LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INTERMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 March 2012.)

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (10:46): The member for Davenport's bill seeks to insert a provision in the Local Government Act 1934 which will provide for a regulation-making power to mandate a formal identification of bodies before burial. Currently, the Cremation Regulations 2001 provide for a formal identification of the deceased person before a permit to cremate is issued. This is not required for burials, and the reason for this is simple.

I understand that the member for Davenport explained that the Australian Funeral Directors Association has raised the issue with him. They believe a loophole exists in the law because burial and cremation requirements are not the same. They say they are worried about mix-ups in burials. Members would be aware that in 2003 the House of Assembly Select Committee into the Local Government Act 1934 made a number of recommendations for reform of legislation governing the burial and cremation industry, including the creation of a single act.

At present, there are a number of acts and regulations that govern various aspects of the burial and cremation industry. A single act to regulate the industry would create consistency across the industry and ensure that privately owned and operated cemeteries are subject to the same regulatory provisions as publicly operated cemeteries.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, will you stop shouting across the chamber, please. Member for Ramsay, I am sorry about the horrible noise coming from the other side.

Ms BETTISON: To this end, the Attorney-General has drafted the Burial and Cremation Bill 2012. The bill creates a single regulatory regime that governs all cemeteries, natural burial grounds and prescribed facilities. The Attorney-General has released the draft Burial and Cremation Bill 2012 for consultation. Comments on the draft bill or related matters can be sent to LLPsubmissions@agd.sa.gov.au. Consultation closes on 4 July 2012. Comments on the draft bill will assist the Attorney-General in finalising the bill for introduction into parliament.

The draft bill proposes to amend legislation regulating the provision of documents to be provided before disposal or interment of human remains. I understand that the draft bill allows for general regulation-making power, and one of the suggested regulations is to prescribe processes for the identification of human remains. This could include appropriate body tagging and verification procedures, and systems for crosschecking procedures and documentation associated with the transfer and management of human remains at each step in the process. I encourage the member for Davenport, the Australian Funeral Directors Association and other interested parties to comment on the government's draft bill.

As the member for Schubert has mentioned, I am the daughter of a former funeral director who was a member of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, and I encourage people to put their views across during this consultation period. I believe that incorporating long called for reforms and removing inconsistencies across the industry by introducing a single act to regulate burials and cremation is the most responsible and prudent approach.

On behalf of the government, I thank the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the member for Davenport for their input into this matter. I understand that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations would like to continue to work with you to look at a revised system of body identification. However, unfortunately, the government does not support this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:51): I support the intention reflected in this bill but I agree with the speaker for the government that shortly the government will introduce a very comprehensive bill relating to cemeteries and related matters following the select committee of, I think, almost seven or eight years ago, which I chaired. There are some anomalies at the moment. The member for Davenport and the funeral directors are quite correct: at the moment anyone who is (hopefully) deceased and inside a coffin is taken to the cemetery. Normally, there is no checking to see whether the person inside the coffin is the person whose name appears on the coffin.

In fact, it was put to the select committee that if you wanted to get rid of someone this was an ideal way. Unlike cremation, where it is required under law for someone to identify the person being cremated (because obviously once someone is cremated that is it), as a general rule, there is no checking at the moment to see whether the person being buried is the person whose name appears on the coffin.

There are a lot of other deficiencies in the current arrangements. Anyone can be an undertaker at the moment; all you need is a utility or a panel van. Some years ago I knew of bodies being carried around in a Morris Minor—which means that it would only apply to jockeys and very short people. Someone was doing that out in the Murray Mallee. However, anyone can be an undertaker at the moment. The industry is ripe for reform and likewise all the practices that go with burials.

At the moment, in a cemetery, it is illegal to have a deceased person in other than an enclosed container which is prejudicial to people who want to bury someone in a shroud or something similar. All those matters will be addressed in the new bill, as will the issue of natural burial grounds and a whole range of other matters. Whilst I fully endorse what the member for Davenport and the funeral directors are trying to do, I agree with the government, and, hopefully, in a month or so, it will introduce a comprehensive bill which will tackle all of these issues, including the requirement for identification of remains before a burial takes place.

In making those points I am not critical of the member for Davenport; I support what he is trying to do. However, as part of a comprehensive reform package that is not far away, his intention will be covered there.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:54): I thank the members for their contribution, particularly the member for Fisher. I am claiming credit on this one. The Funeral Directors Association went to the government five or six years ago identifying this problem. The government had meetings and representations from the Funeral Directors Association about this issue and did flatly nothing about it.

I have introduced this bill a number of times because of the proroguing of parliament and elections, etc., and today the government has finally come in and put a view. The government's view is that there is a problem, and now that the Attorney-General has legislation before him, he is finally going to act to try to cover off this problem.

This has been a problem for five or six years. It has been a lazy approach from the government not to move the appropriate requirements and legislation to fix what is a serious problem, but one that can be simply fixed. What the government is really saying is: 'Now that we've actually got to face the matter in the parliament through legislation, it is best we actually come up with a position and do something. We can't possibly give the opposition credit by voting for their bill, so what we'll do is come up with a slightly different proposal that incorporates their proposal and claim it as a government initiative.' It is pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And there is the poor old member for Croydon, the former attorney-general who did nothing about this issue when they approached him. All those years as attorney-general and, when you were approached, you did squat—nothing.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Keep chirping up, member for Croydon, because your record on this issue is: they went to you and you did nothing. At least the current Attorney-General, faced with the same set of circumstances, had the courage to make a decision to fix the problem. At least this Attorney-General is fixing the problem, even if it is because the opposition has taken the initiative from the government. It is just a pity that the former attorney-general did not have the same enthusiasm to fix the problem as the current Attorney-General. I guess we will have to wait to see the government's bill.

Second reading negatived.