Street Maryan: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12622] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Human Tissue Bill. I will make a couple of comments in response to some of the speakers before me before I begin to speak on a couple of points I want to make in particular. I pay tribute to Sue Kedgley as chair of the Health Committee for the way in which she guided this very complicated and quite emotive legislation through the select committee process. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Maori Party through Tariana Turia to the discussions on this bill and its provisions. The comments that Tariana Turia made earlier in this debate are important because it is very clear that there is a dynamic and ongoing conversation within Maoridom about issues relating to organ donation. There are very sensitive issues of tikanga and very sensitive issues about whanaungatanga and whanau and there are issues to do with the rights that individuals or whanau might have over the donation of organs after death. 
All of those issues were canvassed carefully by the select committee—even though the particular proposal that Tariana Turia brought to the select committee did not proceed—with the support of the whole committee. But I acknowledge particularly the fact that we had Maori submitters who took different positions and it was quite clear that an ongoing and dynamic conversation is happening amongst Maori on marae all around the country currently especially as Maori reflect on health issues and try to reconcile health demands with some of the traditional practices and values that are so dear. So I wanted to make that acknowledgment and pay tribute to the chair for her work in guiding this matter through. 
This bill has demonstrated to me more than anything that nothing is simple. One would think intuitively that the trade in human body parts is anathema that it should be forbidden and that no civilised society should engage in such a practice for money. However when it comes down to the definitions of body parts and human tissue we begin to see that such things as cell lines have been advertised and effectively traded across international boundaries for a long time for purposes that this House without a doubt would support—that is non-therapeutic purposes of research and scientific progress. Those are some of the issues with which the select committee had to deal. 
We have heard a lot from previous speakers about one of the parts of this bill—the one relating to organ donation which is the part most likely to attract public attention. In response to that particular issue I say that the establishment of an organ donor register is not a cure in itself for our deplorable organ donation rates in this country. We all know of and support the need to increase those numbers but the presence or absence of a register quite frankly has nothing to do with the rates of organ donation. What we do want however and what we have provided for in this legislation is the ability to establish an organ donation register should it be considered useful at a future time. As the chairperson of the select committee said earlier that matter will not need to be brought back to this House but in fact can be determined by regulation because the conditions surrounding it are established in this primary legislation. 
I will come back to that in a moment if I have some time but I really want to talk about a couple of other things. I want to outline amendments that aim to address issues raised by researchers. I will outline the amendments that deal with those and briefly talk about them and talk about the amendments to the trading provisions. These are the less popularly accessible parts of the bill but I think they are profoundly important to scientific and medical research. First of all submissions from researchers raised two main issues. The first related to the inclusion of established human cell lines in the definition of human tissue. Researchers were concerned that this would mean that further ethical approval or proof of consent would be required for the use of established human cell lines. Submitters argued that gaining consent for the initial tissue collection is sufficient because human cell lines grow continuously and there is no need for further interaction with the donor. The committee recommended an amendment so that the standards or regulations developed for the collection or use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes can specify exceptions to the requirement for ethical approval. This is an excellent compromise I think as it provides for the standards to identify a particular kind of research where it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval while ensuring at the same time that all research including that using established human cell lines complies with requirements relating to quality or safety. 
The second main issue raised by researchers related to their ability to purchase tissue arrays and other forms of scientific and research material that included human tissue. Researchers were also concerned that the advertising of such material commonly done in international scientific catalogues and journals would be prohibited. This is the point I alluded to earlier about the trading of human tissue as it has been done previously but which of course seems counter-intuitive when one thinks about human tissue as organs alone. 
The committee has recommended amendments to the provisions relating to the sale and purchase of human tissue and the advertising of it for sale and purchase so that researchers and others involved in quality control and diagnosis are able to purchase products derived from human tissue and processed human tissue samples. These amendments will mean that researchers will be able to purchase tissue arrays packed blood cells or proteins but not whole unprocessed organs or body parts. Here we get to the critical point about what is intuitive and what is practical—what is required and necessary and what is anathema. There are two further amendments in the trading provisions. The first amendment will ensure that the sale and purchase of tissue that was lawfully collected from a living or deceased person is prohibited. The second amendment brings forward an existing provision in the Health Act 1956 that prohibits payment for the collection of blood for administration to another person. 
These amendments do not affect the Government policy of providing support for live donors of kidney or liver tissue. There is no impact on the ability of organisations such as the New Zealand Blood Service and Cordbank Ltd to recover the costs of collecting or using tissues but it specifies the boundaries and the permission within which those activities may be conducted. I commend the bill to the House.