see what they might be about. What I was able to gleam about this Australia - New Zealand standard is that it really doesn’t like the term “waterproof”—it says it’s misleading, as is “sweat-proof”—and it really refers to primary and secondary sunscreen products, is how it works. I think it’ll be an interesting standard to look at in more detail, and we don’t have time for that now, so I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak to the bill tonight. Like anything in life, it’s about balance, and I wouldn’t like the children or parents of New Zealand to not embrace sunlight. It has a very positive effect on cell synthesisation and, for older people, osteoporosis, heart health, brain health, and we don’t want to end up just being vampires sitting on our phones for the rest of our lives. So getting out in the sun is a good thing. It’s how we manage it, is one of the arguments.

Even though skin cancer is largely preventable, there are 500 deaths from it each year in New Zealand and about 90,000 cases are diagnosed. It’s fair to say that this is long overdue, bringing the standards together with the Australians. My team knocked up a graphic, Mr Nash, about how we should apply our sun cream this summer. But, you know, New Zealand does have the highest incidence of melanoma and one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and when we’re open again and running and people are at the beaches, there’s a duality in this product which is that it’s not just a case of putting it on; it’s a case of how you use it as well, and I think, over the years, we’ve all suffered from lack of use, but I’m very pleased to see that there’s a great technical explanation from yourself on what is trying to be achieved and what has been brought together.

But one of the things about getting burnt is that it starts very early on with a decision about whether you are going to put it on or not. One of the worrying trends—my daughter has a melanoma that’s been cut out and was very serious—that’s emerging is that young people are starting to ignore sun cream and wearing various other products just to aesthetically please themselves, and we need to get some education around that.

One of the really important issues around the sunscreen bill is expiry dates, because the product is very much a degradation product and it needs to be used in a way that the date’s respected. Even if you’ve got loads of bottles lying around the house, it doesn’t actually provide the cover, because the expiry date is so small on that. We do ultimately believe that it should be regulated under the therapeutic products regime. But it’s a great start to get this bill proposed and up and running.

One of the exciting things about quality control and consumer confidence is that we can finally look people in the eye and say that we’ve done this job, and that the product performs as it says it will. But, you know, the Australians have been ahead of us for a long, long time in sunscreen and spray-on sunscreens and especially water sports sunscreens, and more and more the kids are on the water doing stuff that has a different reflectivity issue around UVA and UVB. So when we sell it, it’s got to actually say what it does on the cover.

One of the things that one of the Labour Party members touched on about the health system was the rise of the Skin Institute and the mole map. It’s not something that those doctors want to see; it’s just naturally occurring. Other type tumours are becoming more and more common in people under 16, which is really unfortunate, and you’ve got to catch this really early or there is a big problem. Men working on the roads, working in construction, are another major growth area, and they actually need to look at their health and safety practices around making sure that those people are protected from excessive sunburn.

So, in terms of the law itself, we’re very comfortable with where it’s going, Mr Muller, and we’d like to support this. It’s a worthy policy, but on the basis that there’s a huge education campaign, once we relaunch, to say there’s a new standard, there’s a new way of using this product, and harnessing the medical system to really help that. In fact, every kid should walk around with this in their pocket, and more and more on the sports fields and the swimming pools, we should actually embrace that change.

So, just to conclude, we actually think the bill, and I think I touched on this in the last reading, needed the Minister to regulate and now it’s got a formal structure around it—we thought originally a letter to the Minister was the way to go, but now we’re actually more happy with the structure that’s being proposed. Thank you for bringing it to the House. We will support it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take that mask off, my goodness, I was baking under there.

💬 Hon Member: Got your sunscreen on?

Ha, ha! I have got my sunscreen on. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. To the member Todd Muller, I want to acknowledge you for bringing what was a very small piece of legislation but very important legislation to this House. I want to acknowledge you for that. You and I both come from the sunny Bay of Plenty; you and I have both had outdoor lives. Most of the time, we’ve spent a good part of our lives out in the sunshine getting sunburnt and/or slightly pink, perhaps.

So I was absolutely gobsmacked that this bill was needed, because I thought what was happening was that when we read something on the label, a SPF told us what we could do and how we would be protected and that it would work, and then I discovered that this piece of legislation was needed, Mr Muller, because, actually, that wasn’t the case at all.

