Motions

Tanning Beds

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (11:01): I move:

That the regulations made under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 entitled Non-ionising Radiation—Commercial Cosmetic Tanning Services, made on 14 November 2013 and laid on the table of this house on 26 November 2013, be disallowed.

I am moving this motion not because of any love of the tanning industry and desire to assist it but rather because of my concerns about the process in this matter. I should make it clear to the house that I do not use, have never used, and will never use a tanning bed but there is an issue of process.

As you are probably aware, I am a member of the Legislative Review Committee and that committee met earlier this morning. The function of that committee is to consider the regulations of the parliament, and most members, hopefully all members, would be aware that when we deal with legislation in this place, we pass bills which become acts of the parliament and then pursuant to those acts there are frequently regulations made under those acts known as subordinate legislation.

Rather than the parliament as a whole always having to consider all of those, it has delegated to a committee which consists of representatives from both houses and from both sides of the parliament to consider the regulations. When they consider the regulations, there are what are called scrutiny principles. The scrutiny principles on which that committee operates say that under section 12 of the Parliamentary Committees Act and section 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act there are certain principles that we are supposed to follow and they include the following:

whether the regulations unduly trespass on rights previously established by law or are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, or make rights, liberties or obligations dependent on non-reviewable decisions;

whether the regulations contain matter which, in the opinion of the Committee, should properly be dealt with by an Act of Parliament;

whether the objective of the regulations could have been achieved by alternative and more effective means;

I will not read the rest of them but I think those ones are particularly relevant to the point that I want to make this morning, that is, that these regulations dramatically change the ability of certain businesses in South Australia to continue to do what has until now been a lawful operation. Up until now, we first had unregulated use of tanning beds and, for obvious reasons, there is a public health concern about the use of tanning beds.

This parliament, and a number of other parliaments around the country, introduced changes to the legislation by saying, 'Okay, we'll introduce some controls and regulations.' In particular, we made it so that in this state you could not run a commercial tanning operation and allow its use by anyone under the age of 18 or anyone with what is known as skin type 1—that is, a fair skin that is likely to burn and not tan. I understand that those regulations have been pretty much complied with.

The regulations that came before the committee—the first committee meeting of the year, once the new parliament formed—which purported to be in place and operational, basically say that, 'As of 14 January, these things are going to be unlawful altogether.' It seems to me that there is a legitimate debate to be had, but the appropriate place for that debate to be had was, indeed, in this chamber.

The regulation is simply made by a minister without any consultation with the rest of the chamber and without any consultation with the other place. By the stroke of a pen, the minister simply puts his signature to a proposed regulation and thereby makes unlawful something which is currently lawful. For instance, under our current tobacco industry regulations there are definite requirements about the packaging of cigarettes and the fact that there have to be warnings on cigarette packages, and all sorts of awful things—they have to be in plain packaging—and then we have moved to not even having the cigarettes on display. The equivalent thing would be if the minister came in, having made a regulation, and simply passed a regulation without coming into the chamber to say that it is now unlawful to sell cigarettes in South Australia.

This regulation has that effect on a currently legitimate business, and although they have not contacted me—I have had no discussions with anyone from the tanning industry—I have been handed a piece of paper by someone who has been contacted, and they advise that there are 10 professional salons in Adelaide that represent over 90 per cent of the industry. They have over 100,000 South Australian clients on their database and they employ over 70 staff. According to them, they implement best practice and comply with all regulations. The statement goes on to say:

The majority of these owners will lose their homes and go bankrupt with unpaid leases and other financial commitments as the government renders their business worthless at the end of this year.

Because the effect of the regulations is that they will commence at the end of the year. In fact, they go on to say that they have been trying to have a conversation, and I quote:

This group of salon owners have repeatedly tried to start a conversation with the government regarding the future of their industry for the last two years, but to no avail.

My concern is primarily with process. I believe that this is a legitimate health issue that is capable of proper consideration by this house. The best way for it to be considered would be for the parliament to appoint a select committee so that we could call witnesses before it from both the people in the tanning industry and the other people to whom I will refer in a moment, and that is the public health authorities and so on who have a very contrary view, of course. We could hear that evidence in a bipartisan way and come to some conclusion. The select committees that I have worked on in this parliament over the past 12 years have generally come to unanimous conclusions after hearing evidence so that they could put a proposal to the parliament as to what might be the appropriate way to go.

