BURIAL AND CREMATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): I speak today on the Burial and Cremation Bill 2012, and what a pleasure it is to do this bill. It is certainly long-awaited. The government have introduced this bill—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, deputy leader, I presume you are the lead speaker.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are. Unlimited time.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am going to be perhaps unconventionally brief today, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a bill which introduces some significant reform. It is long-awaited. In 1986, the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the Disposal of Human Remains tabled its report to the parliament, and in 2003 the report of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly on the Cemetery Provisions of the Local Government Act was tabled.

The attempt here is to take into account some of the recommendations from these investigations and to create a single act for all of the laws in relation to burial and cremation, the removal of the 99-year limitation on interment rights in public cemeteries and the creation of a better system of identification of human remains before disposal. They are all the worthy objectives of the bill. I wish to outline a few of the aspects with which the Liberal Party have had some concern.

The most important one is the opposition's view in respect of protecting the privilege against self-incrimination. The Attorney has heard my view on this many times. It is a view which has not changed. The opposition is still very strong about that matter, but there were three other areas which we would like some consideration to be given to by the government.

One is to the whole question of retrospectivity. Again, we are not keen on this concept in any legislation. Sometimes it is appropriate and necessary, and we support it in those circumstances, but in this instance, in relation to the compensation for the surrender of interment sites and record-keeping obligations, we are concerned about some retrospectivity aspects of that.

Secondly, under areas for which we would like some review, we think it is important to retain the current provisions that are in the act for the identification of remains before cremation We say this keeps it on a consistent position for identification purposes for cremation and burial. The third area is to reduce the penalty in medical practitioners issuing death certificates.

As I understand from the Hon. Stephen Wade, who has had some conversations with advisers on this matter, there has been some further consideration by the government to consider some amendments to the bill, so I am not going to speak at length on those aspects. If that is the case, I would hope that we will see some aspects of that introduced into the bill either here or in another place in due course.

I am also advised that there has been some discussion subsequent to the briefing I had on this matter back on 5 December as to whether the bill should be legally described as a hybrid bill and would therefore have certain obligations to go into committee and the like. I understand that discussion has taken place.

While there was consideration that it would be necessary, that has been reviewed, and it has now been determined that it is not necessary, so I am assuming that we are progressing this bill on that basis. I do not have any submission to put to the Attorney, nor do I have any request to the parliament to pursue the hybrid line.

Can I just have a look at some of the aspects of what we are looking at in reform? I will say that one particular omission from the recommendations of the 2003 select committee was the establishment of a statutory body to oversee the application and enforcement of the recommendations.

The government has clearly taken the view that there are sufficient public administrators and authorities to undertake the review of that. I think in many ways that is correct, to the extent that we have appropriate bodies to review it. In addition to the regulation of legislation of this area, the Environment Protection Authority, health networks, councils and, indeed, the police have certain roles which will continue to be required, and I am sure will be appreciated, to support legislation to come under the one umbrella act.

Can I just make a comment in relation to emerging technologies: I think that, probably even in my lifetime, the development of cremation to dispose of human remains was relatively new. In fact, even during years of legal practice, it was not uncommon for people to instruct their lawyer to include a very specific clause in their will that it was the testator's intention that they not be cremated, or sometimes that they were to be cremated.

The latter became more popular as time went on. It seems that there was an initial resistance to people being cremated—they could not cope with the concept that they would not be buried; it was a fairly new and innovative disposal method—and so clients were often keen to say, 'Look, I want it clear in my will that I don't want to be cremated.'

As time went on, people became more conscious of the whole infill and obligation of land requirements necessary for burials and more conscious of environmental aspects. There was an educative role in a number of these things that influenced people's decisions as to how their remains would ultimately be disposed of.

I think there has been a development, and certainly an acceptance, of cremation being a practical and appropriate form of disposal of remains; it certainly became more acceptable in the community. With cremation came the development of separate legislation under the Cremation Act and all the rules that should apply.

It is very important to appreciate that when human remains are buried and not destroyed under a cremation process, it means there is at least the capacity—mercifully, this is rarely used—for the laws to require that the remains be exhumed in order to undertake certain tests for the purpose of further investigation (for example, for a suspected murder), or even to check whether the body is in the coffin. In any event, the cremation method does mean that there is usually a final destruction of the evidence and so it is fairly important that there be clear rules about identification of the body before the cremation occurs—not just in suspected murder cases, but of course to ensure that, apart from skulduggery, mistakes are not made.

It is important that we have the rules around this. Regarding other emerging technologies, I was very interested to read about this new biocremation, for example. I am not sure that it is popular in other countries, but it certainly seems to have been advanced in other countries. I was provided with some data from an entity called Matthews International from its cremation division. I assume it to be some independent company that has cremation in its charter.

That operates in Florida and it identifies that, with greater population densities, newer environmental regulations and increasing volumes of cremations, additional technology has emerged which focuses on capturing emissions prior to release of the exhaust to atmosphere. Even to be helpful in the climate control debate, or at least in the carbon emission debate, there seems to be some push for biocremation.

I will read from this material, because it is not something I am personally familiar with. It states:

The technical process of bio-cremation is called alkaline hydrolysis. Bio-cremation is a water-based cremation process versus the traditional flame-based process…where it uses approximately 120 gallons of water, combined with a small amount of potassium hydroxide—

KOH for the chemists in the chamber—

to break down or hydrolyze the human remains where they break down in a very controlled environment.

My understanding is that it is an eight-step process. Firstly, the cremation chamber is loaded with the human remains—seems logical. Step 2 is that the system automatically calculates the weight and the amount of water and potassium hydroxide required and initiates the biocremation cycle. In step 3 the system automatically fills the chamber with the required water and potassium hydroxide.

In step 4 the chamber begins to heat up to the desired operating temperature of approximately 370° Fahrenheit. It will hold that temperature for approximately 45 minutes. In step 5 the cremated remains and the water/KOH solution begin a cool down process. In step 6 the sterile liquid is released to be recycled and renewed. In step 7 the cremated remains are rinsed with clean water. In step 8 the bone fragments are retrieved and processed into fine particles or ash. I understand that after the last process, of course, some of that is transferred to a permanent urn for memorialisation, as would presumably occur in most flame-based cremations.

