Moroney Sue: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12611] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister Harry Duynhoven for his introduction of this important bill. As a member of the Health Committee that heard the submissions on the Human Tissue Bill it is a great pleasure to be able to participate in the debate on its second reading this evening. The select committee had several complex issues to deal with in relation to this bill. It was certainly one of those bills whereby the more we looked into the detail of it the more complex the issues became. Of course it was incumbent upon the select committee—as it is with all legislation but in particular with this bill—to treat all of the issues with great sensitivity. I believe that the select committee was able to do that right across the board with all parties. 
The select committee was able to fully canvass the issues seek as much advice and detail as we needed from officials and talk through the range of very complex issues that comes with dealing with human tissue and its use and also with organ donation which Jackie Blue has just finished speaking about. I do though want to comment on the issue of an organ donation register. There has been some quite misleading commentary on the Health Committee’s position. 
It is not the position of the Health Committee to say no to an organ donation register; in fact the framework has been set up and the option left open for that very thing to occur. I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that. Also in response to the previous member’s speech on this issue I was surprised to see that the National members on the select committee did not vote in support Jackie Blue’s organ donation bill that it was unanimously voted against by the select committee and that the select committee’s view was to proceed with the Human Tissue Bill which I will now speak to. 
I intend to tell the House a bit more about the wider policy background that led up to the bill’s introduction. The policy behind the bill was informed by a review and that review included public consultation undertaken by the Ministry of Health on the regulation of human tissue and tissue-based therapies. The review identified concerns about the current consent framework for the collection and the use of tissue. The Minister Harry Duynhoven has discussed how those concerns have been addressed in the bill and the amendments that have been recommended by the committee. 
That review also highlighted issues relating to the regulation of the non-therapeutic use of human tissue—the import and the export of tissue and trading which until now has not been adequately addressed in our current legislative framework. The non-therapeutic use of tissue is currently largely unregulated with the exception of the schools of anatomy. The review found general agreement that an overarching standard for the non-therapeutic use of tissue was needed. The reasons for such a standard were the need for clarity and consistency and to allow for monitoring of the processes around tissue use. 
This bill will ensure the safety and quality of the non-therapeutic use of human tissue through standards being prescribed or approved by regulations. These standards will apply to the collection and the use of tissue for research education audit diagnosis post-mortems anatomical examination and other non-therapeutic purposes. So it is very comprehensive. The bill also contains additional requirements for schools of anatomy including the licensing of those schools given the invasive nature of the anatomical examination and the absolute need for public confidence in those processes. 
The ministry review found general support for a more comprehensive oversight of the import and export of human tissue to address issues such as safety and ethical concerns. Many respondents supported the import and export of tissue for quality assurance for peer review and for diagnostic and transplantation purposes where adequate safety levels can be assured. The bill provides for regulations prescribing or approving requirements and standards for the import and export of human tissue. This will if necessary permit rigorous monitoring of safety and quality. 
The bill also provides for requirements relating to informed consent for the import of tissue. These currently do not exist. These provisions will enable more stringent informed consent requirements for particular types of tissue—for example human embryonic stem cell lines. The Health Committee took a particular amount of time to address this issue because of all the factors that surround the very emotive and moral issues relating to the use of human embryonic stem cell lines particularly with regard to their import or potential export. 
The ministry review found general support for a prohibition on the sale and purchase of human tissue. I want to clarify that point because it was important for select committee members to absolutely get clarity in their minds around this issue. There is general support for a prohibition on the sale and purchase of human tissue but there is an acknowledgment that there should be some allowance made for the recovery of reasonable administrative costs associated with the collection analysis and processing of such tissue. The select committee needed to consider this issue very carefully because of course there is quite a fine line between the costs associated with the recovery of reasonable administrative costs associated with the collection of such tissue and any suggestion that there might be reward or financial gain for the collection of such tissue. 
The bill repeals Part 3A of the Health Act 1956 which regulates trading in blood and controlled human substances and it replaces it with similar but extended provisions covering for example trading in all human tissue. The sale and purchase of human tissue including blood will as a general rule be prohibited and that is the point I wished to clarify earlier. I want to make sure that anyone listening to this debate is absolutely clear on this point: under this bill the sale and purchase of human tissue including blood will as a general rule be prohibited. 
In further clarifying the media reports that I referred to when I started my speech on the second reading debate on the bill I made a comment about the select committee’s findings on the need or otherwise of an organ and tissue donor register. I will read specifically what the select committee’s findings were because as I said before there have been some quite misleading media reports in this regard. This is what the select committee found: “We were informed that there is as yet no compelling evidence that an organ and tissue donor register increases the overall rate of organ and tissue donation. Nevertheless some of us feel that a register would be useful as a focus for informing and educating the public and thus promoting organ and tissue donation. Others feel that the cost of establishing a register could be better used to fund a direct information campaign.” 
It is interesting to pause and reflect on that particular statement from the select committee because we often hear from the Opposition benches that those members are in favour of reduced Government spending where they do not feel that there is a demonstrated need or sufficient evidence to pursue some of the issues that the Government wishes to pursue. That is of particular relevance when we address this issue because the select committee found that there was not enough compelling evidence to support the cost of establishing such a register at this point. So the majority of the committee did not recommend establishing a register at present. But most importantly it recommended including a clause that permits the establishment of an opt-on register by regulation at a later date. That is the very point that I think has been glossed over by some of the media reports. 
This select committee has gone about recommending that a framework be put in place so that such a register can actually be brought into place at a later date where the evidence shows us that it would have the outcome of increasing organ donation rates. The issue of increasing organ donation rates was very much in the minds of the select committee members when we heard submissions on this bill. 
I thank the submitters who came forward. Many of them had very personal and very heart-wrenching stories to tell about their experiences of dealing with the untimely unexpected deaths of loved ones and the way in which they had to make some decisions or not. Some submitters were there to tell us that they would have liked to have the opportunity to make such a decision about organ donation but in that moment of grief the issue was not put before them. Certainly some of those submitters were there to tell us that they would like the medical profession to put those issues before them so that they can make those decisions. In conclusion I commend the bill to the House.