Moroney Sue: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12911] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak to the second reading of the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill which is a member’s bill put forward by Jackie Blue. I do congratulate Dr Blue on the work that she has done because drafting such a bill I know is no mean feat. I hope the member feels proud of her efforts in bringing the bill through to its second reading and in knowing that it has encouraged further discussion of this very important issue. 
I want to refer to a comment made by the member who has just resumed his seat Jonathan Coleman about an assurance that the National Party would back this bill. The bill was considered by the Health Committee and that member was on the committee. It is interesting to note that the bill was unanimously opposed by the Health Committee which means the National Party team on the committee did not vote in favour of this bill either. So the assurance by the National Party needs to be seen in that light. 
However I want to make sure that people who are listening to this debate understand what has occurred. This bill is one of two bills that the select committee heard concurrently on the issue of organ donation. Labour supported Jackie Blue’s member’s bill only to the select committee because we felt it was important to debate the specific issues about an organ donation register and the idea that an individual’s wishes would override family members’ wishes in regard to organ donation for example. We wanted to debate fully those issues and that did occur in a very full debate in the select committee through the very many heartfelt submissions we considered. 
This bill sought to establish a register to make legally binding a donor’s decision to donate whereas Labour wants the family of a deceased to have some power of veto in exceptional circumstances. The Health Committee recommended that the bill not be passed as a register is considered unnecessary at this time. I stress “at this time” because the Government bill does enable a register to be established and sets up the framework for such a register to be established should there be evidence that shows that the very expensive exercise of setting up a register would increase organ donation. The Health Committee was told that the international experience is that even when considerable time effort and finances were spent on setting up such a register it did not necessarily mean that the rate of organ donations climbed. In fact in some international examples the rate of donations dropped. I am not going to stand here and argue that the drop was because a register was put in place. In fact the international trend is that organ donation rates are dropping across the board. That information and evidence told us that the formation of a register was not in itself an answer to the problem. 
There is no doubt that all of the parties represented on the Health Committee and I feel sure all of the parties represented in this House agree on one thing—that is when it comes to the issue of organ donation all parties would want to find a solution that increases the number of people prepared to have their organs donated in the event of their untimely death. It is a difficult issue to discuss because we are in the business of talking about the unthinkable. It is the unthinkable that we are now encouraging families to consider and sit down and have a good discussion about. The unthinkable is an untimely death an early death a premature death of a family member or a close loved one. 
The Health Committee recommended a clause in the Government’s Human Tissue Bill—which was passed by the committee—to permit the establishment of an opt-on organ and tissue donor register should it prove desirable in the future. I want to spend just a small amount of time talking about some of the submissions that the committee considered and in particular I wish to clarify some of the statements made by intensive care specialists who have been spoken about quite a lot during this debate. Although we have aligned the views of the intensivists to that particular group of people who work in the intensive care units who are the people in the front line dealing with families in these very traumatic situations it is important to give the full picture of what they were saying to us. Although it was coming from that particular group of health professionals it was in no way a discussion about health professional capture as some people listening to this debate may be reflecting on. In fact they said to the committee that they did not want to be in the position where they were dealing with a family who was traumatised because of the untimely death of a loved one and where the health professional was saying to the family: “Irrespective of how you feel about this we are going to override your views and your concerns and we will be taking out the organs of your loved person despite your views on this issue.” They did not want to deal with that in that very critical period of time when there is much trauma going on for the family in any case. 
Although this was the view of a group of health professionals I believe that what they were telling us was about the impact it would have on families already traumatised and then needing to deal with an issue that may be culturally alien to them that may be alien to them for a range of spiritual reasons and then the family feeling that they were completely disempowered yet again by having a medical professional telling them the professionals would do this against the will of the family. We had to take that view into consideration because it was a very real issue faced day in and day out in the intensive care units in our hospitals up and down the land. It is a very serious issue. 
The Government’s Human Tissue Bill aims for a balance between respect of the wishes of the deceased person and the cultural and spiritual needs of the family. Unfortunately the select committee found that Jackie Blue’s member’s bill did not acknowledge the needs of the deceased person’s family and that was an issue we could not escape. The Government’s Human Tissue Bill is broader in scope than the member’s bill and that is to be expected. There are of course many more resources available to the Government to consult widely and to hear all of the views and put those into a Government bill and members do not have that ability to do that. So the Government bill will regulate the collection and use of tissue from dead human bodies as well as dealing with this issue of organ donation. It will also regulate trading in tissue export and import of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes. 
The Government bill will ensure that collection and use of human tissue occurs with dignity and with respect for the deceased individual and his or her family and others who were in a close relationship with that individual. A key aspect of the Government bill is the establishment of a new consent framework for the donation of human tissue. I believe that dealing with these two bills concurrently in the select committee has done one very important job. As well as bringing a new legislative framework around the issue of organ donation and the use of human tissue as it has done with the Government bill I believe that it has provided a very good educational platform for families to discuss this very issue. As a member of the Health Committee I certainly urge people who have not done so already to have this discussion with their families—to discuss the unthinkable—“What would I want done with my organs in the event of my untimely death?”. 
These are tricky issues. They are very emotive issues but they are very real issues. In closing I again thank Jackie Blue for all of her hard work on the bill. I think it was a very good process that we went through in the select committee so I also thank the chair of the committee Sue Kedgley who enabled us to discuss these two bills in the fullness of what they deserved to have discussed about them. Thank you.