What is interesting in the information that I have ascertained is that the fluids are released and the purpose of this is to be reclaimed or renewed or returned into the environment. Typical uses of reclaimed water is to add it to a non-potable water source in a community, to release it into the rivers and waterways, or to place it back into the aquifers deep inside the earth.

It certainly was interesting to look at these new technologies that are apparently around. I am not aware of them operating in Australia, but they may well. What the government proposes in this bill is to control the rules and regulations that are developed as these technologies become popular, or at least as funeral directors, for example, seek to introduce them. Presumably, if they become suitably popular, they may attract some legislative umbrella in due course.

I would have to say that, on this matter, particularly if those in the industry go in this direction, I would be quite concerned as to what the rules would be for the release of the watery remains from this process back into a river system or an aquifer. Under our current environmental protection legislation, which is quite strict, as it should be, there are already very clear rules about the release of any product, let alone contaminated fluid as such, into a waterway. I would like to see some fairly strict rules that are made available for scrutiny in the parliament for that to occur.

It seems, at least in other countries, that the release of such material into any kind of potable water supply is not allowed. Nevertheless, obviously, if it is released into the environment—into rivers, waterways or, indeed, into aquifers—that, of course, can ultimately end up in our potable water supply. All I flag at this point is that I for one in this chamber would want to see some detail about the new rules that will apply to these technologies before they are implemented. I think we do need to have some discussion and debate about what should apply before they are implemented. Accordingly, I am not keen to hear about the regulatory process but, at this stage, it does not seem that there is anything imminent.

I contacted one of my local funeral directors, Berry Funerals. Simon Berry is the proprietor of that company. His company has always provided excellent service to members of my family. In fact, I have said to Mr Berry that he is on a promise: he has to make sure that he lives long enough so that he can bury me as well.

In any event, members have obviously utilised the services of funeral directors. It is never a happy time, obviously, because, if you are a family member, friend or neighbour organising a funeral, it is usually at a fairly sad time. We very much value their services, and I place on the record my appreciation and congratulations for the contribution that Berry Funerals and its staff make to supporting families during these times.

In consultation with them, though, I have not yet been advised of any particular new technology they want to pursue, or whether they are aware of any other practice that is occurring in South Australia that we need to be alert to. I would ask the Attorney to ensure that, if this type of technology becomes available for use, he commits to bringing that information back to the chamber, and we will have a good look at it.

There was quite considerable feedback on the draft bill in relation to the definitions, including what should constitute 'human remains' and phrases such as 'unexercised interment rights'. I think that it is fair to say that legislation around burial, human remains and the right to be able to peaceably stay at rest once you have secured a plot raises a lot of emotional issues. That is not surprising because it is very, very important for people to feel that their commitment by an acquisition of a plot for a loved member of their family will be protected.

There are aspects of this bill that will allow public and private cemeteries to offer interment rights in perpetuity, which will abolish the current 99-year limit for public cemeteries. It will also allow individual cemeteries to determine whether to offer rights in perpetuity or for a limited term. So, you could keep that option open. I am sure that this proposal in this bill will be welcomed by South Australia's Jewish and Islamic communities. I will say that, obviously, there will always be the question of fees attached to these entitlements. In any event, we will have a new set of rules in relation to the term of interment rights and I am sure that, overall, that will be welcomed.

The bill will require the relevant cemetery authority to refund to former rights holders of a surrendered or unexercised right of interment fees which are to be determined under the act. There is some discussion in the submissions around the cemetery authority being able to deduct portions of the establishment costs and so on. I am not sure how that will work but I can see that there is some merit in that.

I remember that the last relative in our family who was buried at West Terrace was an aunt (on my father's mother's side) who had died without any children. Her father had been buried at West Terrace and there were two plots available above his coffin. It was some 50 years or so between the time that great-grandpa Damon had been buried there and this aunt (one of his daughters) applied to exercise the right to be buried in that area.

The documents that surrounded the acquisition of this which had been way before great-grandpa's death were pretty old even then, so you can imagine they were curled up and yellowed by the time I was asked to present them for implementation—namely, to enable her to be buried there. I am pleased to say that the West Terrace authority honoured the document and she was peaceably laid to rest.

However, it does raise a number of questions. Many members have probably been down to the West Terrace Cemetery. Apparently the site was selected because it was reasonably central and, as many would know, when South Australia was established the colony did not have refrigeration and it was important to bury bodies relatively promptly. However, the location was later found to have underground water streams and, tragically, a number of bodies that had been buried there were later found washed out to sea at West Beach because they had gone through the underground river system. I am not sure that all the people who are beautifully named on the memorial sites at West Terrace are actually underneath them but it is still a very important place.

Separate to that, of course, we have the re-use of interment sites. Under this bill, the cemetery authority will be able to determine whether an interment site may be re-used. Again, I am sure members will be familiar with the need to be able to do that. Under this bill, cemeteries where human remains have not been interred for 25 years will be able to be closed and converted into parklands. I think there has been a little bit of an issue with that but, in any event, the intent of that aspect seems to be meritorious.

I now come to the identification requirements. A number of aspects of this remain in conflict with the stakeholders. Proposed section 12(3), in relation to identification of cremation remains, creates unreasonable risk and some stakeholders have argued that it should be amended so that the identification of bodily remains prior to cremation is consistent with identification prior to burial. For reasons of identification, the total destruction of any evidence for the purpose of any review of the remains are all aspects which need to be taken into account in that regard. If people have to keep certain records and be responsible, and if they are able to be fined, we need to get that aspect right.

Natural burial is recognised in this bill, again, because of the innovation of people developing new preferences as to the disposal of a member of their family or even to nominate for themselves. Natural burials and natural burial grounds mean that, instead of being in a coffin, a body might be in a biodegradable shroud wrapped around the body, and the resting place is marked by a stone memorial, a tree, plants or shrubs or roses. These are all alternative ways of memorialising the deceased.

As to the burial outside a cemetery or natural burial ground, these, of course, can be outside Local Government Act regions. There is also to be provision for regulations to be promulgated to protect gravesites outside cemeteries.

My father's paternal grandmother was Sarah Snelling. I do not think I am related to the current Minister for Health, and I should not say I hope not, but—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: This is true, but it is not a really common name. It certainly has some history. Sarah Snelling, my great-great-grandmother, who married William Chapman, had seven sons and seven daughters who all lived, and she outlived a number of them actually. If breeding qualities were sort of any sign, the Minister for Health seems to have been prolific in that regard—and good luck to him, I am not being critical of it, but perhaps there is some distant connection.

