Wong Pansy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11340] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I take delight in being able to take another call in the debate on this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. I agree with ACT’s Heather Roy in the sense that in modern days and in the recent history of Parliament all political parties seem to agree that the title of a bill should be more specific about and descriptive of its contents. To simply call the bill the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill is not in itself very enlightening because screening programmes can cover a variety of programmes whereas this particular amendment bill is addressing the issue of cervical screening. 
I reflect also that the previous title the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill did not for the public who were listening to this debate throw a lot of light on the bill’s background and the very fine balance that has to be struck in its content. I think the background to the bill was due to the disastrous failure of the screening programme which led to the Gisborne inquiry. We have learnt how a lack of quality control and auditing in the programme led to disastrous results for the women concerned. 
The debate on this bill has not been easy even though the public may think that because most political parties agree with the bill its passage must be a matter of fact. But in the National caucus I certainly know of the deliberation and the consideration by our spokesperson on health Dr Lynda Scott. She had to go to great lengths to maintain the very sensitive balance of making sure the participation rate in the cervical-screening programme was high enough for the results to be credible while at the same time improving that programme by introducing an auditing process whereby women have to submit their primary health records for auditing purposes. 
Therefore I think this bill’s title should at least include words like “audit” and “halfway consent process”. Why do I say “halfway consent process”? Unfortunately the Minister of Health and the United Future party rejected an amendment by my very good colleague Dr Lynda Scott to the effect that when letters are sent to all the women who participate in the programme they are given the opportunity to say whether for personal or very valid reasons they do not want to submit their medical records for auditing—and they are still allowed to stay on the programme. It was to our great disappointment that the Minister of Health and United Future rejected that amendment. I think it is very punitive to say that women should be excluded because they will not give consent for their medical records to be subject to audit. That is why I think the words “halfway consent” should be included in the title. 
None the less our party will support the passage of this bill because we believe that an improvement in quality control is necessary to maintain the credibility of the programme. But we certainly want to reserve our position in order to see what impact the introduction of the auditing process has. We want to see whether the participation rate remains high and whether a quality audit is carried out with integrity so that women participating in the programme can have the belief that their records are being respected. I am delighted to be able to take a call but I certainly appeal to the Minister in charge of the bill to ensure that in future the title of a bill should be more descriptive of its content.