It may well be that it would come to the conclusion that there should be a total ban on the commercial use of tanning beds. I suspect there is a broader issue because I do not think there is any control at the moment on the private use of tanning beds. If young girls who want to have these tans and who are currently using commercial beds then use them in a totally unregulated manner in their own homes, I suspect we might be creating a bigger problem than the one this is no doubt seeking to solve.

I am not an expert on the science. I have read some of the articles that have been provided and indeed one of the articles that I have read is from a thing called the American Journal of Public Health and they have written a whole article about the role of public health advocacy in achieving an outright ban on commercial tanning beds in Australia.

That article is actually quite positive about the right to ban them, and about the fact that South Australia and Australia lead the world in doing some of these things. It may be an entirely appropriate thing. My objection is simply that a minister has done this by regulation rather than by letting the parliament consider all the evidence and come to a conclusion. I suspect, from the reading I have done about the issue, that the conclusion might well be that we should go to the next incremental step. We introduced, I think, maybe voluntary regulations in the first instance and then we made it compulsory—no-one under 18 and no-one with type 1 skin.

I suspect that the next reasonable step might be to make it no-one under 30 or 35 and with type 2 skin, the reason being that there appears to be some evidence, from the bit of international reading I have done on the topic, that the incidence of the melanoma, which is complained of from the tanning bed opponents, seems to increase with lower age start of the use of tanning beds, as well as intensive use of tanning beds.

So, I suspect that there is a need for a broader brush than the age 18 and the current skin type of type 1, but I do not know enough about it to make that determination. I simply say that the only reasonable thing to do would be to have a proper debate on it through a process, preferably I think a select committee.

When this came before the committee, one of the other things that puzzled me was that it is under the management of the EPA. That struck me as an odd place to put something which to me is clearly a public health issue. The report that came to the committee indicated that in fact 490 submissions were received in relation to the proposal to introduce this ban. No information was provided to us about the nature of the submissions received. I suspect that a large proportion of them were in fact opposed to the proposal, but I wanted to know.

So, I issued, as quickly as I could after that particular Legislative Review Committee meeting, a freedom of information request to the EPA seeking information, and to speed things up I said specifically that I was not looking for details of who put in the submissions but basically just wanted to know what the submissions said. That went in on 4 June. On 5 June they sent an acknowledgment, which we received on 10 June, and in the meantime we received an email from them and a discussion with them in my office in Stirling, and they said that it would be a massive job to get out the 490 submissions but offered us, in the first instance, a summary. We said yes. That was on 5 June. We said, 'Yes, a summary will be fine; we are prepared to accept that just so we get a sense of what the submissions are saying'.

I suspect that a lot of the submissions relate to things from the tanning industry and the fact that they have a very significant business issue with what this will do to them financially. I think, in the interests of the scrutiny principles referred to as the principles for the Legislative Review Committee (and particularly the one that says 'the principles of natural justice'), that it is unreasonable to say that these companies currently operating will suddenly be told, 'No, what you are doing is unlawful, you no longer can operate, regardless of the financial consequences'.

I point out that, if this was to happen in other areas—there is obviously a public health argument and it is probably well made. However, surely we would then have to look at all the other public health arguments and say, 'Well, if it's the case that tanning beds have a public health cost to us, then smoking has a public health cost—we better ban that before we do it, because that cost is much greater'. Gambling has a much greater public health cost. Alcoholism has a much greater public health cost and driving cars has a much greater public health cost and, accordingly, if there is to be some sort of natural justice, it seems that we need to consider these public health issues, but I do not think we should be abandoning the function of this parliament by allowing a regulation to go through that takes away someone's currently lawful right to earn a living.

My understanding has always been that regulations must actually just regulate, not totally ban. I refer members to the consideration of the various cases on the principles of freedom of interstate trade in constitutional law, where the High Court on numerous occasions said that, no, a state cannot ban something as a mechanism of controlling interstate trade. They can regulate it, but they cannot ban it, was in essence the sense of the case law. I do not think I really have much more to say about it.