The Snelling family, many of the descendants of Sarah, including Bells and Chapmans, are buried at Snelling Beach on Kangaroo Island. That grave area for members of the family has been, I think, lovingly tended and looked after as best it could be by the current owners. That property was purchased from my great-aunt and uncle and my grandparents by Sir James and Lady Holden after World War II, and they pretty much helped looked after it. This would surely be replicated all across South Australia, where ancestors are buried in small family plots, and that needs to be recognised.

I am not quite sure what we are going to do at Western River, where the earliest settlers were there to supervise the chopping down of timber for the Burra mines. The story goes that a couple was living at Western River Homestead in an earlier version of what is now there and I think it was the captain, who was in charge of some of this role, who died. He was very large and, of course, in those days, without any help, the best his wife could do was dig a hole next to the bed, roll him over and bury him. I do not think there is any memorial for that poor fellow. But, nevertheless, historically throughout the colony there are examples of how people's remains have had to be disposed of as best they could in all the practical circumstances they had to face. This bill does at least look to provide for regulations to deal with the gravesites outside cemeteries.

As to the APY lands, proposed section 53 creates a requirement for records to be kept in respect of funeral directors organising paperwork and approvals for burial where it be with a private cemetery or on traditional country. The bill helps to deal with those aspects. The self-incrimination under proposed section 63, to remove the privilege against self-incrimination, is something we do not agree with.

In relation to the certification of death by a medical practitioner, I think it is fairly self-evident that we are concerned in respect of the penalties that are to be attributed to medical practitioners using death certificates. Obviously, we expect any medical officer or any other person who is responsible for identification of a death to provide information that is accurate and truthful. I am sure that the situation with the medical profession is, largely, that they do. Sometimes it is not always clear how a person has died, the cause of death can be multicausal and not easily identified, so I think we need to be careful in rushing into over-zealous increases in fines in that area.

I agree with the AMA's South Australian division that some of the obligations that are expected to be complied with, especially as they might apply to rural areas or for penalties, which in some areas of the proposed bill provide for imprisonment for four years, are rather extreme. That may need some review, and other members may wish to contribute to the debate as to whether or not they think that is unreasonable. With those brief words, you will be pleased to hear Mr Deputy Speaker, we look forward to ultimately seeing the passage of the bill.

I will say one final thing. In about 2005 a couple of bodies were dug up in St Georges. It took nearly three years to get the former attorney-general to change the Cremation Act and, I think, the births, deaths and marriages act to enable us to re-inter those remains. The law at the time provided that you could not actually bury or cremate human remains without a death certificate. Well, obviously, it was identified that these were persons from the previous century, and there was no record.

Some archival records were found of letters going back to England and the bodies were at least given some identification, and the former attorney did agree to change the legislation to allow the Attorney-General—whoever was in that position—to grant approval. I am pleased to say that after about three years the ashes of pioneer residents Edward Drew and Sophie Dauncey were finally scattered. That was at St Georges, in my electorate, and the family were able to conclude that chapter.

It was quite a difficult exercise, but eventually the government did advance that. It took a bit of time to enable the pioneers to rest in peace, and I acknowledge them in this debate as being one of many cases, I am sure, where we need to get this right and respectfully recognise the disposal of our loved ones in the future.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon]

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:58): This bill has been a long time coming. It is 10 years since we had a select committee that was inquiring into the cemetery provisions of the Local Government Act; almost 10 years exactly to the time that committee reported.

I am passionate about this issue, not because I want people, or myself, to be in a cemetery or cremated, but because it is a very important aspect of our being and it has to be addressed. Society has to deal with this issue. We know that most people put these things out of their mind, and understandably, but that does not obviate the need to deal with the issue.

I think this bill is a very progressive piece of legislation. I will not list all the points; obviously members can read for themselves. I was keen to have inserted in the bill—and the Attorney agreed—clause 6, I think it is. It may not have any legal impact; I am not sure how judges interpret something like this, but the clause heading is, 'Human remains to be treated with dignity and respect'. It states that, 'It is the intention of Parliament that human remains be treated at all times with dignity and respect.' One would hope that was a given, but I thought it was important and the Attorney obviously agreed, and it is in the bill. I think we should treat human remains with respect and dignity at all times.

In chairing the select committee, a lot of things came to light. As I have said, some of them have been dealt with in the bill and some have not. I do not know whether members realise, but anyone can be an undertaker. Presumably you would need to have access to a vehicle in today's world, so you would have to be able to get a driver's licence, but anyone can be an undertaker. That is a matter that probably needs to be addressed through Business and Consumer Services, but there is no licensing requirement to be an undertaker.

I think that is probably an aspect ancillary to this that needs to be addressed, because a few years ago we had a situation where some so-called funeral directors did not dispose of the bodies that they were required to and were meant to, and the families expected them to. Members might recall that episode. It was quite a few years ago, but it involved some undertakers at Hindmarsh, I think by the name of Panos. That is a separate issue, but it needs to be addressed.

One issue that has been addressed is the requirement that, for burial, the deceased be identified. When the select committee was carrying out its inquiry we were told that a good way—if you can put it in those terms—to get rid of someone was to put them in a coffin and send them to a cemetery, because the coffin is never opened and the cemetery assumes that the name on the coffin is the person contained therein. This bill seeks to address the possibility that the person named on the coffin is not the person in it. We know with cremation that once you are cremated that is it, there is no further checking possible, so under the current law someone being cremated has to be identified as being the correct person.

There have been some mix-ups with respect to burying the wrong person. I will not go into detail, but it is very upsetting for the relatives involved. It has happened where, in effect, the wrong person has been buried. There is a downside to the identification of someone who is to be buried, and that is that not everyone wants to view the deceased person. That is an issue that has to be handled sensitively, because some people accept viewing, some require them, some want them for cultural and personal reasons, and other people do not. In trying to avoid the abuse of the burial process by having identification, we have to be careful that we do not impose on someone a burden or a responsibility that they find uncomfortable. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we ensure that the person being buried is the correct person.