So I really want to acknowledge you for this sensible, good piece of legislation that you’ve brought to this House. I want to acknowledge everyone in the House for their support of this bill, because I think we all agree that it is an important issue. I also want to acknowledge you, Todd Muller, for the collegial work that you undertook on the select committee to problem solve. Even though I am not a member of that select committee, I understand that you worked absolutely collaboratively, as you are known to do in this House, with the team to get the best piece of legislation.

We all know that skin cancer in this country is a difficult issue. We all know that melanoma is the third most common cancer in New Zealand. And 80 percent of all cancer deaths in this country come from melanoma. We have 4,000 people diagnosed annually with this type of cancer. We also have 82,000 people a year with skin concerns that come up. So this is something across everyone’s understanding.

I think about my uncle who passed away from melanoma at the—what I believed at the time was this quite senior age. He was actually 52, and I’m 50. He was 52, and I thought at the time that that was incredibly—incredibly—aged, really. He had spent his entire life working on the West Coast of the South Island. A good workman, he, basically, worked on the roads. He was a roading engineer.

💬 Hon Member: Who is this?

This is my uncle Trevor Harm. He was out in the sun every day of his life, doing good work. Passed away. Melanoma behind his ear. So wasn’t easy to spot or pick up, and as a consequence we lost him to melanoma.

So one of the things that happened back then, of course, is that we were, as Kiwis—I mean, I certainly was the same. We’d put on our Tropicana 2 and we would bake, baste—I think we basically did—at the beach. I surfed. I was in the water all the time. So I now suffer, as does the member and a number of people here, from the requirement to have bits of me cut out on a regular basis. So I go to the Skinspots Clinic in Tauranga and have numbers of things cut out of me—in fact, I’ve forgotten how many. So, yeah, we have a good business. There’s a huge expense in the fact that we as a nation haven’t “slipped, slopped, slapped, and wrapped” very well, and we are now paying for that.

So now that we know this knowledge, we know that we should be doing all of these things to protect us, we want to know that the bottle that says SPF 50 is actually going to protect us. We want to know that the standard that we think we’ve purchased to protect ourselves—and heaven forbid our small children who are now facing lots more burning incidents because of the nature of our sun in the country—is going to work. So this piece of legislation actually sets up a system to ensure that, actually, it’s going to do what it says it does on the bottle. It’s as simple as that, and I love that about this piece of legislation.

What I understand, having not been on this select committee, is that there were 36 submissions, seven oral. Everyone was in support, as I understand, and there was some really interesting pieces of work. Now, I’ve learnt a little bit today. The member Rachel Brooking has talked to us about the detail of that standard. I’ve also discovered that six to seven teaspoons of sunblock is the standard. But if we put six or seven teaspoons of sunblock that doesn’t work on our skin, it doesn’t matter. So it’s been somewhat interesting tonight; I have really enjoyed myself.

Now, one of the parts of this bill that I think is really interesting is that the bill originally sought to change a regulation. Looking at that regulation, because of the difficulty with that actually not applying, this piece of legislation now seeks to change a primary piece of legislation. Well done. Well done to this House for coming up with a solution to something that wasn’t going to work. I think in order for this to happen, it, essentially, changes something quite fundamental to enable this support. The member Rachel Brooking talked about the fact that we only had six of these standards, and now this is the seventh. That’s interesting, I think. Why don’t we have more? Why don’t we have more? I’m not sure.

OK, so the other thing that I think is particularly interesting about this legislation is around the compliance and commencement of this bill. So people have talked in the House about this. We’re still expecting manufacturers to comply as soon as possible with this, but the bill, when it comes into law, has a six-month period before it actually applies. That gives manufacturers the opportunity to change labelling. To support the industry to change their labelling etc., there will be 18 months in total before all of the old stock has been moved out and the new stock is in place. So there will be a transition period, which is useful, but I do agree, as other members have raised, that this is something that well, we’re probably—it has to happen but it’s going to be a little bit awkward in terms of how we look at what we’re purchasing.

So what I recommend to people is to go to the Consumer New Zealand report, and see what were the sunscreens that didn’t fail in the consumer report, and actually be able to pick and select those ones at this time. Essentially, five out of the 10 failed to work as they said on the label. So have a look at that. I’m not going to name them or shame them, but do have a look at that.

I guess, really, what I’m saying, even though I didn’t sit on this bill, is that I really think it was a good piece of legislation—a small bill, a bill that has real meaning for most of us in this country, a bill which has been made better by the select committee process. I really want to acknowledge you, Todd Muller, for this piece of work and the work from the officials and the members on that select committee. I commend it to the House.