I do not intend to go through the detail of the many articles that I have tried to get my head around, other than to say that I think there is a public health issue and it is worthy of proper debate. My objection is simply to the process that has not taken place, and therefore I move to disallow the regulations, simply because I believe that this is an appropriate forum in this house, or through a select committee, for us to have a legitimate proper debate, come to a sensible conclusion and take into account the issues that face the businesses that are currently running lawfully but which will otherwise be put out of business by the stroke of a pen simply on the say-so of a minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:15): Every member of parliament has a right to disallow motions with respect to regulations that are being made, but I find the member for Heysen's freeballing—and I say freeballing on the basis that I am sure that the significant majority of people sitting on her benches disagree with her approach to this matter—the most foolish and reckless thing that I have witnessed since I have been here.

I do have a bit of background in this area, and a lot of foolish and reckless things have occurred in this place. I was the then minister for sustainability, environment and conservation, and with John Hill we announced back in October 2012 that the government had decided to ban the commercial use of solaria from December 2014. There was argument about why we did not do it immediately, but of course we were giving businesses an opportunity to transition to a world without solaria here in South Australia. Again, it was not anything that had come out of the blue. What we had seen was an enormous amount of evidence provided by scientists, particularly showing that there is, quite simply, no safe way of using solaria.

The member for Heysen also pointed out that there was a form of regulation. It was essentially a self-regulation; she mentioned age and she mentioned type 1 skin type. Quite simply, that self-regulation was not working; it was obvious. It was obvious that there were operators who were abiding by that self-regulation, but there were enough that were not. That was evidenced in various media reports—on those TV shows that I do not normally watch—which chased people into solaria and identified people who were not suitable to do it, who were certainly not suitable under a self-regulation process, and who should have been identified as such. There is no safe way to use them. There is significant research. I am not going to detail that research, but research has been conducted here in South Australia, in Australia and across the world.

The governments of New South Wales and Victoria have also announced that they will ban commercial use of solaria from December 2014, and I am glad that the member for Heysen has acknowledged that. There is obviously—and I use the word obviously, because that is what she used—a public health argument. It seems to me that there are occasions when the government of the day has to act, act accordingly and act decisively. That was the reason that this was announced at that particular time, with, as I have said, a period of time leading up to it to ensure that those businesses would be able to transition to business without the use of solaria.

As I said, it is happening in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. I understand that discussions have also taken place in Tasmania. I am not sure of the status of those discussions, but again, they are in line to ban the public use of solaria. I am not going to detail all the research that is available, but there are volumes of it. The research shows that one in six melanomas in Australian young people aged 18 to 29 years would be prevented if solaria were shut down.

With respect to the effect on businesses, as I have said, it was announced back in 2012 with effect in December 2014, to allow those businesses to transition. Also, affected businesses were referred to the small business contact service to provide them with any information and assistance in changing their business practices. Up until that time, that is December 2014, the regulatory and licensing arrangements and requirements for solaria under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 will remain, and that is why it falls under the umbrella of the EPA, as you would expect.

I think the member for Heysen used the word 'puzzled' and that 'puzzled' related to the process more than anything else. I think this house is puzzled by the fact that she is disallowing a regulation that is aimed at protecting young people, ensuring that the industry if there is such a thing—and I know there is a beauty industry. I tend to—

Ms Redmond: You've been there.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I have been to the solaria, yes, but I can tell you I come from a Latin background so I tend to get brown anyway.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you need protection, member for Colton? Do you need protection because there are interjections?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, it's fine. I slip, slop and slap, that is the protection I take! As I said, people can make fun of this and I am not making fun of it. It is a serious issue and the reason the government took decisive action was because of the seriousness of this issue. What I said earlier stands, and I stand by that, it is foolish and reckless for the member for Heysen to come in here and look to disallow a regulation that is aimed specifically at protecting the people she purports to represent in South Australia, the people we all represent in South Australia.

The government provided a time frame of just over two years from the original announcement to give owners and operators sufficient time to make changes to their business to avoid financial loss. The lead time was to enable affected businesses just over two years to make the changes to their businesses to avoid a financial loss. As I said, the Cancer Councils in all states of Australia have called for a ban on solaria in all states and territories, and it is pleasing to note the progress.

In June 2013, the ACT announced it would ban all commercial solaria from 31 December 2014. On 4 February 2012, the New South Wales government announced the same ban effective from the same date. The Victorian government, on 13 December 2012, announced it would ban commercial solaria from the same date. On 31 December 2014, Queensland did the same thing. I am not quite sure of the status of Tasmania but I would be very surprised if they have not gone down the same road. Why did they go down this road? Because they found, as we did in South Australia, that the way by which the states were trying to put in uniform self-regulation of this industry was not working. The risks were too high.

