Kedgley Sue: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15435] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very pleased to support the Human Tissue Bill. I would really like to start by thanking the Health Committee for its very careful consideration of this very complex legislation. On the one hand the bill is extremely complex dealing with a very wide range of issues; on the other hand it deals with quite an emotional subject which touches on very sensitive cultural spiritual and emotional issues. 
I believe that on this bill we had an example of a select committee working at its best. We went in with a very open mind. We listened to the evidence. We had very conflicting evidence: on the one hand people like Andy Tookey implored us to set up a register; on the other hand the intensivists implored us not to set up a register. They said it would not work for intensivists and that above all it would not increase the number of organs that are donated in New Zealand. So there were widely polarised views and some very very compelling evidence from people who had experience with organ donation. We did our very best to steer our way through it all and come up with a bill that I think is a very reasonable compromise—not just a compromise but actually the right policy at the present time. 
I know that when we began to consider this bill I assumed I would favour the establishment of an organ donation register. The reason I assumed I would favour a register was that the Green Party is very keen to see an increase in the number of organs that are donated in New Zealand. Like other parties in this House we are very very concerned about the extremely low rate of organs that are donated and it seemed to us that a register would be one way of increasing the number of organs that were donated. But in fact when we listened with an open mind and looked at the international evidence we heard and saw that there was no compelling evidence that establishing a register would result in more organs becoming available. Because that was our overriding objective it did not seem sensible to recommend the rather expensive quite complex establishment of a register if it would not achieve the purpose of increasing the number of donated organs. 
One of the things that most surprised me during the select committee deliberations was the realisation which previous speakers have alluded to of how few organs can be if you like harvested from people in New Zealand. I just assumed the problem was that organs were available and that all we needed was for more people to give their consent to having their organs harvested at the time of their death. I assumed that ipso facto that would increase the rate of organs being donated and would solve the problem. So it was actually a great surprise to learn that it would not matter how many people had actually signed a register and said they would consent to having their organs harvested at the time of their death. It would not matter how many people had signed such a register because there would be only an incredibly small number of people every year who would in fact be able to have their organs harvested. As previous speakers have said they estimate that about 100 people in New Zealand could be suitable. First of all those people have to be brain-dead have to be in intensive care and have to have organs that are in a good condition—they cannot have any old organs. 
So when one actually looks at that one realises that simply having a register will not solve the problem. It could be a step in the right direction but it has not proven to be so internationally. The reality is unfortunately that there will only ever be a very small number of people whose organs will be able to be harvested. What we have said as others have pointed out is that although there is not any compelling evidence yet to recommend establishing a register should that evidence be forthcoming—in other words if when we continue to look at the international experience we find that in those countries that have registers it results in an increase in organ donors—then without requiring further legislation by a simple regulation a future Government can establish a register. So the provision for a register is there. It can be done relatively easily but we require that we do it based on evidence rather than just because it feels good and so politicians can say “Look what we’ve done; we’ve established a register.” There is not much point in doing so if we know that the register will not result in an increase in organ donation rates. 
The other thing I will make a point about is that more and more people in New Zealand will require donated organs. In fact some people are saying there will be an explosion in the need for donated organs in coming decades because of the incidence of obesity and diabetes and the number of people who will need renal dialysis. Unless we do seriously get into preventive measures such as improving our diets and the quality of the food we eat we will have an explosion in the number of people who need donated organs. In the United States the number of people who are waiting for kidneys has more than doubled over the past decade and the average person waits more than 3 years for an organ. Authorities in the United States are debating whether to set up a rationing system and are considering for example giving priority to young people and saying that older persons people over the age of 70 or 79 would not be accepted for organ donation. So that sort of thing is already being debated overseas. 
I think the real lesson for us is that we will not solve that problem with if you like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The only real solution is to reduce the number of people who are developing preventable diabetes—type 2 diabetes—obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases. Only in that way will we begin to manage the issue. We will not manage it by simply setting up a register as if that is somehow a magic wand. 
Finally I would say that the Greens supported an amendment to the bill by the Maori Party to require that the whole whanau be involved in consenting to tissue donation. Unfortunately there was not sufficient support in this House for it and we are disappointed in that. We felt that very compelling evidence was given that the spiritual beliefs of tangata whenua around death and dying must be respected in organ donation and we do not think that the bill does address the concerns of Maori. We wish that that amendment had been accepted. Nevertheless we feel that overall this bill is very good legislation. As I said and as others have mentioned it deals with many other complex issues that I have not even touched on such as giving much greater oversight to the import and export of tissue and more stringent informed consent provisions around the use of human embryos. There are complex but very important issues such as the licensing of schools that use human tissue. The issues are very important and very complex. I really do believe that the Health Committee considered this bill very deeply and in a very wise fashion and has come up with amendments and a bill that I believe are the most appropriate way forward at this point in time.