Well, I must say I’m very pleased to be here to speak on the sunscreen bill. I’d like to make a special mention to Todd Muller for an absolutely superb and pragmatic bill. As a member of the Health Committee, it was an absolute pleasure to go through this legislation. My ancestors come from Scotland, so I have a skin complexion that acts like a magnet to the sun. I must say, this legislation is going to pay benefits to me and also to my tamariki at home as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I felt that I should take a call on this bill. Like many other members of the House, I feel very qualified to speak on this matter. In fact, when I came into the House today and I acknowledged Mr Todd Muller—as I often do, he’s a top bloke, a genuinely top bloke. As I float about the corridors here at Parliament, he’s always one that stops and says g’day, and I appreciate that. We’re always catching up and having a yarn, as we did today when I came into the House. I said to him, “Big day.” And he said, “Yes, you’ll be supporting this as a fellow ginger.” And those watching on TV may not see with the shade and all that sort of stuff, but, yes, in fact, there is a tinge of ginge in this beard. And that comes with peril. Both sides of my family are very staunch and proud to be Irish, but we’re not used to the sun. And growing up in New Zealand, even at my age, at the young age of 37, we took a very relaxed—very relaxed—approach to looking after ourselves in the sun. And there are some horror stories: playing cricket with my mates at the beach and then coming away with shoulders that resembled bubble wrap. They still talk about it—big pus-y blisters all over my shoulders.

💬 Hon Member: Too much information, mate.

Well, too much information, but sometimes you’ve just got to face the truth, you know, that the sun is dangerous, and it’s not something to be trifled with.

Now, we’ve subsequently grown up with education campaigns about slip, slop, slap, and now wrap, and that has drilled it into us at a young age as New Zealanders that we need to be careful in the sun. But when we apply sunscreen as part of those campaigns, you assume that it would be working. One would assume that what it says on the label is what is in the bottle. We carry on through life and we just assume that there are rules in place to make sure that that’s the case. But what Mr Todd Muller has done is alerted this House and the nation that when it comes to sunscreen that has the potential to not be the case. So it makes sense to me that we would vote for this bill.

I think it’s great to be able to highlight to the people in New Zealand once again that there are examples of members of this House, regardless of what political party they’re in, working together. They are using the select committee to improve legislation. Indeed, that’s the point of it, isn’t it, that process? And we’ve all got groups, I’m sure, in our electorates that ask us to come along to speak as their representatives. They ask us to come along as politicians, but they ask us not to talk about politics. They don’t want us to be political, and I respect that. I’d prefer that actually, no one wants to come along to a finger-wagging competition, do they? They just want to come and hear from their representatives. And it’s examples like this that I always highlight, because they love to hear it. Because if they look on the news, they often see that side say something and this side say something, and they’re none the wiser as to what the story was. But here we are, another example.

So I do support this bill. It makes absolute sense. How could we possibly carry on with a situation where something that, through years of education, we are encouraging people to use could potentially not actually be providing the protection that it says? And I’m starting to wonder, as someone that religiously uses sunscreen—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: What, you use it every Christmas?

I mean, talking about revealing ourselves in the sun, Stuart Nash, I wouldn’t be heckling right now. The only person that strips off when he goes and gets a vaccine—unbelievable. So I imagine that that member here—you don’t actually often get an opportunity to retort your own members very often, so I’m going to use it. This, I imagine, would have the full support of Stuart Nash. Especially over summer, when he’s floating around on his paddleboard, he’ll be lathering up knowing that they are now safe and it says what it is. As he’s doing that, he can think of Todd Muller and he can thank Todd Muller for bringing this to the House, making us aware of this, and putting this bill in front of us.

I do want to quickly, with the time that I’ve got left, commend the work of the select committee for working together, but also the officials. The officials are often overlooked, and I know that they put a lot of work into coming up with recommendations to try and assist members to allow the bill to reach the intent that was outlined when the member put it into the ballot. There are many members that have gone through their entire careers and haven’t had one pulled. I understand that Mr Muller has had two. The first one fell down for technicalities, so I’m very pleased for you that this one appears to be going through. Congratulations.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I didn’t get a chance to speak on this bill in the first reading; so can I just take this chance to also add my appreciation and thanks to Todd Muller for not only bringing this bill to the House but also, in his first reading statement, sharing his personal story of the struggle with sunburn, melanoma, and skin cancer from 1988. Now, that was a story from a long time ago, 33 years, but it is relevant today as well. Like my colleague Kieran McAnulty said, thank you for alerting this House and also alerting the nation about this important issue. I also want to thank the members of the Health Committee and the chair, Dr Liz Craig, for the excellent work that they have done, and also thanks go to the officials as well.

The Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor—SPF—for the purchase of sunscreen products. Unlike Australia, there is no mandatory standard for sunscreens here in New Zealand, despite the fact that many New Zealanders die every year from skin cancer resulting from their exposure to the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. The New Zealand sunscreen manufacturers must be held to a consistently high standard of manufacture and accountability.

This bill has been through the Health Committee and it went through all their scrutiny. My colleagues from the committee have touched on what really happened in the committee, so I’m not going to go into that, but I just want to reiterate my appreciation about the good work that they have done—but, most importantly, the 36 submitters who patiently submitted on this bill, and the vast majority of them being in support. I read most of the submissions—equally all of them were written with patience—but one submission that really struck me was from Melanoma New Zealand: “Skin cancer is by far the most common cancer affecting New Zealanders. New Zealand also has the highest rates of melanoma skin cancer in the world. It has been estimated that the different types of skin cancer together account for just over 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year. Around 90% of melanoma skin cancers are preventable by reducing exposure to UVR that causes harm.” This highlighted the importance of supporting this bill and this House coming together to implement a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand.

Reading through the submissions, I have also reflected on how much I know about sunscreen. And the truth is that many people from my background that emigrate to New Zealand know very little about it, because, naturally, we have the protection in our ozone from sunburn. I know that in Eritrea, for example, we barely have ever heard of sunscreen. It’s just normal. But, coming to New Zealand, the first thing that I noticed was how burning the sun is. The first thing when I was interviewed by Immigration New Zealand, I didn’t know where New Zealand was. After I came here, I didn’t know how burning it was, because I thought I was coming to a cold country. But the lack of awareness—that’s really dangerous. Because the narrative is that sunburn doesn’t affect dark people, like myself. I, over and over, joked and made fun of my Pākehā friends, telling them that this is a black privilege; so don’t be jealous! And that is stupid, because the reality is that lack of awareness of how dangerous and prevalent melanoma skin cancer is is a large reason why skin cancers are deadlier in people with dark skin, like myself. There are many myths that dark skin does not need sunscreen, and that’s, obviously, not true. Today, after I found out that I was going to speak on this bill, I’ve been digging and I’ve been reading some stories, not just from New Zealand but from all over the world. Dark people can be affected just like other people. We are not socialised to check moles and wear sunscreen and actively prevent exposure, resulting in a relaxed attitude of sun smart behaviour.

The social aspect could be that the lack of regulation around the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor, SPF, for purchase of sunscreen products needs to be tackled. The barriers need to be knocked down, and supporting this bill is a step forward, ensuring the safety of all New Zealanders. We are, however, working on a new and comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand, because that is important. This bill addresses some of the issues that exist, but it doesn’t resolve the whole issue, so having the comprehensive approach and regulations is the way to go. That is going to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and its regulations. The introduction of the Therapeutic Products Bill to the House currently is planned for perhaps about the end of the year. I’ll mention that we are supporting this bill as an interim measure until the more complete scheme established by the Therapeutic Products Bill is in place, and it does not have long to go.

Tonight, what I have seen in the House is members discussing this bill in the spirit that we come together when it comes to things that affect regular New Zealanders’ lives, and tonight was a good example. It’s heart-warming to see the whole House—whole political parties, actually—standing together in support of Todd Muller’s bill, because this is not about politics; this is about the health of New Zealanders. Now, we have heard emotional stories from our colleagues Jo Luxton and also Angie Warren-Clark, and this issue affects people. It’s an everyday issue; it affects people no matter who you are: you can be rich, you can be poor, you can be middle class, you can be white or brown, or now you can even be dark. It does affect everyone; so it’s good to see that the House is taking the issue very, very seriously. And I would go back to again commend the select committee and the hard-working chair, Dr Liz Craig, for the excellent work that they have done—

💬 Chris Bishop: You’ve said that four times already. Let’s move on and get on to some substantive bills.

Well, it’s an excellent bill, but there were issues, and they addressed those issues along the way, and they sent the House an excellent report, and they should be commended; they should be applauded for the good work that they have done—and the officials also. I am on the Education and Workforce Committee and I see every day, every week the good work that they do. They should be commended for the work that they do as well. And, without them, the reality is that we wouldn’t be able to do what we do every day. So tonight is another good example that, when it comes to issues that affect the regular New Zealanders, we come together, and that’s what we should do; we should be coming together on the issues of low-paid workers—today, for example, the living wage. The Government has made an announcement about the living wage, and when it comes to regular New Zealanders that work hard, we should be coming together and addressing the issues. With that, it gives me an immense pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

💬 Glen Bennett: Madam Speaker.

I call Chris Bishop.

Yeah, wait your turn! This is a sensible piece of legislation. I want to echo what my colleague and friend Todd Muller said, which is: how can it be in 2021 that sunscreen manufacturers in New Zealand don’t have to meet the sunscreen standard of Australia? It’s a very simple piece of legislation to remedy this issue. I also want to echo what he said in relation to the therapeutic products regime. Successive Governments have said that they would do something about it and, in fairness, the last Government did that I was a backbencher in—and we said that too—and it didn’t happen. And here we are four years into the term of this Government, and I’m sure they’ll go through to the six-year term and I’d be willing to put money on the fact that after the end of the six-year term—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Or maybe even 12 years.

Oh, Stuart Nash, here he is, the big guy, the big man, the master of big talk, the guy who said he’d do 1,800 cops when he was police Minister and delivered 1,100 only. The master of big talk says in response to me at quarter to eight on a members’ Wednesday, “No, no, we are going to do the therapeutic product regime.” Well, we’ll see. We’ll see what happens in two years’ time, whether or not that piece of legislation is through. But the point is it hasn’t come but we do need an interim solution in the short term and, frankly, this should have happened before now.

This is a very sensible piece of legislation. The Health Committee has considered it. I know they got advice from the Regulations Review Committee. I was sitting in the car and I was listening to the long discourse from Rachel Brooking, who’s a very learned contributor to the Parliament, particularly on the Regulations Review Committee, but I think it would be fair to say there was a degree of detail in that speech that was not particularly necessary for the advancement of this bill. It’s a sensible piece of legislation. Let’s get through the second reading and on to some more substantive matters. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call—the final call on this, the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I want to begin by saying a big thankyou to Todd Muller for your work, for bringing this to the House, and for being pragmatic, for engaging, for leaning in, for coming across the floor and working with our team to get this piece of legislation across the line.

Now, I was quite surprised, actually, when I spoke on the first reading of this. In my mind, I had just assumed when I went to the supermarket or if I went to the chemist or The Warehouse—what would generally happen in the middle of summer is I would rush because, of course, we never had bottles of sunscreen left underneath the cabinet in the bathroom. You’d rush in, you’d just look for the sunscreen that was on special. You’d purchase that sunscreen. You’d rush to the beach. You’d slather, slap it on, do whatever you do. But again, tonight, this afternoon I’ve been learning a lot—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Would the members on my left please observe social distancing in the Chamber. Apologies to the member Glen Bennett.

Madam Speaker, thank you. They’re obviously talking about their summer holidays and what they might be doing, what sort of sunscreen they might be using.

But, again, we just had, I felt, some unhelpful words from across the floor, but Rachel Brooking, she says it as she sees it, and she talks about things I could never talk about or understand. I’m happy for her to be our person who knows the numbers, the science, and how it all works, and the fact that I don’t actually need to be that person. But, again, thank you, Mr Muller, for your work in bringing this through. Yep, we’ve got work to do. Yep, we are working around this space. And, yep, let’s just work together right now, because we want to ensure that people are kept safe, that people are well.

Now, I have a friend who lives in the United Kingdom. He visited me about four years ago. A classic Englishman—white, white, white. You know, he was as white as could be. He turned up in our beautiful part of the world—never been here before—and I said, “Dave, you probably should, you know, throw some sunscreen on, a hat, a T-shirt, some glasses—all that sort of thing.”

💬 Hon Member: Come on, Dave.

“Come on, Dave.”—exactly—I said. He said, “Nah. We’re only going to be out in the sun for half an hour. We’re just popping down to the park to do this.” And I was like, “Come on, Dave. Trust me. Trust me.” Again, we got back that night, he was pink as a beetroot—even though they’re not pink. The next day there was scabbing, dare I say, there were blisters. Again, it was that challenge of coming from the Northern Hemisphere, from a place where the sun is quite different to where it is here. He was in shock, literally. We had to go to the chemist and get all the right products to fix him up and all that type of thing. He learnt his lesson very quickly. He never went outside again without any kind of covering on, that summer.