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: The reckless, freeballing member for Heysen interjects, but quite simply she is out of kilter. She is out of kilter with, I believe, this parliament. She is out of kilter with the people of South Australia, and I am flabbergasted that she has moved a motion to disallow this particular regulation. It is beyond my comprehension at the very least.

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I can hear a noise—yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. The simple fact is that she has lost the plot and I think there is evidence of that. The most recent evidence we have seen—let us push the 'utterly corrupt' assertion—

Mr Picton: Push that away.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Push that away for the moment if that is not evidence that she has lost the plot. This motion is evidence that the member for Heysen has lost the plot. I urge the house not to support this disallowance motion, to make sure that we as a parliament act decisively as the minister in another place has done, and that we do the right thing by the people of South Australia to ensure that in December of this year the ban is in place on the commercial use of solaria.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:24): Can I say that, as the health spokesperson for the Liberal Party in this house, we will not be supporting this motion; but, having said that, I see on the Notice Paper today that there are 147 regulations listed that can be disallowed. The member for Heysen in her speech has talked about the process. I urge every member of the fourth estate, the spectators and commentators out there to read the member for Heysen's contribution on this. It is about the process.

The member for Heysen does support and acknowledge the issues around the use of solaria; no doubt about that whatsoever. I just urge everyone to read her contribution about the process and consider the fact that there are 147 regulations on here. We should be looking at all of them to make sure the process is right. This is a particularly emotive issue and it has been raised in the public, and we see it in the media today. Read the contribution. As I say, the Liberal Party will not be supporting this motion.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:25): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the words from the member for Morphett. I think that it is a very principled position of the opposition to not be supporting this motion from the member for Heysen and for them to turn their backs on the member for Heysen's motion, because it really is a disgusting motion to be brought before this parliament. This is an important issue on fighting cancer. This is an issue that should be bipartisan across this chamber.

For me this is an passionate issue, particularly skin cancer. My grandfather died from skin cancer some 35 years ago, not involving solarium beds then, obviously. We need to do everything we possibly can to prevent skin cancer from occurring in South Australia. We have very clear evidence before us as a parliament that solariums and sunbeds in South Australia and across Australia and the world only seek to cause damage. There is not a positive health effect that comes from them; there is only damage.

If you look at what the World Health Organisation has said, they have classed UV emitting tanning devices as carcinogenic to humans, putting solaria in the same category as exposure to asbestos. That is the sort of product that the member for Heysen is saying we should remove regulations from in South Australia, that we should remove regulations—

Ms Redmond: No, I did not say that.

Mr PICTON: Well, that you are disallowing the regulations.

Ms REDMOND: Point of order, Deputy Speaker. The member for Kaurna is alleging that I asserted that I wanted to remove all regulation on solaria in South Australia. I have never said that. My motion is to disallow the currently proposed regulation. If the member for Kaurna cannot actually understand what it is that I am moving then I wonder why he is making a contribution at all.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes; we are not sure what point of order you are raising.

Mr Gardner: 137.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: 137; we are still not sure it is a point of order, but we will draw the member for Kaurna back to the debate and ask him to be careful.

Mr PICTON: Absolutely, Deputy Speaker. There are regulations that this government has put in place to ban sunbeds in South Australia. The member for Heysen is coming in saying, 'Let's get rid of those regulations.' I do not understand how it could be any different from that. You are saying that we should remove those regulations that ban sunbeds.

Mr Gardner: The Deputy Speaker is not saying that, Chris.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are just asking that there be no interjections. That is what I am asking, so if we could just listen to the member for Kaurna we can get some rulings.

Mr PICTON: Well, let us look at the evidence. The evidence says that the risk of melanoma increases by 75 per cent if the use of tanning devices starts before the age of 30. Research also indicates that the use of solaria increases the risk of health effects on users. Overexposure to UV radiation serves a central role not only in the development of skin cancer but also in eye conditions and suppression of the immune system; so, we have a device that is enormously damaging to the people who use it, particularly young people. One in six melanomas in Australian young people aged 18 to 29 years would be prevented if solariums were shut down. This is a regulation that will save lives in South Australia.

