Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2021.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:20): I rise to speak in relation to the Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill 2021. I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, which is fitting in terms of my responsibilities representing the shadow attorney-general but also because this is a bill which had its genesis from an issue that I have raised with the Attorney-General. It has been an issue that has been of significant concern in my own electorate.

There are two things that are certain in life: death and taxes, as it has been known. We deal with both of them in this parliament. We deal with more taxes than we do issues around death, but issues around death are particularly important. We have debated in this parliament issues of voluntary assisted dying legislation in the past year. We deal with issues of the Coroner and investigations around death. We deal with issues of how we are trying to prevent death from occurring in relation to road traffic accidents and making sure the health system is sufficiently resourced, as we have done in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, we also need to deal with what happens when death occurs. The Burial and Cremation Act 2013 covers these issues in terms of what happens after people pass away and whether they are buried or cremated and how those processes are regulated. This is something that we all have to face. Our loved ones will have to face it in relation to us one day, and we will have to face it in relation to our loved ones who pass away. It can be an incredibly distressing time. It can be a time when we know that people's emotions are understandably very frayed.

We know that this is a very costly time for people as well. For many people it is a burden in terms of the cost of funerals and either burial or cremation arrangements that need to be put in place. Because of that, many people will seek to make sure that it is not a burden upon their loved ones after they pass away and that they have arrangements in place to make sure that, if they are going to buried, there is a plot arranged, payments have been made and funeral arrangements are in place.

Many people have funeral insurance. You only have to turn on daytime television to see about 7,000 ads for funeral insurance being displayed. I think it would be worthy to look at that industry at some point in terms of making sure people are getting fair value for money, but you can understand that people want to make sure that when they pass away their death is not going to be a burden upon the children or the partner of the loved ones in terms of the cost of that arrangement.

Because of that, many people have relationships already established in terms of their rights for interment, their rights in relation to plots at cemeteries. Some people have paid significant amounts of money to make sure that they have those rights kept and it is not something that they need to worry about in the future, which leads us to the concerns that have been raised that have led to this legislation being introduced.

This is something that started to be raised with my office, in the Kaurna electorate, last year. For people who do not know, there is a beautiful church in Old Noarlunga. It is an Anglican church. The church has been there for many years and has been a clear landmark for the community. This is the St Philip and St James church. Many people in my electorate will have been married there, many people will have attended church services there, many people will have attended funerals there and many people are laid to rest there in the cemetery adjacent to that church.

Very clearly, we are seeing throughout Adelaide, and probably throughout the Western world, an issue where different churches—and by that I mean church organisations—are going through a process of considering what facilities they have and whether or not they need to sell or consolidate those church holdings. You only have to drive around Adelaide—we are of course the City of Churches—to see that many churches have been converted into other uses. I have been to people's houses; they have bought a church and converted it into residential accommodation.

Drive down Goodwood Road and there is a very notable former church that is, I think, a rug shop in the Goodwood area. This is an issue that clearly was an issue in the inner city, where we used to have a much more densely populated inner suburban area. We now have suburban sprawl, so more churches have been opening up across South Australia over the past few decades. But now some of those in more peri-urban areas, if you like, have been sold and are being considered in terms of what their future is.

Clearly the Anglican Church has been going through such a process in relation to the churches that they have. They decided to put the Church of St Philip and St James on the market to be sold. This attracted quite a lot of interest at the time because, as I said, it is such a landmark of the area. It really is an absolutely stunningly constructed church. It was built not long after South Australia was settled and is one of the very historical heritage buildings of my electorate and of the Old Noarlunga township, which clearly has a huge historical element to it.

It attracted a huge amount of interest—I think there was quite a bit of publicity that the real estate agents were trying to drum up—and they put it to auction. If I recall, it had to have a couple of goes before they found a suitable buyer, but then a suitable buyer purchased the property and has taken ownership of that property away from the Anglican Church. I think people probably thought, 'Well, that's the end of it. We might hear down the track what they want to use that site for, whether that be a venue or a private residence or the like.'

We then started hearing issues, though, in terms of people who had arrangements in place already with the Anglican Church, in relation to the cemetery adjacent to the church. Those people were very concerned that they had paid significant sums to make sure they had rights for a burial plot. Some of those people are very concerned because not only did they see this as an important place for them but clearly some people already had family members who were buried at that site.

Clearly it is the desire of many people to make sure that there is a family burial site, to make sure that their loved ones can be adjacent in the same location. We started to receive concerns raised that those rights were not going to be upheld or, if they were, that there were going to be significant sums of additional funding that would be required from those people to make sure what they thought they had locked in would be able to be locked in in the future.

With the recollection that this legislation fell under the role of the Attorney-General, I raised this with the Attorney-General on a number of occasions on behalf of those people. It has been well over a year until we have got to this point now, where legislation has needed to be enacted, but it has been a fraught process. My first letter to the Attorney-General in relation to this was on 19 June 2020. I wrote:

Dear Deputy Premier,

I write to you on behalf of—

in relation to these letters I will omit the particular constituents' names—

[my constituents] regarding their concerns in relation to grave lease arrangements at the St Philip and St James Church in Old Noarlunga. [My constituents] advise that they were recently advised by the new owners of the church that they are redeveloping the gravesite attached to the church. To facilitate this they have relocated the ashes of several people interred at that site.

