Turia Tariana: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
Turia Tariana: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6472] 
TARIANA TURIA (Maori Party—Te Tai Hauauru) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. As a nation it appears that we have one of the lowest organ donation rates in the world yet currently about 400 people are on the organ waiting list 80 percent of whom need kidneys. We also know that Maori both donate and receive proportionally fewer organs than non-Maori. These figures are of grave importance to our survival and to our right to live a healthy life with our well-being assured. 
But the bill we are discussing today is of an entirely different nature. A key distinction we must make is the difference between the donation of tissue from a person who is alive and the donation of tissue from a person who is deceased. The purpose of the Human Tissue Bill is to help ensure that the collection and use of human tissue from dead bodies is conducted within the context of a consent framework. 
The issue of consenting to tissue donation is best understood by Maori as the difference between life and death. The transfer of organs from one person to another is a major issue for tangata whenua. Indeed such organ transplantation is critical to the retention of whakapapa—an issue of vital concern to our well-being. As such we were quite surprised that a recent survey on Radio Waatea confirmed that 79 percent of Maori believed that Maori should be donors. It is our duty and responsibility they said to do all we can to uphold the sanctity of human life. I remind the House that it was Grant Kereama who donated a kidney to the Tongan rugby player and All Black Jonah Lomu—perhaps New Zealand’s most famous donor recipient. It was an act of selfless giving by a friend to a friend and it shows that it can be done. 
I return to the hub of the issue: the difference between human tissue donated by a person while that person is alive and human tissue donated by a person who has passed on. The value of considering organ donation as an option to support the life of a loved one cannot be underestimated but there is also a very strongly held set of beliefs that must be respected in understanding the relationships between the realm of the living and the realm of the dead. In essence never the twain shall meet. The spiritual beliefs of tangata whenua around death and dying cannot be smoothed over rushed through or minimised for the purpose of expeditious lawmaking. The beliefs and practices emerging from our values are a living and vibrant aspect of our culture and they have particular relevance to the passage of this bill. 
 A paper by Greg Lewis and Neil Pickering published in the  
NZ Bioethics Journal 
 explains such concepts: “Maori belief offers fundamental reasons for not donating organs. These include the adverse impact that organ donation may have upon donors and their whanau and the adverse impact that receiving a donated organ may have upon recipients and their whanau.” The deep-seated views held within our whanau about the relationship between the living and the dead cut to the very heart of our spiritual and cultural world view. The House is not the place to enter into negotiations about either spiritual or cultural philosophies values and attitudes. Suffice it to say that the concept of the circle of life is one that has universal application but special recognition for tangata whenua. In essence to fail to return an individual whole to Papatuanuku the Earth Mother fails therefore to accord due respect to the sacred value of whakapapa. 
The Human Tissue Bill states that human tissue donation will occur only with proper recognition and respect for the autonomy and dignity of the individual from whom tissue is collected the spiritual and cultural needs of those in close relationship with the person who has died and the cultural ethical and spiritual implications of the collection and use of human tissue. The problem is that for Maori the consistent message we have received is that this bill would not even get to first base given its flawed assumption that Maori will accept the notion that organ donation between the dead and the living is appropriate. The circle of life demands that all life is derived from the earth and returns to the earth complete. 
These spiritual concerns surrounding human tissue are also influential in other cultures and are clearly reflected in the consent rates amongst Maori Pasifika and other peoples in the context of posthumous donation. We must contrast these very low donor statistics with the growing ethnic diversity our population is experiencing in Aotearoa. Statistics New Zealand advises us that Maori Asian and Pacific populations are all projected to increase their share of New Zealand’s population. In light of increasing ethnic diversity issues that cut to the very core of cultural beliefs amongst Maori Pasifika and other ethnic populations must be taken seriously and the key to change is always through education. If we as a nation are truly of the view that the collection and use of human tissue is necessary to advance medical education investigation research or any other purpose then we are honour-bound to discuss these issues fully as a nation and this is where the hope must lie. As a nation we need to have that debate. 
For Maori there will be many varied questions including what measures might be needed to safeguard the process of removing and transplanting organs for whanau Maori. There will be many other issues neither appropriate to raise in this forum nor indeed restricted to the discussion within one’s own whanau hapu and iwi. That there will be questions is however undeniable. The Maori Party believes that our communities need time to discuss the issues involved. They need information that is effective and appropriate for such discussion and the discussions need to be undertaken in ways that can indeed engender the trust and confidence of all concerned. 
The issue of informed consent is critical. Any information that is about making a choice needs to be specific to the needs of the particular audience. We need to prepare fully for such discussions so that we guarantee that the information process is capable of responding appropriately and sufficiently to issues of protection informed consent control of information and medical process access to information and medical care. I ask whether sufficient regard has been given to exploring the risks. 
Communities need to be engaged in a very real way. Having a few token “others” on a committee or writing submissions is not enough to constitute proper engagement. Those consulted require comprehensive information and relevant statistics in order to discuss and make decisions. It is not inconceivable that in future a whanau or hapu may well weigh up all the determining factors and conclude that they may indeed derive some benefit from the donation of human tissue and as such it should be up to them to decide. This debate has already been taking place where there are whanau and hapu members who believe in fact that our bones are probably more important than our organs. If the Government is indeed committed to the use of human tissue after the donor’s death then we would like to see some due regard accorded to investing in education—such as a nationwide series of hui—on this issue.  
 Finally the Maori Party wants to place on record its concern at the proposal in this bill that the wishes of an individual can override the collective process of whanau decision-making. The bill says that formal recorded consent for organ tissue donation is required from the individual; or under clause 32 from the person or persons nominated to give consent after the individual’s death; or if those persons are absent from whanau or a senior next of kin. That does not sit well with our party. No individual stands alone. Our kaupapa our tikanga as tangata whenua describe an individual person or body not as merely his or her own but as a connected and vibrant manifestation of whakapapa the ancestral line. The link the chain of whakapapa is therefore of significance to the whanau as a whole and decisions to sever such a link have implications for the well-being of the whanau past present and future. 
There is nothing more certain in the cycle of life than the inevitability of death. The Maori Party will not be supporting this bill because it has been a strongly held view at the hui we have been to where this issue has been discussed that we will oppose the bill in light of our kaupapa our tikanga and our world views. Tena koe.