Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. National will be supporting the onward progress of this bill. This kind of makes sense. I mean in one way it's just addressing a very small administrative factor whereby anyone other than administrators couldn't access the cervical-screening register and if you weren't the administrator you needed to as I recall fax in your request. It would be authenticated and then you'd get a fax reply back.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not me. Order! Not the Speaker.Dr SHANE RETI: I'm sorry. Someone would. A provider would—I'll get into the anatomical detail shortly if you really wish. And this was cumbersome although I may be able to—I mean looking back to think why we were using faxes it is hard to explain. It could be that at that stage we were following some of the American terminology around health information security. Their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations actually talk to this because what happens is in the US if you're HIPAA compliant if you're transmitting information in an electronic way—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Not me. Not the Speaker. Dr SHANE RETI: Sorry. If one is transmitting information in an electronic way other than a fax you have a whole range of compliance called HIPPA compliance which adds on roughly a minimum of $20000 of compliance to transfer that information. But for some strange reason fax transmission is outside of HIPAA. So it may well be that when the legislation first—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think you're a very HIPAA person.Dr SHANE RETI: —ha ha!—came into the House we were following the HIPAA legislation. I don't know. I've considered it as well and it just doesn't make sense here now so we're trying to redress that so that providers authenticated providers can access the register.This started off as a National Party bill years ago. It's sort of hard to understand why it's taken so long to get here and yet if we think about it the promise here was that the cervical-screening register would build on top of the bowel-screening engine. So when the bowel-screening engine was created the engine was going to be the core to screening IT and you'd put cervical screening on top and now you know purportedly coronavirus and other things. But as we well know the bowel-screening engine took so long—it was delayed by six to 12 months—and so I suspect that may be why this bill has taken so long. Because by the time it's enabled—now it will be after coronavirus but it needed to be added on top of the core screening engine which came out of bowel screening.As it came through select committee there were some really good suggestions some really good futureproofing suggestions as one can see in the bill. It talked about increasing the anatomical area of pathology relevant—that made sense. And as the Minister spoke about futureproofing it for HPV which absolutely is a good idea and I totally support that. That's a really important next progress for cervical screening. Disappointing that it failed the Budget bid 2020. I know Professor Bev Lawton and her team were very enthusiastic about it but here we are now. I think this will do a huge service to women and certainly help reduce the inequities particularly for Māori that we all want to achieve. So I am very supportive of HPV screening.I'm sort of hoping that Louisa Wall will be able to take a call because the issue that we did spend a lot of time on in select committee was around the kaitiaki group and more specifically data provenance for Māori. The rest of the bill was quite easy. This became the most complicated part as I recall and that's what leads us to the Supplementary Order Paper. Because we were mostly looking for that balance between appropriate provenance and management of Māori women's cervical-screening data—is what was trying to be achieved—and there was some concern that this bill might override or more specifically that this bill might be used to strengthen up some of those kaitiaki regulations. That's actually what was looking to be done. Having said that we understood some of the difficulties because officials did say to us that we could complicate or hinder the sole purpose of cervical screening by putting these regulations in. But at the time and on balance we thought it was reasonable. Having said that here we are with another set of views in the Supplementary Order Paper which we'll talk to later which reinforce the point that actually officials think this could be unmanageable to have it in its current form as it was reported back. Having looked through this and seen it we're quite relaxed on that. We were relaxed in select committee understood both sides of that argument and there's nothing at first blush that we see in this Supplementary Order Paper that gives us any reason to pause. So in net summary this is mostly an administrative bill. It makes a lot of sense—contemporises what we're doing with cervical screening. The select committee did a lot of really good work to futureproof it to what's now turned out to be the current protocols and we'll be continuing to support its progress through the House. Thank you.