Currently in the metropolitan area of Adelaide and basically throughout the state—and there are some exceptions—there is no guarantee that someone is going to rest in peace. A lot of people think that when you are buried you are there and you are untouchable. That is not true. That is not the law in South Australia. It is only really practised in the metropolitan area where you can be, in effect, dug up if someone has not paid the lease or renewed the licence, and someone else can be put in that gravesite.

It has the euphemistic title 'lift and deepen', which means they bring in a backhoe and dig up the remains that are in there of the person whose lease or licence has not been renewed. They whack the remains down with the backhoe and then put someone else on top. Some people find that rather distressing and I can see why because it is anything but rest in peace. It is rest until the backhoe comes and pays you a visit.

This bill gets rid of the 99-year provision but, certainly in the metropolitan area, you still have to pay the license or lease renewal, otherwise you are subject to 'lift and deepen'. Plots in the metropolitan area are becoming increasingly expensive to renew and to buy because they reflect the general price of land. So, if the price of land goes up for housing, the value of land in cemeteries will rise accordingly.

The only guaranteed way of resting in peace is to be buried in a country cemetery. That is not because the law does not apply there—it does—it is because no country council that wanted to be re-elected would get into the business of digging up gravesites. I would safely predict that any council that did that would not last past the next council election.

What is good is that this bill requires that the process is made a lot clearer and more transparent to people who want to have a burial site for a relative or whoever. I think that is important because, understandably, when people are grieving, they may not read the agreement, the lease or the licence in a way they would at any other time. So, I think there are some good provisions in this bill.

The bill allows for some new techniques. I think the member for Bragg talked about one. There are two techniques that have been developed in Europe: one is called promession and one is called resomation. One is a deep-freeze technique and the other one is a chemical treatment. They both basically result in the body ending up as a form of mulch, to put a finer point on it. Cremation is not necessarily an environmentally friendly procedure. It is more environmentally friendly than it used to be but it uses a lot of energy.

This bill allows for some of the new, more environmentally friendly techniques to be considered, along with what the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of about five or six years ago supported, and which I had been pushing in this place for a long time, which is natural burial grounds where, in effect, you create an urban forest. It is a forest of shrubs and trees and people are planted in that area and have a shrub or tree above them.

It is not popular with undertakers because there is not much money in it for them, and it is certainly not popular with stonemasons because you do not have a granite headstone, but there are a lot of people who want this option. It is available on a limited basis at Enfield at the moment, and I am particularly keen that the government and councils cater for this demand. In fact, a retired school principal came to see me recently and he said that his will specifies that he be buried in a natural burial ground. Well, we do not have many available. We need one in the north and the south. The one at Enfield, as I say, is of limited capacity.

There is crown land that could be used at O'Halloran Hill. In fact, I have had a discussion with Centennial Park and they said the crown land there is an ideal site. One of the reasons for that is that it has an ocean view. I am not sure why the deceased want an ocean view, but they said that was an ideal site. I would urge the government and, in this case, the councils in the southern area to help facilitate that option of a natural burial ground and, likewise, in the north, the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority in conjunction with councils out there. I think it is a very environmentally friendly option. It is low cost and a lot of people want it as a place where relatives can come and enjoy nature but not be part of a conventional type of cemetery.

This bill also addresses an issue which has been a concern for some time. Under current law, a body transported in a cemetery must be in an enclosed container, which really means a coffin. That does not accord with the wishes of people, say, from a Muslim community, and other people who want a natural burial where they want the body in a shroud, not in a coffin, certainly not in an expensive coffin.

When we had the inquiry, we discovered that some coffins cost up to $10,000 or more, which is a lot of money, and that is what some people want; but there are many people who want either a simple coffin or to be buried in a shroud. That will be possible now because, under this bill, the carrying of a body in a shroud would be permitted. I suspect that what has happened in recent times is that the authorities have turned a bit of a blind eye to bodies being transported in a shroud. It was originally, no doubt, based on health concerns, but I do not think there is any real need for that concern today.

There are a lot of other aspects that are addressed in this bill. It deals with crematoria, and I have spoken briefly about some alternatives to that. If people want that as an option, I do not have a problem with a cremation. I am just saying there should and could be some alternatives. The popular view, and I come back to what I said at the start, is that when you are buried you are there forever. That is not the case. This bill does not guarantee that, either, so people should not be under any misapprehension that this will mean that in the metropolitan area you are there and you are there forever. You are only there for as long as a relative pays your lease or licence.

I had a case recently where someone was renewing a gravesite for their son who was killed in the 1950s. In 2003, the renewal cost for five years was $84. This year, it will cost $335 for five years. That is a lot of money. If you are the sole family member, you might have six or seven renewals and it is a lot of money. If the licence is not renewed, the cemetery authority has the right under law, as I said earlier, to dig up the remains and put someone else in that spot. If you do not want that, the option is to go to a country cemetery.

There have been a couple of comments made by people saying that under this bill there is a different standard for European gravesites and Aboriginal gravesites. That is not true. If an Aboriginal person is buried in a cemetery as defined by the bill, they are affected in the same way as anyone else. There are special provisions for Aboriginal remains which are the historic and cultural ones going back possibly hundreds and thousands of years. There is no discrimination in this bill in respect of the way in which the remains of Aboriginal people are treated vis-a-vis Europeans.

I will conclude shortly by saying that this is a big step forward. It has been many years in the making. I congratulate parliamentary counsel on drafting this. It is a very difficult issue. It is an emotional issue. When we had the inquiry, we had a lot of people attend the public meetings and there was a lot of emotion. Some people want permanency in terms of tenure but, as I have emphasised, this bill does not guarantee permanency for burial sites in the metropolitan area, or indeed in the country. It is only the different practice in the country that ensures you will rest in peace.

I welcome this bill. I will not go into all the points. The member for Bragg talked about burials outside local government areas, or outside of towns. There is provision here for cemeteries that are no longer used. I understand that the Unley Shopping Centre is built on a cemetery. Certainly, Coromandel Valley houses were built, in the last few years, on a cemetery—a Methodist church cemetery. I do not agree with that. I believe there should be some respect shown for those who are buried in a cemetery. Apart from the historical aspect, there is also just the basic question of decency and respect.

