Duynhoven Harry: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12607] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Human Tissue Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Health Committee which recommended that it be passed with amendment and I would like to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. I am sure there will be a few members listening who say that this is a very unusual bill for the Minister for Transport Safety to be involved in and certainly it is so I say at the outset that I am doing this reading tonight on behalf of the Hon Pete Hodgson the Minister of Health. 
But this bill is one that in the past I have had some interest in in that on a driver’s licence of course one will see that the word “Donor” is or is not on that licence. I invite everyone to check their drivers’ licences right now. Members may take their licences out of their wallets if they have them and check them. Certainly I am proud to say that as far as I am concerned after I have gone they can use whatever bits of me they need to help prolong the life of anyone they might be useful to. But that leads to the particular matter before us. 
The Human Tissue Bill was introduced in November last year to provide a framework for regulating the collection storage and use of human tissue—primarily of course tissue from deceased people. It also regulates trading in tissue the export and import of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes—for example research education audit and anatomical examination. Once enacted the Human Tissue Bill will repeal and replace the Human Tissue Act of 1964. 
The bill makes “informed consent” the fundamental principle underpinning the lawful collection and use of human tissue. It replaces the use of “lack of objection” in current legislation with “informed consent” which is consistent with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. By specifying who may give consent for the collection and use of human tissue the bill provides clarity for organ and tissue donation and the collection and retention of tissue at a post-mortem examination. 
The bill provides some exceptions to the general rule that informed consent is required to collect or use human tissue—for example where tissue is collected or used under the Coroners Act 2006 or for criminal justice purposes. The bill also recognises that there are certain limited circumstances where because appropriate safeguards are in place the public good associated with the use of tissue outweighs informed consent requirements and an example is certain research where that research is approved by an ethics committee. The bill sets out who is able to give informed consent in four different circumstances: the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for general purposes including organ and tissue donation and research; the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for anatomical examination or public display; the use of tissue that was collected from a living person for a secondary purpose after that person’s death; and the collection and use of tissue from a living person where the code does not apply and the analysis is for the purpose of obtaining genetic or other information about a particular condition or trait. The consent framework is slightly different for each of these situations and I am pleased that the committee has recommended the inclusion of flow chart diagrams to aid understanding. 
I will briefly describe the consent framework for the collection and use of human tissue from a deceased person for general purposes. In this case the primary consent will be that of the deceased before he or she dies or of someone nominated by the deceased person to consent on his or her behalf. In that absence of consent to donation by the individual or by his or her nominee the decision will be made by the immediate family. The bill provides for decision making by an available close relative of the dead individual if the immediate family is unable to reach a decision. 
Since the bill’s introduction the committee has heard from a diverse range of submitters which has resulted in a number of improvements to the consent framework. One of the key amendments recommended by the committee is the introduction of “informed objection”. This amendment recognises the ability of decision makers to raise an informed objection alongside the ability to give informed consent. Both “informed consent” and “informed objection” will have legal standing and will prevent others from consenting or objecting. 
The committee also recommended two amendments to give greater recognition to the culture of the immediate family. The first requires decision makers to take into account the cultural and spiritual needs values and beliefs of the immediate family. We want to encourage individuals who want to make a decision about the collection and use of tissue after their death to consider the impact of their decision on their family. But we also want individuals to retain the right to make a decision that their family does not agree with. 
The second amendment requires the person collecting or using human tissue to take into account the cultural and spiritual needs values and beliefs of the immediate family. It is entirely appropriate for clinicians researchers and others who are collecting and using human tissue from a deceased individual to do so with proper recognition of and respect for the immediate family. A number of submitters noted the difficulty of enforcing the wishes of the individual if those were at odds with the wishes of the family. 
Other situations where organ and tissue donation may not proceed even though there is consent include situations when the organ or tissue is unsuitable or there are no available recipients. The committee has recommended changes to make it clear that nothing in the bill requires any person to collect or use human tissue and that a person who proposes to collect or use tissue may decide not to act on informed consent. It is appropriate that organ donor coordinators transplant surgeons and others should be free to decide not to act on informed consent if the information available indicates that they should not do so. If individuals have not made a decision before their death or nominated someone then their immediate family may consent or object to the collection or use of their tissue. 
The bill as introduced provided that the immediate family could not give consent unless a majority of the immediate family agreed with that decision. The committee has recommended that the need for a majority decision is removed. This amendment will mean that a member of the immediate family may give informed consent or raise an informed objection once it is clear that all capable family members accept or would accept if consulted that decision. This amendment will allow families to reach a decision in whatever way is appropriate to them as long as they collectively agree with the decision. 
The Human Tissue Bill has been reported back by the Health Committee and the committee has recommended that it be passed with the amendments shown. Certainly the issue of donors in terms of organs for transplant is one that has a great deal of emotion surrounding it. I commend the select committee for the thorough and sensitive way in which it approached this issue. There are many of us who when we had our photo driver’s licences issued some years ago opted to become organ donors. In other words if we are unfortunate enough to lose our life in a crash on the road—or indeed in any other circumstance—our organs we feel may be used by whoever could make use of them. Surgeons would obviously have to assess their suitability etc. We will all be aware of people whose lives have been extended or indeed saved by the ability to receive transplanted organs from other people. 
I commend the bill to the House to provide clarity on the consent required for the collection and use of human tissue for the public clinicians and others involved in the collection and use of tissue. I think it is a bill that the House will be most anxious to debate thoroughly a bill with subject matter on which many people have very strong views and a bill that I believe this Parliament should seriously consider. I commend the bill to the House.