We only have to look at the evidence from other states to see that it is not just this government and not just this state that is moving in this direction, but Labor and Liberal governments across the nation are moving in this direction. In February 2012, the New South Wales government announced it would ban commercial solaria from 31 December 2014. On 13 December 2012, the Victorian government announced it would ban commercial solaria from 31 December 2014. In October 2013, the Queensland government announced a ban on commercial solaria effective 1 January 2014.

So, it is not just Labor, it is not just South Australia, it is states across the country and it is Labor and Liberal who are moving on this, just not the member for Heysen. The member for Heysen says this is all a matter of regulation, it is all a matter of process that she has brought this matter to debate. I completely object to that. I think that this is really part of her libertarian agenda that she wants to bring to this place. She is anti regulation and anti good regulations like these that can have a positive effect on the health of South Australians.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One speaker only, thank you.

Mr PICTON: I think this is the danger when people talk very broadly about reducing red tape. I am supportive of reducing red tape when it is in the right circumstances. Yesterday in this house, we saw a bill to remove red tape for travel agents. There has been a very old piece of legislation dealing with travel agents that is not needed any more so this government is bringing forward legislation to remove that. Here we have a regulation that will actually save lives, and the member for Heysen is bringing forward a proposition to remove that regulation.

Removing all regulation is not good. There are some very good regulations that this parliament needs to support in a bipartisan manner, and I think it is really embarrassing to see the depths to which the member for Heysen has fallen in this place. Only weeks ago we were discussing and debating, and the Speaker was deliberating, whether she was going to be referred to a privileges committee over her scandalous assertion that the Electoral Commissioner was corrupt, and now we are seeing this—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know the member for Finniss will have a point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: The matter is relevance. I have no understanding why the member for Kaurna would raise the issue that was discussed in here two weeks ago when the member for Heysen has something completely different on the agenda.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will ask the member for Kaurna to wrap up or continue in a definitive mode to the motion.

Mr PICTON: I would just like to finish by referring to the case of a woman in Victoria. Her tragic case was really the one that started this whole move towards regulation of solaria across Australia. Her name was Clare Oliver, and she went to a solarium when she was 19 years old. She got a coupon which offered her a certain number of free solarium visits at a discounted price, and she went for about 10 sessions when she was 19 years old.

When she was 22, she contracted melanoma and, tragically, died when she was 26. She led the cause in Victoria for the first regulations covering this area, and she was pushing for a total ban on solaria. It did not happen in her lifetime, but her mission and legacy will be that across Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and, luckily, South Australia, there will be a ban on solaria.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:33): If you have the opportunity to stop one in six melanomas happening, why wouldn't you take it? If you have the opportunity to reduce the risk of melanomas from sunbed use, which has been estimated to be 20 per cent and rising to 59 per cent for exposure before 35 years of age, why wouldn't you take it? The member for Morphett, I think, is probably the biggest single user of solaria over there—

Dr McFetridge: Pardon me?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am a bit concerned about that myself.

Ms REDMOND: Personal reflections on members—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am dealing with that, thank you, member for Heysen, and he is going to withdraw that completely.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I am happy to withdraw it, ma'am. It might be in a bottle instead. I am happy to withdraw and apologise. If anyone takes any inference that it is offensive that they would use a solarium, I am happy to withdraw it. If they really think it is offensive that they should use a solarium, they are happy for that to continue but they think it is an offensive thing. They think it is an offensive thing but they do not think it should be allowed to continue.

If you have the opportunity to stop one in six melanomas, in young people particularly, aged 18 to 29 years, why wouldn't you take it? Of course you would. A prudent government has been doing that, and doing it taking into account the needs of businesses to assess their business and to make the necessary adjustment. That is why there was two years' notice.

It was not as though we did it quietly: it was done with a great deal of fanfare. In fact, I remember that it was on the television that night, it was in papers, and I would not be surprised if they wrote to the businesses concerned, as they are all licenced through the EPA. They have all had a long history on this, they all know it has been coming, and two years is an adequate time.

It is something that has happened around the whole country. We have seen the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland—and Tasmania is even making moves in that direction, I am told—all heading in that direction because there is a known threat to health, a known threat to public safety, and prudent governments are taking advantage of that knowledge to regulate for the safety of Australians and particularly young Australians.