[My constituents] state that the owners also advised the lessees that they will be reimbursed for any paid sum and required to repay for any new leases at a much higher rate. [My constituents] are concerned that this will disrupt the existing leased graves whose relatives are unable to afford higher rates, especially in the case of [this particular constituent] whose father and sister are already interred there.

As such [my constituents] would like to know whether you can examine the actions of the church owners and the Anglican Church, as former owners, and advise what rights the lessees have in maintaining the existing lease arrangements. [My constituents] would also like to know what happened with the funds that they previously paid for the sites to the Anglican Church.

In your investigations could you advise whether there is any need for law reform in South Australia to ensure people's loved ones are protected from being moved in the event a cemetery is sold.

I trust that you will take [my constituents’] concerns into consideration and provide a response in due course. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Picton MP

Member for Kaurna

Clearly, in that letter of 19 June 2020, well over a year ago now, I raised a number of very significant concerns with the Attorney-General, asked for them to be investigated and, importantly, asked whether the law had to be reformed to make sure that people could be protected. I wrote to the Attorney-General knowing that not only was she the Attorney-General, not only was she the responsible minister for the burial and cremation legislation, but she was the minister responsible for consumer law and consumer affairs in this parliament as well.

People were concerned about the redevelopment, the relocation of ashes, whether there would be reimbursement for sums, whether there would be new, higher rates for leases to be put in place, whether there would be disruption of the existing graves, especially in the case of the father and sister already interred there, about the actions of both the current owners and the Anglican Church, about what rights people have and about what happened to the funds they had previously paid to the Anglican Church.

All those were very important issues I raised with the Attorney-General well over a year ago, asking her to consider investigating not only those issues but also whether the law had to be reformed to address those concerns. A month later, on 9 July 2020—still well over a year ago—I received a response from the Attorney-General, which read:

Dear Mr Picton,

Thank you for the letter dated 19 June 2020 and email dated 2 July 2020 on behalf of your constituents in relation to grave lease arrangements at the St Philip and St James Church (the church) in Old Noarlunga. I understand that the church is undergoing redevelopment in its attached cemetery after a transfer of ownership and your constituents have raised concern about an increase in leasing rates.

As you know, I am not able to provide legal advice to members of the public. Given these limitations, I am unable to examine the actions of the Church owners, nor advise what rights [your constituents] may have in maintaining existing lease arrangements with respect to grave sites at the Church. Further, I am not in a position to explore what has happened with the funds that [your constituents] have previously paid for the grave sites at the Church.

Mr HUGHES: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON: Continuing in relation to the letter the Attorney wrote to me on 9 July 2020, I quote:

Accordingly, if they have not already done so, [your constituents] may wish to consider obtaining independent legal advice in relation to their concerns. The Legal Services Commission of South Australia provide a free advisory service on most legal matters. The service is available by calling 1300 366 424 or (08) 8436 3555.

Alternatively, the Law Society of South Australia can help in referring [your constituents] to a private solicitor who deals in the area of law they require. The referral service is available by calling (08) 8229 0288.

I trust this is of assistance to your constituents.

Yours sincerely

VICKIE CHAPMAN MP

DEPUTY PREMIER

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Well, that was not of assistance to my constituents. I appreciate that the Attorney-General has a busy job, I am sure, but this was a significant failure to address the concerns that were raised by my constituents well over a year ago in this letter. This is a complete failure to address the issues that fell in relation to her responsibilities to this parliament, in relation to consumer affairs and in relation to the management of cemeteries, cremations and burials under the legislation, and also to consider whether there was any area of law reform that needed to happen in relation to this.

To fob it all off and say, 'You should consider going to a lawyer or ring the Legal Services Commission,' was not sufficient to investigate the issues I had raised with the Attorney-General. If those issues had been investigated, we could well be dealing with this legislation a lot more quickly and it may well have passed last year, if that was to be the case.

Of course, that did not stop the issue because more and more people became affected by this. A bit later in November 2020, people who had been assigned leases in relation to the St Philip and St James Old Noarlunga church started to receive letters from the new owners of the church and were asked to pay additional sums. One constituent received this letter in November 2020:

Dear [constituents],

We would like to introduce ourselves as the new custodians and owners of The Cemetery On The Hill, which is formally known as The Cemetery of St Philip and St James at Old Noarlunga.

The records provided to us by The Anglican Church at the time of sale of the Church and Cemetery indicate that you have a lease arrangement with St Philip and St James Anglican Cemetery, Old Noarlunga for [particular rows and bed numbers] and that you paid The Anglican Church $800.00.

The purpose of this letter is to advise you that if you wish to commence a lease with us (The Old Noarlunga Cemetery Pty Ltd), you will need to complete a new interment rights lease. Please find [attached] our pricing booklet. We are able to apply any monies previously paid to the Anglican Church towards a new interment rights lease with us.

If you are not wanting to renew your lease with The Cemetery On The Hill, please complete the relinquishing form enclosed…in the envelope provided…any questions, please…[email us, etc., etc.]

Kind regards,

The Cemetery On The Hill.

Clearly, this letter enraged and concerned more constituents in my electorate who have leases arranged, that they are being told, 'