BURIAL AND CREMATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 February 2013.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:01): I wanted to make a few brief comments on this bill, because I was a member of the Bob Such-chaired select committee that reported to the House of Assembly back in 2003 on this issue of burial and cremation. I do not want to discuss a lot of the details of the bill, but to make a few comments on some of the few provisions in it.

Disposal of our remains is an important issue. Indeed, in my view, it is at the very heart of what it is that makes us human, that separates us from every other species on the planet. True it is I think that elephants seem to recognise the death of a member of the herd, but no other species seems to have evolved to not only recognise death but, with every culture on this planet (in human culture at least), develop a particular way of disposing of the bodies of the deceased, whether by burial and cremation (with which we are familiar), by placing bodies on a raised platform with some of the American-Indian tribes, or by floating away on a vessel or sometimes burning that vessel as it floats away.

In any event, disposing of the remains of one of our own is a very significantly human thing to do, and people place great store in it. One of the most fundamental things that seemed to come out of the hearings and recommendations of the select committee was that many people felt that they wanted to be interred permanently. So, I am pleased to see that this bill does allow for having interment in perpetuity, which was not allowed for under the provisions of I think the Local Government Act particularly.

You could only have a 99-year interment at most, and indeed, most of our burial places, particularly closer to the city and our major grounds around the city itself, have generally only had 25-year interments. People are quite stunned when they find out, particularly if they were not aware that one of their beloved family members had been interred and they suddenly get a bill to renew that lease for a period of time, if they wish. So, I am pleased that the bill addresses that issue. That is the main thing that I think this bill does: address the issue of the ability to have interment in perpetuity.

The only advice we could give to people on the committee is that, when we were reporting, whilst there were maximums that applied in most of the major cemeteries around the suburbs, you did not have to go too far from inner suburban Adelaide before you would find little church cemeteries which actually had so few people being buried in them that, in reality, you would get perpetuity. It was not in any event allowed for under the legislation, so I do welcome that particular aspect of this bill. People were concerned.

Strangely enough, I think the member for Fisher, when he was talking to this bill on a previous occasion, spoke about the activity known as 'lift and deepen'. What we do at the moment is that someone's remains may be dug up and put down deeper into a grave so that others could be interred on top. When you think about, for instance, the number of people in graves in a country such as Britain—all those little church yards all around Britain over thousands of years—obviously, you would run out of room pretty quickly if everyone had to have their own separate plot—and, particularly, as the population of the world increases. If everyone was going to have a separate plot that was never to be disturbed and never to have anyone else buried there, then you were going to find problems.

The interesting thing from my point of view as a committee member is that most people objected to the idea of being lifted and put deeper in a grave unless the person being put on top of them was another member of their family. They did not object nearly as much if it was a member of their own family who was going to be on top of them rather than a complete stranger. There were quite strongly held views about that and, of course, about various aspects of cremation as well.

One of the other things I note is that we are going to be addressing this issue of natural burial grounds, and I know that the member for Fisher in introducing this bill has been a big fan of these. While I was on the committee, I was in Perth for some other reason and I took the opportunity to go to a natural burial ground some distance out of Perth. It took about a couple of hours to drive out to this area. I have to say I was very impressed with this area. I cannot remember the name of it at the moment, but it was a very impressive, park-like setting where children were playing and kangaroos were hopping around, and there was a cafe.

It was generally a place for quiet reflection but it was also a place where people could go and have a very enjoyable time whilst not being disrespectful to those areas where there were plates in the ground indicating that there were people buried in a natural burial ground underneath. I have to say that, as I have got older, I rather like the idea that we be allowed to rot back into the ground, as we did, no doubt, many generations ago.

There is also provision for the closing of cemeteries, and I think that is still a live issue. I note that the government discusses the issue but I do not think that we have come to any reasonable and final conclusion about that particular aspect. Some cemeteries, of course, cease to be used. There are, for instance, many churches with cemeteries at the side of them. If the church ceases to operate and, indeed, is sold off, what happens to that cemetery? Is it the case that, forevermore, we are not allowed to use that piece of land?

The bill provides for unused cemeteries, if there has been no-one interred there for the last 25 years, to be closed and converted into parklands, public parks or gardens. Apparently, there were a number of submissions to the bill in relation to that proposal and, as I understand it, the largest number of submissions on that were in opposition to it. It was seen as desecrating a sacred place and also being contrary to what is known as the Burra Convention on the preservation of cemeteries, and it seems the government may not have addressed the concerns that were raised in relation to that opposition.

However, as I said, I do not have a problem with the idea that, if there have been no interments in a cemetery for 25 years, when a new use is found, for instance, for a church (and many churches that I have seen have been converted into private housing), I think it is reasonable to make a public park, or something like that, out of that area.

The last issue I wanted to address is that of burial in unincorporated lands. About 40 per cent of South Australia, of course, is beyond the reach of local government areas and it is what is known as unincorporated for that particular reason. Under the existing law, it is possible to bury someone in unincorporated land. Historically, of course, that came about very largely because we are a sparse, remote state with huge distances involved in travel.

Members can imagine that, before the days of refrigeration, for instance, and before the days of road transport being as efficient as it is now, if a person died on a remote property it would be not only unreasonable but also extremely unhealthy to think that you were going to have to remove that person's remains from a remote property and get it all the way back to a township or some sort of civilisation where they could be buried in a normal cemetery. So, it is quite obvious how it is that it came about that people were allowed to be buried on properties that were in the more remote areas, which are of course the unincorporated areas of the state. I welcome the fact that it will still be possible to continue that. There are some provisions about permissions and that sort of thing, but I think it is entirely appropriate.

I seem to remember that the former member for Unley—we always have interesting members for Unley in this place—Mark Brindal suggested that we should all be allowed to bury remains in the backyard, even around suburban Adelaide. I thought that was an interesting idea, especially when you thought about selling the house and someone else wanting to do an extension, perhaps. I apologise to Mark Brindal in advance if I have got it wrong, but that is my recollection as to what he was suggesting when we were talking about this proposition originally.

It is, I think, a welcome thing that we will continue the ability, subject to some conditions and regulations, to inter remains in some of our unincorporated areas where there is evidence that there are already burials that have taken place there. So, the family plot on some of these really remote stations can be continued and I am sure a lot of people, if they were in that area, would prefer to be interred out there. Obviously, when we have cremations many people scatter ashes in all sorts of places and we do not seem to need any particular permission about what we do with the ashes, but I do think it is appropriate that we continue this idea that we can have burials on some of the remote stations where there are family plots in existence.

As I said, I had very few things to say about the legislation. I welcome the idea of having interment in perpetuity, and that was the main issue that concerned the people who made representations to the committee all those years ago. It is only 10 years since that committee's report was tabled, and by this government's standards I guess that is a fairly rapid taking notice of anything that is put before it. I welcome the fact that it has, at last, got around to doing something and look forward to seeing the progress of the bill through the house.