Turia Tariana: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Turia Tariana: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15437] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Kei te rere ke te wairua o tenei pire. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill has a strange spirit about it. 
] 
Just under 10 years ago Te Puni Kokiri produced a guide  
Hauora o te Tinana me ona Tikanga: a guide for the removal retention return and disposal of Maori body parts organ donation and post mortem: Maori and their whanau 
. In the course of its investigation the reference group was told of one instance where body parts had been retained in a hospital. It appears that the Maori health services consultant had discovered a freezer full of body parts all of them labelled with tags identifying the owners as Maori. Despite the ire of medical specialists the consultant set about advising iwi and notifying the owners nearly all of whom were extremely angry. They could not understand how the clear instructions they left with clinicians had been overturned. The Maori health consultant bore the full extent of their wrath. 
This case illustrates at many levels the range of contradictory and complex reactions that come with issues at the core of this bill. It demonstrates the deterioration of the relationship between Maori and the health system and the lack of trust or confidence that their cultural beliefs would be respected. It illustrates also the reluctance of officials to actually respect what Maori had to say about such a sensitive and sacred area. It revealed a distinct lack of accountability amongst medical professionals to their clients and it displayed the levels of discomfort Maori staff are exposed to when attempting to remedy cultural errors. All this was on top of the utter offence that was caused in the first place by the discovery of body parts “banked” by the hospital without any acknowledgment of the distress this would cause the families involved. 
Human tissue and organ transplantation has become an effective way of treating serious health conditions such as heart disease and kidney or liver failure. We in the Maori Party do not underestimate the critical importance of advancing any knowledge we can to counter the rise in chronic disease and chronic medical conditions. At the hub of this issue is the fact that transplantation usually depends on donations from people who have died in crisis most often as a result of brain damage through stroke or accidents. Culturally the importance of being buried whole is absolutely central to this discussion. Concepts such as whakapapa mauri ira tangata tapu and noa are significant in our world view as is informed consent ensuring that information we have about organ donation is relevant and meaningful. What I continue to learn is that for some nothing is sacred. 
Informed consent is not an individual prerogative. The application and use of human tissue requires the recognition of both individuals and collectives in the consent process. It was on this basis that we in the Maori Party brought a range of amendments to the bill to ensure that the collective involvement of whanau was provided for in the provisions of the legislation and we thank the Greens for their support. The amendments we produced would have enabled an overriding objection to the collection or use of that tissue to be raised by a member and on behalf of that individual’s whanau or extended family. The effect would have been that the collection or use of the tissue was prohibited. In our world view allowing individuals to be the sole decision-makers regarding whakapapa material is entirely contrary to our tikanga and the preference for collective involvement. Although the bill does include some consideration of the wishes of the immediate family it is by no means sufficient to accommodate the views of whanau decision-making processes. 
Tangata whenua evidence was once again ignored. Dr Jessica Hutchings the resident scholar at Te Mata o Te Tau in Massey University has undertaken research in the area of genetic and nanotechnologies that confronts the critical issues around the cultural ethical and spiritual implications of the collection and use of human tissue. It was her analysis that the issue of informed consent is critical. She has asked the question as to whether our current health system is capable of responding appropriately and sufficiently to issues of protection informed consent Maori control of information and medical processes and access to information and medical care. Dr Marewa Glover from the faculty of medical and health sciences at the University of Auckland raised the concern also that Maori have not had the opportunity as whanau hapu and iwi to hui and discuss this matter. Her challenge to Parliament was that Maori need to be engaged in a real way. Having a few Maori on a committee or writing submissions is not good enough to constitute proper engagement. Maori need good information and relevant statistics in order to discuss and make decisions of such importance. 
I go back to that awful example of the freezer of tagged body parts. We believe that it is an entirely reasonable expectation that in any laws or practices involving human remains one would acknowledge the world views of tangata whenua as the indigenous peoples of this land. In doing so we believe that in a tikanga context any issues relating to human body parts should be included in a discussion that enables the collective wishes of the whanau to be taken into account alongside those of an individual. 
I want to pay particular tribute to the chair of the Health Committee Sue Kedgley for her commitment to really try to facilitate discussions at the table that recognised the complexities of the cultural context for the legislative agenda related to human tissue. I acknowledge also the legal advisers inside and outside of Parliament who worked hard to put forward options to widen the lens to enable whanau to be able to decide the fate of the bodies of their loved ones upon death. We came to this bill as we do to every bill—determined that all legislation can and indeed should recognise tikanga Maori as was anticipated in the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But ultimately we were disappointed in the failure of the bill to recognise important cultural values and beliefs outside of a pre-imposed predetermined Western framework of individual rights. Is it not time for Western values and beliefs to sit alongside those of tangata whenua when making these decisions not compromising either? 
No doubt this bill will pass despite our lone opposition to it. Parliament has missed out on an important opportunity to open up the consent process to recognise indigenous world views and that is a weakness. The discussions that need to be had around the protection and preservation of whakapapa materials have not been provided for by this legislation and that is a pity. I have to wonder how we will stimulate education and debate to face the challenge of the critical need to give life alongside our tikanga. 
What will be different? Tangata whenua will know that we in the Maori Party argued passionately and proactively for solutions that could ensure Maori were informed and included in the wider debate around human tissue organ donation and quality health-care access and choices. We support live donations of organs between whanau members and we have discussed this matter in our constituency. We have been extremely challenged by this bill and the life and death choices that are being debated before the House. Our vote of confidence must always be a vote for whanau decision-making a vote for whanau rangatiratanga and a vote for the safeguarding of whakapapa. We will not be supporting this bill.