Human Tissue Bill

We now come to Part 2, clauses 10 to 63. There are six subparts therein.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Human Tissue Bill. Part 2 is quite a comprehensive part, with a number of clauses. I would like to concentrate just on clauses 10C, 27C, and 37A. They are to do with the cultural context of informed consent. I know that there have been discussions earlier about the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Māori Party, but these three clauses, I believe, should satisfy the Māori Party, hopefully, that the family can be involved in the decision making. The whole decision as to who has primacy—whether it is the individual or whether it is the family—was a source of contention. That was certainly the case with the register that was proposed in my member’s bill.

I know that the Māori Party has great difficulty with these clauses, and its wish was to amend the bill so that the clauses would state that if a dead individual was Māori, then the family could override the dead individual’s express wishes. Again, this would have overridden the Human Tissue Bill’s framework of primacy, given that the individual’s wishes are given primacy at all times. The National Party certainly supports the primacy framework and is disappointed that the register will not be supported. Without a register there is no informed consent process, and we cannot see how the Human Tissue Bill can work in this respect.

I go back to clause 10C, which states: “A person who proposes to collect or use human tissue is justified in deciding not to do so if satisfied, based on all information available to the person in the circumstances, that any informed consent for the collection or use of that tissue should for any reason not be acted on.” This clause gives powers to the person who proposes to collect human tissue to take into account the family’s or other family members’ objections or concerns.

Similarly, clause 27C, “Person assumed to have taken into account immediate family’s cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs”, states: “A person who proposes to collect or use human tissue is, unless that person is aware of evidence to the contrary, entitled to assume that a person giving informed consent or raising an informed objection or overriding objection has complied with section 37A.” Again, the person must take into account the immediate family’s cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs. I believe that those two clauses—along with clause 10C—should, hopefully, give the Māori Party some comfort.

Another clause that is very similar is clause 37A. It states: “A person giving informed consent or raising an informed objection or overriding objection must take into account, so far as they are known to the person based on information to the person in the circumstances, and decide what weight the person wishes to give to, the cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs of the immediate family of the individual whose tissue is, or is not, to be collected.”

So I think that these three clauses are really quite comprehensive. They spell it out. They are a wee bit repetitive in that they say the same thing in different ways, but they certainly acknowledge the fact that in a situation where other members of the family have wishes or objections, they must be taken into account. I hope that will satisfy the Māori Party. I believe that those clauses give cultural context to informed consent and certainly allow for families’ wishes to be taken into account.

I would like to move on to clause 55, “Trading in human tissue generally prohibited”. There are a number of subclauses to it. It provides that a person is not allowed to take a fee or accept any payment when trading in human tissue. We heard from a private company, CordBank, during the course of submissions. CordBank collects umbilical blood from newborn babies. That blood is stored in a bank. What is good about umbilical blood is that it has all the rich stem cells from which our other cells can differentiate. Potentially, cord blood, if stored, could be very useful for treatment if that baby develops a type of blood cancer in the future. The CordBank organisation was very concerned with this issue of not having payment and worried that it would have to close its doors. Happily, an exemption has been made for that organisation.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of Tariana Turia to insert new clause 27CA be agreed to.