The bill ensures that if a former cemetery is used as a park, then there are certain activities which can and cannot be undertaken on that site, and I think that is appropriate. However, all in all, I believe this is a very progressive bill. It is long overdue, and I trust that members will feel inclined to support it. It has not had much discussion in the media, but I do not believe there is anything in here that is really contentious. I think it heralds, in a way, a new era in the way we deal with human remains in this state, including better record keeping of people who have been buried, and so on, which is important in the future for people who want to check back on their family history, and so on. I commend the bill and I support its passage.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:16): I am not going to hold the house long in relation to this bill. The member for Bragg has set out the opposition's general position. I simply wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the slackness of the government in relation to one particular aspect of this bill. The Australian Funeral Directors Association contacted me in 2008 regarding two issues. One was the need for coroners to do two different reports when a death occurred interstate, like an interstate coroner and the South Australian Coroner. The matter was fixed up through a private member's bill earlier.

The second issue, of course, was the issue of identification for burial. This was the Funeral Directors Association coming to the government and the opposition saying, 'Well, actually, we've got a problem: there is no identification chain in relation to burials.' There is for cremations. If you cremate the wrong person it is a bit more difficult to prove you have done that than if the wrong person has been buried. The member for Fisher made reference to wrong burials.

That was 2008. Then I introduced a number of private member's bills to try to fix up that burial identification issue. However, so small-minded was the government it could not bring itself to possibly accept an opposition private member's bill, even though the professional association handling burials was saying there was a problem. So, from 2008 to 2013—five years, near enough; at least four, depending on what month you look at—the government has twiddled its thumbs knowing that problem existed.

I have not made a big issue of the wrong burials matter publicly for the very reason that the member for Fisher outlines about the heartbreak and heartache and concern that it can lead to for those people who are surviving the person who has passed. However, I do think that it is really poor form for the government and ministers under various iterations who have handled this particular matter to have dawdled and not dealt with this issue previously. I had a number of meetings with ministers, a number meetings with ministers' staff. Parliamentary counsel were obviously courteous and professional, as they always are, in dealing with drafting the private member's bill.

I am pleased that, finally, within this bill there are the appropriate clauses that fix the matter that was raised in 2008, raised again in 2009, raised again in 2010, and raised again after the election. I am glad that this matter has now finally been dealt with but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the government has been so lazy and, I think, uncaring to an industry group and to the families involved. We do not know, of course, whether any errors were made between then and now; you simply do not know that. I think it was poor form, and I am pleased that they have finally dealt with that matter. I congratulate the Australian Funeral Directors Association on their five years of lobbying to bring this issue to the attention of the government, and I congratulate them on finally achieving an outcome on that particular issue.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:20): It is amazing how many people have stories to tell about cemeteries, and I do also. I am probably one of the few people in the chamber who, in a previous life, was a curator of cemeteries, which is an honorary role held when you are a local government chief executive officer. I have had some level of responsibility within the communities that I served in that local government role to ensure that the cemeteries were operated appropriately, that the records were kept in a manner that would allow some accuracy when leasing a plot to an individual or a family, and that a plot was vacant at the time of a grave being dug.

I am proud to say that I am only aware of one instance where a grave was being excavated—and it was identified relatively early on that it was a bit soft for it to be a 'virgin grave'—only to find that a body had been interred in there already. In some cases these records are 130 years old. You tried to decipher them to make sense out of them, but with the annuls of time some of the accuracy of the records was lost. That is only instance which I am aware of.

As an extension of my role as a curator of cemeteries, I had an interest in how cemeteries were managed on a statewide basis, and I was requested by a resident on Yorke Peninsula, who had been a representative on the Cemeteries Association of South Australia (as it was then called) to take on his role when he retired. I did that for two years and, as much as it is a rather interesting industry to be in, I enjoyed it, because it gave me a greater understanding of how it operates across the state and a perspective on how metropolitan cemeteries are operated. The difference is quite profound between how regional and metropolitan cemeteries operate, and I understand that it has to be because of the pressure for space to be available for those who wish to inter human remains in the ground.

I have always held the philosophy that there is one thing in life that should be sacrosanct and that is the interment of our human remains. It has been interesting for me to see the vast differences that have existed in how the rules have been applied to the lease period that has been in place. The member for Fisher and others would reflect upon the fact that for metropolitan cemeteries it has been focused more on a 25-year opportunity, with the responsibility on the family to renew the lease that applies to that plot. As a regional person I have always believed that, once you are buried there, it is forever. I have always been a supporter of in perpetuity, so I am very grateful that this bill recognises that and it provides an opportunity for a local authority to determine the length of the lease period and in perpetuity to be an option.

I am rather amazed, though, that even though the industry recommends that there should be a minimum period in place—and the suggestion from industry authorities is 25 years—that the government has deemed to leave that as an open period. I would like to think that 25 years would be the absolute minimum. I would like to see it longer than that but I understand the reasons why, in some cases, a shorter period is used. However, if the authorities that are talking to government about this had deemed that 25 years would be a better option, I am surprised that that has not been taken up.

I do not want to go into the intent of the whole bill as the member for Bragg has done as the lead speaker for the opposition. There is a couple of things that I want to continue on with though. I was rather interested to see about the interment rights and the surrender of those interment rights. You would be aware that, when you take out a lease, you pay a fee that is applicable at that time. I am interested to see that this bill provides that, when that right is to be surrendered, the Cemeteries Authority is required to provide a full rebate based on what the current fee is.

Cemeteries are not operated at a profit, other than in metropolitan areas where they have to cover all the costs. Normally they are joint authorities operated by at least two councils in most cases, or some other legally recognised arrangement. I think it would have been more the case that, if you wanted to ensure the financial viability of a cemetery operation without being a burden upon another source of revenue that might have to prop it up financially, the amount rebated would be based upon a portion of the original lease fee or that at least some level of recognition was given to the development and maintenance costs of the cemetery.

Even if it was based upon the current lease fee that was in place, there would be some sort of recognition of those factors and it could be a smaller amount. So, some questions will be asked at the committee stage about the financial implications of the surrender of interment rights and what that would do to cemetery operations.

I am also quite interested in the closing of cemeteries. The member for Fisher has referred to two instances he is aware of where cemeteries have been closed and alternative uses found for the land. One was a shopping centre and one was a residential estate. I am reminded of the movie Poltergeist, which scared the life out of me. I note that that is a bit of an obscure reference, but it has always been a worry of mine.

The cemetery at Port Vincent is full and does not have room for anyone else to be interred. People now have to go to the adjoining community of Curramulka. The cemetery is right on the foreshore. It is a prime location for a development opportunity, but the community would never allow it, and nor should they and nor should any person ever propose it, because it should be a sacrosanct resting place.

