Stewart Barbara: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Human Tissue Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15433] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the third reading of the Human Tissue Bill. This bill was very carefully considered by the Health Committee. It is a very important bill that has far-reaching implications for many organisations universities and research institutions right throughout New Zealand. The submissions we heard during the select committee process made us very aware of the research and development that is being carried out. It is vitally important that this continues. The bill also has implications for the many individuals who were hoping that it would see the establishment of an organ donor register. Unfortunately at this time the latter group is going to be very disappointed but I remind them that there is the provision within this legislation to ensure that an organ donor register could be set up at some later stage. 
One of the many issues that were extensively discussed during the process was the trading of tissue. Not one of us wants to see organs and tissues traded on an open market but there is a very real need for researchers and medical scientists to have access to the tissues they need so that research can be carried out. Some of this tissue is currently imported from many research institutions right around the world. We know it is absolutely essential that all of the vitally important research into human cell lines continues. This type of research is absolutely essential for scientific knowledge as well as for the wellbeing of the health and development of the population at large. We are also very aware that at this point in time there are many conditions and diseases that are difficult to diagnose in a standard laboratory analysis. Because they are difficult to treat it makes it very important that there are research institutions able to get this tissue. For the people managing this condition it is the best hope that we can currently offer them. This is a situation where we had to look at the needs of our society. We would not want some of the fine learning institutions around the country to be handicapped because they did not have access to those tissues and materials that they needed to carry out research. 
The bill is important. It is far-reaching covering the regulation and the use of tissues from dead human bodies. It sets up a framework for informed consent for tissue use. It is a very complex bill. 
It also regulates the export and import of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes. 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 their own tissue or tissue from a body that they are responsible for. I think the very last thing New Zealanders would want to occur is financial consideration for human tissue or human organs. We believe that the gift status these donations have been accorded must remain. 
The bill also allows for the setting up of an organ donor register at some future time when there is sufficient evidence available to establish an opt-on register. We considered this issue at length in the select committee and discussed it very extensively with the officials. The data that the committee received from overseas countries regarding the mandatory establishment of an organ donor register does not show that setting up an organ donor register at this point in time results in increased numbers of people donating organs. We will follow this argument with interest as the converse can also be argued: without such a register how can people indicate their wishes to be an organ donor? Here we have to acknowledge the tireless work of Andy Tookey for promoting an organ donor register. 
Many people believe that their driver’s licence wish will be honoured but it is a sad fact that the Land Transport database system remains a separate stand-alone system with no transfer of the data to any health information system. Often one’s immediate family does not know what options are being ticked by the individual when he or she obtains or renews his or her driver’s licence. I have to count myself among those people who do not know what is on their spouse’s driver’s licence but I do know what is on my son’s driver’s licence. We are only too aware that the Land Transport database cannot work and it makes one question why one has to give an indication on a driver’s licence when it is of no value whatsoever. People advising the Land Transport system that they wish to be an organ donor is only an indication of their wishes. It is not legal consent for donation. This has often left grieving families unsure about what to do so usually nothing is done. 
In New Zealand First we believe that an extensive public marketing campaign is required for an opt-on organ donor register to be successful. Without this the problem of organ donation will always stay in the too-hard basket. There has basically been no public action at all since 2004 when the select committee recommended that a legally binding register be set up. We are very aware that organ donation rates are low and aware too that clinical practice means that more people are now saved after being in car accidents or after suffering other trauma. The setting up of a register and a public information campaign need to go hand in hand as the bottom line is that any register cannot be set up to fail. A register is expensive to set up and maintain and it is essential that the additional resources result in an increased rate of organ donation. I think too that we have to be aware that not every organ can be used for transplant. The criteria are extremely stringent—as one would expect—and only a very small number of people actually meet them. Again that is a situation we would expect. 
The donation of organs can sometimes be controversial for families particularly at a very stressful time in their lives. The select committee tried very hard to clarify the consent process—hence the flow charts included in the bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the bill should provide informed consent requirements and informed objection. Those must be met before any tissue collection or use. The bill has successfully set out to do that. 
This issue will not go away. It has not been completed to the satisfaction of all New Zealanders. However I remind people that the potential is there to develop an opt-on register. It was very interesting to hear from a few submitters over the course of submissions to the bill that some people believe that there should be mandatory harvesting of organs because the person would not need them any more and the health system would actually save millions and millions of dollars because people would not have to have the expensive treatments or medications they needed while they were waiting for an organ donor. That was a very interesting concept we thought but far beyond the scope of this bill. 
In New Zealand First we believe that the bill clearly sets out the processes that need to be followed for the collection and use of tissue from human bodies after death and sets up a framework for informed consent for human tissue use. It also regulates trading in tissue the exporting and importing of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes. New Zealand First supports this bill. It needed updating and reviewing and we are pleased to have been part of the process.