12. JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Has he taken into account the full implications of the Public Health Bill on all sectors of the economy; if so, how?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) Link to this
Yes. The bill is hugely important and will bring many benefits to all New Zealanders. For example, the bill updates previous provisions on communicable diseases and for the first time provides a legislative response to non-communicable diseases, which are the major causes of ill health and premature death in New Zealand and, accordingly, are the major drivers of health expenditure.
How many people, during the last year, have become sick or have died as a result of going to the hairdresser?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I am well aware that that matter is being covered by the Health Committee, but if the member wishes to have specific information on that, it would be as well to put it in a primary question.
Lesley SoperHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Although the consideration of the submissions is a matter for the committee, I am aware that two-thirds of all public submissions were in favour of the bill. I am further advised that most of the remaining third focused on specific issues that I am confident the select committee and, ultimately, the House will be able to address.
Why, then, if the Minister has no evidence that hairdressers are the new public health menace, is it the intention of the Public Health Bill that hairdressers be required to prepare a public health risk-management plan, which must be independently audited by assessors and then reported to the Director-General of Health, who maintains a national database; is that not bureaucracy gone mad?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The member’s question is quite fascinating in two regards. In the first place, I am advised that hairdressers have for many years been regulated as to the substances they can put on the heads of people, including children. There is no legislative change in that regard. The second fascinating thing is that the member is asking the Minister in the House a question, when she has had access to the Minister’s officials through the select committee process for the last 3 months.
How will it make any difference to the public if a hairdresser has to complete a public health risk-management plan that identifies the risks to the public from hairdressing and how those hairdressing risks will be prevented or minimised, and then sets a timetable for how the hairdresser will manage those hairdressing risks; is that not just nanny State out of control?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
There are about 300 pages in this bill. The best example the Opposition can come up with in order to criticise the bill is one provision about hairdressers, which was in place long before the bill was consulted on. I would say that it is obviously very sound legislation.
Does the Minister realise that hairdressers will not only have to prepare a public health risk-management plan but also have to apply for a certificate of approval of their public health risk-management plan, as well as applying for a council consent to be a hairdresser; and does not all that bureaucracy, plus the nonsense on light bulbs, end up putting cost pressures on to consumers, who are already struggling under the skyrocketing costs of living?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
A small step for humankind; a giant leap for a natural blond. Will the member object next to the same contaminant provisions that regulate shellfish toxin poisoning or legionella bacteria from cooling towers, or object to the reporting of communicable diseases such as HIV and AIDS, or, indeed, object to the potential to regulate damaging non-communicable conditions like the obesity epidemic—or is that member focusing on one little thing that is particularly close to her own skin?