If there has not been an internment after 25 years, we might allow for the closure of a cemetery and return it to some level of open space—parklands, a recreational reserve—but I do not know whether anybody would ever actually do that. It will be interesting to see.

The Aboriginal community has great pride and it puts great strength on the remains of their forebears. Whenever Aboriginal remains are found, my experience has been that tremendous respect is paid. I know of a development at Black Point where, indeed, human remains from Aboriginal settlers were found about four years ago. Even though separately titled allotments have been created, those three blocks were taken out of the subdivision and forever dedicated as an open space, and the remains have been kept intact on that site without being removed.

I am interested in how that will work where headstones abound and it is hard to contact all the families to determine those who want to continue with their lease arrangements. It is interesting that the legislation provides that level of flexibility, but I do not know whether it will ever happen. We live in a society where people decide to pursue their right of having a voice, and they normally go through their local member or any other forum they can to make their concerns known, so I would be really surprised if that ever happened.

However, the bill is a step forward. It builds upon some really good work that the member for Fisher and others put into the 2003 select committee. I also recognise that a 1986 committee from the upper house, I believe, did some work on this, too. Talking about human interment is not something that is in a person's scope all the time, but it is really important to get it right.

Peterborough is a community in the Mid North, in the member for Stuart's electorate. I once worked there in local government and I was told very early on that there are more people buried in the cemetery than there are actually living in the town. To me, that emphasises the fact that we have a responsibility to respect the remains of our forebears. Cemeteries actually tell us a lot about the history of a community when we take the time to look through them.

Mr Venning: Fascinating places.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Fascinating. The member for Schubert reflects that they are fascinating places, and they are. It is not as though you would go there and have a picnic regularly, or that sort of thing. However, I think if you spend a bit of time walking through a cemetery, you can gauge a bit of information about that town.

You can see the obvious signs where there had been chronic disease that had gone through and where a lot of kids might have died at a very young age. I know that on the Copper Coast that was a problem in the early mining period. You can see some of the elder statesmen of the town who have died at a greater age and the monument built to them might not just be from the family but from the community to respect what they had done. I look forward to other contributions on this bill and hope that it creates a better environment for cemeteries to be managed for the benefit of all.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:30): I rise, too, today to speak to the Burial and Cremation Bill 2012. I note that what we are doing today is streamlining the process of burial and cremation. Instead of having several pieces of legislation as part of the process, we are refining it down to one which I think is a sensible move. As was rightly said before, the opposition will be looking at some amendments and asking some questions in the committee stage.

When people have to make decisions at the time of someone's death in the family, things are moving along pretty quickly and people have to make decisions generally within a few days. It is a difficult time, so the less regulatory framework that people have to deal with the better. Mind you, we need regulation around the whole process of burial. I think there can be a far better way to manage cemeteries, although I am a bit concerned with the notion that after 25 years we might close a cemetery off. Obviously there is a lot of historic value in cemeteries from our ancestors who came out to South Australia, generally as free settlers, and it would be terrible to lose that heritage.

There have been issues in the past where farmers have been operating near old graveyards and just piled up the headstones and just gone straight over the top of a burial ground, which I find appalling quite frankly. So I think there needs to be better regulation of both private and public burial grounds. I know from personal history, when you go searching for who is the relevant authority of a certain burial ground, it can take quite a few phone calls to find out who is in charge because obviously where there once was a church, the church could be a dwelling now and you would have to ascertain whether the council has control of the graveyard or whether it is still in church hands. That might not be a terribly onerous task but I would like to think that there would be a register kept in the future, perhaps under the auspices of this bill if it goes through, so that people can readily identify who is the owner of a graveyard.

I note that the bill differentiates quite a bit in the language between natural burial graveyards—and I applaud that move—in a parkland-type setting where you can have a tree or a bush as a memorial or something else appropriate compared to cemeteries where we are used to rows of graves. I commend the work that the member for Fisher did in this regard on natural cemeteries.

There is no reason—and I can say that from experience—why you cannot have a natural burial in what is normally a standard burial ground. My father-in-law, for instance, was buried in a shroud. I was interested at the time how the family would handle it and it is quite an interesting process where the undertaker has what is essentially a transporter coffin. We had a graveside service. They take the coffin away and there is the body in the shroud. It is not too confronting. It is a very natural way to be buried, and more and more people are perhaps choosing ways like that. He is buried in a cemetery at Willunga with that method. From what I understand, it certainly happened and I guess that they cannot charge him if he did anything illegal (and I am sure it was not), but it certainly can happen. In modern times there are other methods of burial, and things like disposing of bodies using water is mentioned in the bill, and under regulation they can come into force if they become ways for burial in South Australia.

I refer to part 2—Disposal of human remains. Clause 8—Offence to dispose of non-cremated human remains except in cemetery or natural burial ground, states in subclause (1) that, without the approval of the Attorney-General, non-cremated human remains cannot be interred except in a lawfully established cemetery or natural burial ground. The penalties in the bill are $10,000 or imprisonment for two years. I will be interested in committee, which we may not get to today but at another time, in clause 8(2), which states:

(2) A person may inter non-cremated human remains in a prescribed area on land outside a cemetery or natural burial ground with the permission of the owner of the land and—

(a) in the case of land within a council area—

(i) with the approval of the council for the area in which the land is situated; and

(ii) in accordance with the regulations; or

(b) in any other case in accordance with the regulations.

That is a pretty wide gamut of approvals one needs to go through, because obviously regulations need to be abided by and council approval obtained. Being a landowner in inside country, and not in out-of-areas country, which probably covers well over 70 per cent of the state, will there will be the opportunity, subject to the appropriate guidelines, for people like myself who own a farming property to be buried on their property, for instance? I am sure there would be appropriate guidelines to go through.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I am raising it in the debate, and I am getting a nod from the Attorney-General that it goes through council, and so on. You can probably do that. That will be interesting because I know there are quite a few people who end up being cremated and have their ashes spread over their land in a certain place where past family members for up to a century have had their ashes spread on the property. That will been interesting.

