House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Kingston, Charles Cameron, Exhumation KINGSTON, CHARLES CAMERON, EXHUMATION The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly Croydon Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Multicultural Affairs The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:18): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Under the Local Government (Exhumation of Human Remains) Regulations 2005, as Attorney-General I am responsible for granting licences for exhumation of human remains, if applications meet the criteria according to law. The process to obtain an exhumation licence is that an application is made in writing to the Attorney-General to exhume remains. This is most often requested by a funeral director on behalf of a family wishing to move remains, for example, to a plot near other relatives or to be re-interred overseas. Last week, the exhumations of former South Australian premier, Charles Cameron Kingston, former state MP, A.A. Edwards ('Bert' Edwards) and Genevieve Gray came to public prominence Exhumations are usually private affairs that receive little or no attention from the media. In this case the public interest was high. I can advise that four exhumation licences were requested by the one applicant. As the applicant has now disclosed himself publicly, I can inform the house that the applicant was Mr Malcolm Simpson. Although he is described in the media as a 'prominent local businessman', Mr Simpson was not known to me. A formal application letter was received in January 2007, although I was made aware of the intention to request exhumation in early 2006. At that time, an officer of my department told me of the foreshadowed application. He advised me that he was informed of it through his dealings with the Adelaide Cemetery Authority while conducting other, unrelated Attorney-General's Department work. Mr Simpson is part of the Kingston Research Group, whose members also include: Malcolm Simpson's sister, Kharma Sandra Annear; Mr Jim Everett, an Adelaide Cemeteries Authority consultant; Dr John Bannon, a historian and authority on Charles Kingston; Mr David Faber, a historian studying Bert Edwards; and Mr Lincoln Tyner, a local documentary maker. The research group is being assisted by Maciej Henneberg, Professor of Anthropological and Comparative Anatomy and Head of the School of Anatomical Science at the University of Adelaide; and his wife Renata, who is also a scholar. On 10 May 2007, as Attorney-General, I granted licences to exhume and then reinter the remains of four people as requested. I granted the licences because the applications complied with the law, and I took into consideration that Charles Cameron Kingston, as a former premier, attorney-general and founding father of the commonwealth— The Hon. M.D. Rann House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. Rann: And of the South Adelaide Football Club. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And of the South Adelaide Football Club, and I received an SMS from the member for Mawson about that, but I will not mention it on this occasion. Charles Kingston has a very important place in this state's history. We as South Australians should know our history, and that history should be accurate. I can advise the house, however, that when I was first told of this request I had serious misgivings about whether it was appropriate. That is why I set specific conditions in addition to the standard measures imposed for exhumations. This was designed to ensure that, if the exhumations were to proceed, the public interest would be preserved by protecting heritage, health and the remains of those not involved in these applications. I took advice from legal policy officers in my department on this application, and there was consultation and consent from the usual relevant parties. I agreed to the exhumation on facts as presented to me and because there were sound historical and lawful reasons to do so. In all exhumation requests I write to the cemetery owner where the remains are interred and request its views. A letter is also written to the Department of Health, and that agency has an environmental health officer present at all exhumations. If there are no objections, or once any objections are resolved, a licence is signed allowing the exhumation. In addition to the above standard measures on this matter, I imposed additional conditions, that: known descendants were identified and consulted and consented to the exhumations; Heritage SA was consulted and agreed to the request, particularly about the treatment of historic items, including the Kingston vault, headstones and coffins; and the two relevant cemeteries were consulted and agreed to the exhumations. It was also discussed with the applicant that permission would be granted only if the exact locations of the individual remains could be ascertained. This was a lengthy and proper approval process and was not undertaken lightly. No special treatment was afforded to the applicant in this case. If anything, the conditions imposed were more thorough and onerous. I have been advised by agencies involved in the three exhumations so far that all licence conditions have been obeyed. I can inform the house that I have written to the applicant, Mr Malcolm Simpson, about the fourth licence, which permitted the exhumation of Kevin Kingston. Kevin Kingston was the adopted son of Charles Kingston. Mr Simpson has informed my office that Kevin Kingston's remains are believed to be interred in one of three coffins in the Kingston vault, but which of these coffins contains his remains is unknown. I have therefore requested that no action be taken to interfere with the remains in any of those three vaults. To do so risks disturbing remains that are not the subject of an exhumation licence, and that would be a breach of the regulations. Since the exhumation of Charles Kingston's remains has become public, I have been approached by descendants of his wife's family (his wife was Lucy Kingston (nee McCarthy)) and his brother's family (his brother was Strickland Gough Kingston (known as 'Pat' Kingston)). Descendants of these people complained about footage showing the exhumation that was telecast by ABC News and commercial television networks as part of their nightly news services. I was surprised by the distribution of this footage, given that Mr Malcolm Simpson, in his letter of 15 January 2007, explained that, although the ABC was proposing to film the project, its footage would be screened in a documentary when the results of DNA tests were known. I quote: The ABC is interested in a number of aspects of the project and would propose to film it at all stages in anticipation of matters of historical or scientific interest emerging. Depending on the outcome of the tests, a documentary for national screening, including interviews of all aspects of the project, would be produced. These distant relatives also expressed concern that they were not informed before the exhumation. I have met them and conveyed that extra stipulations were made on my instructions to identify descendants but that their position as relatives by marriage or non-direct descendants of the deceased fell outside the stipulations for consultation. In meetings with Mr Cameron Stuart (a great-grandson of 'Pat' Kingston), he told me that he did not believe the bodies should have been disturbed for forensic examination. I agreed with Mr Stuart that the remains of deceased persons should be treated with dignity and respect; however, we agreed to disagree on my decision to permit the exhumations. Mr Stuart has also asked that I look at reviewing the regulations to compel consultation with relatives in such matters (that is, relatives other than descendants), and I am seeking advice on any necessary changes to the law. I express my apologies to the McCarthy and Stuart families that they were not contacted and involved in the process. I believed cogent and compelling reasons, within the bounds contemplated by the law, exist to allow the exhumations, and I still hold that view. I now table the letter I received from Mr Malcolm Simpson in January 2007 and a statement by Mr Cameron Stuart prepared for The Advertiser.