Stewart Barbara: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12613] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Human Tissue Bill. As a member of the Health Committee I acknowledge the work that the officials put into this bill. The process was very complex and their advice was very very thoroughly researched. We believe that it benefited us and allowed us to make relevant changes to the bill. 
The select committee members worked very diligently on the bill. We were very aware of the important research that has been carried out by the universities and the many other research institutions that are involved in this area and we did not want to hinder any of this vitally important research. 
The bill is important. The commentary on the bill states: “The bill regulates the collection and use of tissue from dead human bodies and sets up a framework for informed consent for tissue use.” The bill is comprehensive and quite complex but it provides clarity on informed consent and informed objection. In the schedules of the bill there are actually flow charts. This is one of the first bills I have ever seen that contains flow charts but we believe that they provide clarity and that they help to show the intent of the bill. 
The bill also allows for the setting up of an organ donor register if at some time in the future there is sufficient evidence to establish an opt-on register. Of course this provision links with Jackie Blue’s bill in which the focus was on the mandatory establishment of an opt-on register. The data the select committee received from overseas countries regarding the establishment of an organ donor register does not show at this point in time that setting up an organ donor register actually ensures that increased numbers of people donate organs and tissue. 
New Zealand First like other parties in this House believes that an extensive public marketing campaign is required if an opt-on register were to be successful. Without that campaign organ donation will always remain in the too-hard basket. Basically there has been no action at all on this front since 2004 when the Health Committee recommended that a legally binding register should be set up here in New Zealand. We are very aware that the register and any public information campaign need to go hand in hand as the bottom line is that any register that is set up cannot afford to fail. 
At this point in time the rates of organ donation are very low; there were just 25 donors last year. But increasing numbers of people are waiting for organ transplants. We are only too aware of this situation. This House is very aware too that the land transport database of organ and tissue donors does not work. It makes one question why the organ donor option has to be indicated on a driver’s licence if it is of such little value. More discussion is needed when a person ticks the relevant boxes on the driver’s licence form whether with his or her family or in some other way but it needs to happen. 
I remind the House that the tick on a driver’s licence is only an indication of a person’s wishes; it is not legal consent for donation. I think many people believe it to be so. That tick has often left grieving families unsure about what to do so usually nothing is done. The donation of organs can be an extremely controversial decision for families at a very stressful time in their lives. The select committee tried very hard to clarify the consent process that is required—hence the flow charts. We thank the many submitters who came forward with some very sad stories to tell. 
New Zealand First believes that the bill should provide informed consent requirements that must be met before tissue collection or use. This issue is not going to go away. It has not been addressed at this point in time to the satisfaction of all New Zealanders. However I need to remind people—like the previous speaker—that the potential is there in this legislation to develop an opt-on register at some later stage. 
When we look at the use of human tissue in a wider context we see that it is important that researchers are aware that this bill does not make lawful any activity that is currently prohibited. As has always been the case in New Zealand a person cannot sell his or her own tissue or tissue from a body that the person is responsible for. That is prohibited as it always has been. The last thing that most New Zealanders would want to occur is financial consideration for human tissue or organs. We believe that the gift status that these donations have been accorded must remain. 
It was very interesting to hear over the course of the select committee process that a few submitters believe there should be mandatory harvesting of organs once a person has died because the person would not need them any more. The submitters believe that that would save the health system millions of dollars as people would not need expensive treatments or the medications that are required while they are waiting for a donor. It is a very interesting concept but it is far beyond the scope of this bill at present. 
This bill outlines the other requirements for and restrictions on the collection and use of human tissue. It is cross-referenced to a number of other bills such as the Coroners Act Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act Health Act 1956 and Commerce Act. So there has been quite a comprehensive review of all that legislation as well. 
New Zealand First believes that this bill clearly sets out the processes that need to be followed for the collection and use of tissue from dead human bodies and sets up the framework for informed consent for human tissue use. We look forward to further discussion of this bill at the Committee stage and to hearing the views of the other parties as we debate the various clauses. In conclusion New Zealand First supports this bill.