In the main this bill is certainly heading in the right direction. On this side of the house the Liberal Party's position is that we will be looking at a few amendments, but it is heading in the right direction because it seems odd that there has not been a burial and cremation bill as such in the past, but it has come under several other pieces every legislation. Even though we will be looking at ways to improve the bill in our eyes, I commend its passage through this house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:39): It is a fascinating subject, and I rise to support the general tenor of the bill and welcome it. It is a fascinating subject because we will all go there. We have all had experience with our loved ones—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am closer than most. Generally speaking, I would say that I am closer than most, unless I change my ways and I might get a few more years. It is a fascinating subject, and the ERD Committee studied it at length. The Hon. Bob Such, the member for Fisher, instigated this reference in relation to natural burials. It is a fantastic subject, as I said, and some would say almost macabre, but it is an essential process where we deal with our dear departed citizens.

I was on the ERD Committee when we discussed these natural burials. It was most interesting, and there was a fair bit of opposition to it, particularly from the people in the industry because they saw it as a threat; particularly some of the undertakers and some of the owners and managers of the cemeteries saw it as a threat to their business because these were burials on the cheap by just burying them in natural ground, planting trees and having a park-like setting. I notice that is encompassed in the bill, so that is good.

I have to say that it is one of the most interesting references I have ever been involved in. We visited mausoleums, crematoria and we saw the whole process. All I can say is that when you go into a crematorium it is quite an eye-opener in every way and all I can say is: wow. We have to be realistic; it happens. I certainly think we could put in a lot more regulation because there is opportunity for unpleasant things to happen.

The bill reforms the regulation of burial and cremation in South Australia. Even though private cemeteries currently come under the Development Act, their management and interment rights are at the moment unregulated. In my early days, I had a very interesting case, and the member for Hammond just spoke about this, that involved a prominent family in Kapunda. In fact, I will name the family, as I do not think they will mind; it is the Shannon family. Brian Shannon died and—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr VENNING: You are. Three days before the funeral, they said they wanted to bury Brian on this beautiful hill overlooking the beautiful property out there, and I said, 'It has to be done in consecrated ground.' As the diligent, young, new MP I was, I got to work and made lots and lots of phone calls, and in record time—in two days—we had that ground up on top of that hill consecrated and then we had the funeral up there. Can I say what a magnificent place it is in amongst the rocks. It is just a beautiful spot for Brian to be, and all that is up there is this little area and a stone cross; certainly, you do not know it is there unless you get very close.

The member for Hammond spoke about being buried on the farm. I happen to live in the family home at Montrose, Crystal Brook, and there are three uncles and aunts in the garden cremated and in the garden. It was not so much that I was spooked about that: I was concerned, and my wife certainly was, but after it happened it was no problem because these people were born and bred in this home and that is where they wanted to be. After cremation, they are now in the garden under the orange trees, and there is another one to come in a few weeks, I believe, so there will be four. Again, people do like to be connected to where they have come from.

I assume this issue of consecrated ground is going to be addressed in the bill because in my electorate we also have the magnificent Seppeltsfield vault, which is really a great tourism drawcard. I have a bit of a soft spot for having a vault myself on a high hill, and I have some nice hills on the property; however, the rules that govern these sorts of facilities are certainly quite clear. I notice a member on the other side whose father is an undertaker. I hope she has made a speech; if not, she should. Zoe would know all about this, and I have attended many funerals her dad has conducted. The funeral game is certainly a growth industry because we are living longer but we are all going there.

I will be interested to see what the actual bill says in relation to the establishment because we have always had family vaults, but they have always been below ground. There are several in most cemeteries, but you would not know they are there unless you knew. When you see the ceremonies actually happen, you find they uncover the staircase that goes down, they lift the top off and then they put the casket in alongside the others and cement it in. That is a cheaper way. If you have a large family, it is probably cheaper than going through individual burials but, like the Seppelts, having it above ground has a certain attraction, especially if you have a nice spot that can also act as a memorial just for the family, generally, over seven generations. It is a good opportunity to do that, as the Seppelts have done.

As a historic person and a person from a family who has been in the same place ever since they have been in Australia, I am very pleased to see this bill actually addresses the 99-year limitation on interment rights, because I think it is pretty sad when, just because there are no descendants around to look after them, they just take them away after 99 years.

I can understand the pressures on city cemeteries though, I really can, particularly the one as you go past the brewery, Hindmarsh Cemetery, which is full. That cemetery is chock-a-block and it is just going to remain that way forever. I have seen some graves exhumed and it can be done very sensitively, particularly when the headstones are removed and put along the fence—in fact, some of them are even restored—so we know that those people were buried in that area.

I think it is very important because I am into history. As I said earlier, I am fascinated by cemeteries, particularly the West Terrace Cemetery. In fact, that cemetery is a tourist attraction, and they run regular tours down there. People are interested in history. You can go and see the people who have died, the plagues that we had, and how young people died in those plagues. It is very sad and pretty sobering to see, but those cemeteries hold a vital part of our history.

This bill reflects the 2003 select committee's recommendations and the government's consultation with the industry. This government considers it unnecessary to establish a statutory body and will leave it to the public authorities who already regulate in this area (such as the EPA, health networks, councils, the police, etc.), and I agree with that. You do not want another bureaucracy; this thing will regulate itself.

I think the funeral industry is generally pretty good. In fact, I have a good friend, Mr Clayton Scott, who was national president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, and who runs a pretty good business—you have to, because you are dealing with a delicate subject.

Mrs Geraghty: You are not going to go broke.

Mr VENNING: They will not go broke, no, because there is always a certain clientele, isn't there? On the lighter side, you have to laugh sometimes. The Barossa is full of wonderful rest homes and you can always be assured there will be one or two undertakers on the committee; in fact, one of them keeps the hearse just out the back. It is a very good operation; they are sort of fostering business, if you like. Can I say, most undertakers are good, and do a fantastic job. Some of these funerals are not easy, particularly when it is a younger person; that is a tragedy. The undertakers do a fantastic job, because these funerals are always sad.

I am interested to read about these emerging technologies. The government says that they are going to be controlled by regulations until the demand demonstrates the need for legislation. These are quite different types of processes, particularly promession. I believe that involves freeze-drying, liquid nitrogen and shattering. I just wonder why you would go through that process, but I suppose people do; it would have to be very expensive.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It doesn't hurt if you're dead.