But it is interesting that our ozone layer, obviously, has been very different here for a very long time. It was the, I think, early to mid-1980s when scientists first discovered that hole in our ozone layer over Antarctica and the challenges that brought for us here in the Southern Hemisphere, the challenges it’s brought for Australia and for us here in New Zealand; the challenge that our sun is harsh—our sun is harsh. And Dave found the harshness of the sun. He found the beauty of the people, but the harshness of our sun. It was great. Well, it wasn’t great for him.

But I also want to acknowledge we’ve had two previous speakers speak around our wonderful Hon Stuart Nash, who is with us this evening. I’m just really proud of the fact that he’s introduced this amazingly sexy piece of support this week around the Events Transition Support Scheme—could have been kind of cooler, but, hey, it’s going to be a really cool summer when it comes to those music festivals. I’m sure that the Minister will attend all of them. I’m pretty sure he will keep his shirt on for some of them, and if he doesn’t, he’ll ensure he wears the right sunscreen. But the challenge the Minister has is that at the moment, it’s not regulated. So you might go and you might buy your Banana Boat or your—you’re not going to know. What is it—SPF 50? I mean, back in the early 1990s, if you had anything more than an SPF 4 you were seen as a real geek, you know? “Why have you got an 8 or a 12 or a 16?” But nowadays, SPF 50 is the way to go. So Minister, I suggest that you make sure you get some SPF 50 when you’re at those festivals.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Will you rub it on my back for me?

I’ll happily rub it on—happily. So this piece of legislation is important. As we’ve heard from many people this evening, Australia has some things in place and we need to get up with the game, because when I go to the supermarket to buy my sunscreen, I want to know that I’m getting a product that actually will protect me, will protect this mug, will protect these shoulders, will protect this back from the harsh rays of our sun—our sun that gives us life, but our sun that can often cause us some trouble and some challenges.

Now, I was really surprised, but then I thought a bit more about it and realised, actually, that our melanoma rates, the challenges we have—and we’ve heard tonight from several of our colleagues in this House that the challenges we face around melanoma are huge. Todd Muller, when he first presented this to the House, and again tonight, talked about that and the challenges that you’ve had around dealing with different melanomas and different things on our skin. So when I read the number—about 500 people die—it really shocked me.

I look back to when I was first flatting—actually, just around the road here in Rongotai—with some flatmates in the late 1990s. My dear flatmate Kelly—jeepers, we obviously go way back. Kylie Green; not Kelly. Sadly, her dad got melanoma, and, sadly, again, it moved into his lymph nodes, and, sadly, we were, within about 18 months, going to his funeral and supporting him. That was tragic. Again, it was around what our sun in this part of the world can do to us.

So I stand and speak in support of this legislation. I am grateful that we are here in this House making decisions that actually will impact people’s lives, making decisions that actually will protect people, making decisions that will help keep people alive. As I was reading and looking at the submissions and what had gone on, I was grateful when I looked at the Cancer Society. They talk very much around education. You kind of think that with the slip, slop, slap, and wrap—and it’s been, I don’t know, 20, probably 30 years that we’ve had that message going on—people will just know and would get it, but we have a long way to go. We have a lot of educating to do of our people.

I’m grateful to be married to a school teacher, and for the fact that now it is school policy that none of their students are allowed out in the playground at morning tea or lunch time or for their sports events unless they’re covered up, unless they’re wearing a hat, unless they have sunscreen on, because we know it’s our responsibility to look after our tamariki, it’s our responsibility to look after our rangatahi, it’s our responsibility to educate and teach our young people and our adults.

Now, I’m really glad that we’ve moved from when my mum was young, a couple of years back, and it was all about, yeah, those coconut oils, lying down for hours and hours on end, getting that brown, brown skin and eventually—not my mum, of course—turning into leather, turning into other things that you often see. So I’m glad that we’ve moved from coconut oil and all those kind of weird oils and just getting pounded by the sun to now saying SPF 50 is really important, and SPF 50 must have regulations so I know, you know, everyone knows that they are protected.

Now, I spoke on the first reading of this bill, and I want to end not quite as I began, because I made a bit of a fool of myself in my first reading. But to come back to Baz Luhrmann—Baz Luhrmann, a famous Australian, a famous artist, a famous movie maker who wrote the sunscreen song back in 1997. I close in support and I hope the Hon Stuart Nash plays this as he travels to all his music events this year. Ladies and gentlemen of the class of ‘97, wear sunscreen. If I could offer you any other tip for the future, sunscreen will be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been provided by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice is no more than based on my own meandering experience.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.