In South Australia, the South Australian government is regulating to protect young South Australians, which is exactly the right thing to do. They come in here and talk about process and say, 'It's fine; it might actually be the right thing to do, but let's not do that because we did not go through a process.' There is a saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but sometimes I think an obsession with process is not far behind it, I have to say. We have the member for Heysen—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One speaker only, thank you.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The member for Heysen is behaving almost Don Quixote-like in her obsession with this, but she is not even tilting at windmills. It is not a windmill she is tilting at: she is imagining a windmill and then tilting at that. She is almost becoming the Ann Bressington of the Liberal Party: every conspiracy theory that exists, she will take it up, bring it into the parliament and talk about it without giving it rational thought about whether there is something behind it or whether there is not. In this case, there is very clearly a public health issue, and hiding behind some obsession with process when clear action over a long period of time has been taken with regard for the businesses involved is ridiculous.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (11:37): I am delighted to know that I get a right of reply on this because some of the things that have been said strike me as extraordinary. My whole point is not in any way to promote the use of tanning beds but to promote the fact that in this parliament we are consistently either having to pass legislation because some minister has gone off to a council somewhere and agreed with his colleagues from other states that this is what we are going to do, or to accede to things a minister has passed by way of regulation and expect us to take no action on, even though in its original form the idea was that subordinate legislation would come under the consideration of the whole of the parliament and then the Legislative Review Committee was set up because it got to be too big a process for us to manage any other way.

The member for Newland said, 'If you had the opportunity to save lives, why wouldn't you take it?' That is precisely right, but that is precisely my point: why has this government not, by regulation simply signed off by a minister, banned the sale of cigarettes in this state? Why has this government not banned the sale of alcohol in this state? Why has this government not banned the use of cars in this state? Just taking all the cars off the road, where there is clearly a public health issue, would save 100 lives a year in just this state—far more than we are talking about with solaria—but the government has not done that.

Process is important because, although there were various members on the other side talking about the medical issues (and I deliberately did not go into them), there are equally people who have put the case that we now have vitamin D deficiency. There are people in Europe who are putting the case that a limited amount of vitamin D UV exposure can actually be beneficial to health. I made it clear in my contribution originally that in no way do I seek to assert that I have the medical knowledge. That is why, in my view, what this parliament should be doing is setting up a select committee that can hear the evidence.

We could actually hear from the tanning salon owners and get to the detail of why they say they will lose their houses and why they say two years' notice is not enough and all those things. According to what they have to say, they have been trying to engage with the government for two years and the government has just completely ignored them. They also say that the compensation they have been offered has been the equivalent of, if you owned a cafe, being given a Nespresso machine in compensation. Now, I do not know the truth of that; I have not had an occasion to have it tested by having them in to give evidence.

I believe there is an appropriate process, and I believe that tanning beds do present one of those issues where we need to do something; however, it seems to me to be illogical to simply say that we will ban them from a certain date if we do not also address things such as importation of private tanning beds for individual use, when these young girls who are so keen to get a tan can use a tanning bed at home without any regulation whatsoever.

Why would it not be more appropriate for this government to say, 'You know what? We'll agree to a select committee; we'll appoint a multi-party, both-houses select committee, we'll have a look at all the evidence, and we'll come to some conclusions. We will actually be properly, appropriately evidence-based regulators in this field,' rather than simply say that we are going to just abandon all that in favour of having a regulation.

As I said, I have read the American public health advocacy article. They are, in fact, quite complementary about Australia, but they do say that heightened public awareness led to the number of operators quickly diminishing. Of course, the member for Colton gave no indication, in his address, as to what way the regulations that currently exist were not being complied with.

I accept that voluntary codes generally do not work; that was my argument in relation to the travel industry yesterday, where we are ripping out the consumer protection. Voluntary codes generally will not work. However, we already have regulations that say that if you are under 18 and if you have a type I skin type you are not allowed to use a commercial tanning bed. The former minister, in his address, gave no indication that there had ever been any failure of compliance or any pursuit of any tanning bed operator, in a commercial sense, for non-compliance. So I remain firmly of the view—and I do not care if I am a sole voice; I am more than happy to stand alone on this issue because I do not believe what I am doing is in any way inappropriate—

Time expired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the house is that the motion be agreed to. Those for the question say 'aye'; those against say 'no'. The noes have it.

An honourable member: Divide!

An honourable member: That's not possible.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If someone calls for a division I believe it is.

Ms Redmond: The person who lost it has to call the division.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It needs to be some who said 'yes'. So the motion is lost.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's just say that I know.

Motion negatived.