Mr VENNING: It doesn't hurt? But what do you do? You are still dealing with a person who has recently died and who has not decayed, so you have to have a by-product at the end. I am interested in that, and also in biocremation. I presume that is the same as resomation, where you put the water and alkaline in together and it is broken down, sometimes with heat. But, then again, you have water as a by-product. I think one of my colleagues asked: what do you actually do with that water? You would have to be very careful.

I think that is all I really need to say. There are a lot of people who will always want to be buried, and I am one of them, because I am just not into the idea of burning my loved ones, but the problem is going to be space. That is why I invite people from the city to be buried in the country. We have some lovely country gardens and space for cemeteries. Rather than filling up the cities, there is an opportunity, particularly in the near city areas, to establish country gardens where people can visit. We also have mausoleums now, so rather than jamming into Centennial Park (even though it has some magnificent facilities) and other cemeteries that are rapidly filling, I think we ought to find areas that are not productive farming land and, as the member for Fisher said earlier, create parks and lovely areas where people can go and recreate, have a picnic, and recognise the loved ones who are interred there.

I think that is the future, because we know we have a problem with space. That is why the 99-year lease came in. Certainly, we on this side of the house support this measure. I hope, though, that we are able to have a look at the finishing. We want to remove the retrospectivity, particularly in relation to compensation for the surrender of interment rights and record-keeping obligations, and to retain the current provision of the act for the identification of remains prior to cremation. I wondered whether there was any difference in that. I understand that, once you are cremated there is no DNA—it is gone, I presume. I do not know; somebody might enlighten me. If that is it, you have to be very careful that the person being cremated is the actual person.

The Hon. R.B. Such: That is why you have to sight the body.

Mr VENNING: Absolutely. I do not believe there is any DNA record left once it has been incinerated. That would certainly be of great concern to me. I also note the provision to reduce the penalty on medical practitioners issuing death certificates. I was not aware of any of that. Certainly somebody has done their homework. Some areas of this bill do need to be looked at and may be subject to an amendment or two, but generally we think it is a good bill and we will support it.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (17:51): It is a pleasure for me to support this legislation. I just want to talk about a couple of aspects of it, if I may. The provisions in this legislation which pick up the member for Fisher's long cherished goal to have natural burial grounds will be very much welcomed by a number of my constituents. I am referring to those who are associated with the Aldinga Arts Eco Village. A group there has been advocating for this change for a very long period of time.

The Arts Eco Village is a self-managed place in Aldinga which is based on principles of sustainability, aesthetic beauty and community involvement. They have their own farming area, they run their own sewerage system, they have their own internal means of deciding how things are done. One of the things they wish to have is their own burial ground. They are particularly keen to have that happen quickly because a number of their members are quite elderly, so I know they will welcome this.

In the various meetings I have had about this over the years—I think the member for Fisher first raised it with me when I was minister for the environment a number of years ago—I got myself briefed on it pretty well. I was quite surprised by what I learned about the current arrangements, which certainly persuaded me that, when it is my time, I think I would opt for the natural burial process, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, what I was not aware of, because I always thought cremation was the best way—it did not take up land, your ashes are returned to the soil, all those kind of things—was the enormous amount of energy that is required to burn a body, the huge amount of heat. Of course, not only does it burn the body, but it burns all the wood and plastics and all the other things which are associated with the coffin, which causes pollution issues that have to be managed and that costs money and requires energy as well.

As our population is getting bigger, the amount of energy required to dispose of people who are morbidly obese is—I am not looking at you, member for Schubert—

Mr Venning: It is my conscience.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: You laughed; that is why I looked in your direction. As people are getting bigger, the amount of energy required to dispose of them is even greater. It is probably the least of the environmentally friendly ways of disposing of a body. I suppose that traditional societies that have wood fires and burn bodies in a public place would not use quite as much energy. In fact, I went to a funeral in Bali many, many years ago, where I saw a body which had been buried, then dug up and burned on top of a pyre as part of a big ceremony. It is quite an interesting and moving ceremony. So, I think that cremation is the least environmentally sustainable way.

Then I was surprised to discover that the traditional way of burial is probably more sustainable, except for the fact that, under the current arrangements, if you dispose of a body, as I think one of the other members mentioned, you have to have a watertight container in which to carry it. Ironically, as I understand it, that applies, under existing legislation, to bodies that are cremated, but because the legislation relating to bodies that are buried is much older, it does not apply to those bodies.

So, you have bodies which are being cremated which are wrapped in plastic, which is then burnt, creating all the issues about burning plastic. Of course, the funeral industry makes only one kind of coffin, and that is plastic lined. So, the bodies that are buried are not as a result of the breaking down of wood and flesh over time returning to the soil. They are being maintained in some sort of sarcophagus forever, which to me is a disgusting idea, and the idea of being interred in that way fills me with horror. I think that the natural burial proposal is a very sane one. The body is disposed of in the lightest possible form. A tree or a bush or something is planted there and a record of who died and so on is created.

The other issue I want to turn to has been referred to by a number of members, and that is the importance of history. One of the things we will lose as we move towards multiple-use plots, cremation and natural burial is the opportunity to walk around an old cemetery and find interesting gravestones. My wife and I particularly have been interested in family history for the last few years, and the internet allows you to do extraordinary things and find out amazing connections. We have lived in the southern suburbs for the last 20 years, and we did not realise until just a couple of years ago that, for the last 20 years, we have been travelling past a Catholic cemetery—I think it is St Mary's cemetery in Morphett Vale—associated with the Antonio Catholic School.

We discovered that Andrea, my wife, had a direct ancestor—her great, great something-or-other grandfather—who came to South Australia in 1837 and was on the first boat after the First Fleet. He was a nine year old boy who was born in the Canary Islands; so he was of Portuguese nationality. God knows how he got on the boat, but he jumped ship in Adelaide. He was illiterate. He went on and got a big grant of land; he gave most of it to the Catholic Church unfortunately. He is buried in that cemetery, and around him are a whole range of his relatives—his wife, his children and various ancestors.

It would have been impossible to get all of that lineage and all of those connections if that record had not been made. I know that, with better record keeping, all of that information is probably available to us now, anyway. But it does occur to me that, and the minister might take this up, if we are to move away from the traditional cemetery, what we need is some sort of virtual cemetery—a sort of a Facebook cemetery—where we could go for the history, the connections and the memories. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 17:59 the house adjourned until Tuesday 5 March 2013 at 11:00.