Soper Lesley: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13055] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to take a call in the Committee stage of the Human Tissue Bill tonight on Part 1. I was a member of the Health Committee through its consideration and the hearing of evidence from 19 of the 31 submitters which we heard largely in conjunction with submissions on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill—a less comprehensive bill that has now been discharged in favour of this Human Tissue Bill. 
Once this bill is enacted it will replace the Human Tissue Act 1964 and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the chair of the select committee Sue Kedgley on ending up with an excellent piece of updated legislation through a very complicated process of submissions and very technical data around the use of human tissue. I think the fact that we did need flow-chart diagrams in the schedules to the bill to clarify the hierarchies of consent for some particular uses of human tissue illustrates just what a complex bill this one was to deliberate on. I believe that the select committee has done a very careful and thorough job and that we can all be very proud of ending up with a bill that provides a robust framework for regulating the collection storage and use of human tissue primarily from deceased people. 
The bill also regulates trading in tissue the export and import of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes—for example for research education audit and anatomical examination. It very clearly makes informed consent the fundamental principle underlying the lawful collection and use of human tissue. In so doing it brings consistency with the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights and that is a not insignificant achievement. 
The bill sets out who is able to give informed consent in four different circumstances: firstly the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for general purposes including organ and tissue donation and research; secondly the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for anatomical examination or public display; thirdly the use of tissue collected from a living person for a secondary purpose after his or her death; and fourthly the collection and use of tissue from a living person where the code does not apply and the analysis is for the purpose of obtaining genetic or other information about a particular condition or trait. The consent framework is different for each situation so the flow charts as I said are a very good thing. 
As a general statement I would say that the Human Tissue Bill has striven to strike a clear balance between respect for the wishes of a deceased person and the cultural and spiritual needs of his or her family in dealing with a highly sensitive set of issues around human tissue collection and use. We heard during the hearing of submissions many many heartfelt submissions for and against individual or family decisions on these matters. Certainly during the time of the submissions I spoke with a dying friend who was very clear that if any of her organs were able to be used—or in fact if any parts of her body were able to be used—for organ donation or research that was her wish and she was totally opposed to any veto of that decision. 
In the end this bill has a proposed framework that gives primacy to any informed consent given or objection raised by the individual whose tissue might be collected or used. However there was an understanding from the select committee—and many submissions touched on this point—of the difficulty of enforcing an individual’s wishes against those of a deceased’s family so there is provision in the bill for a decision not to proceed for informed objection and for taking into account the cultural and spiritual needs of the family. I think we have a good balance there. I am very pleased that the bill provides an enabling clause for the setting up of an organ and tissue donor opt-on register by regulation at a later date. We clearly heard that the evidence which we explored very thoroughly during the submissions and research on the bill shows conclusively that a register will not be effective at this point but the enabling clause that we as a select committee recommended be put into the bill does provide for a register when the evidence shows it will be effective. The international evidence will give us that ability at some later stage. I am very pleased to commend this bill including Part 1 to the Committee.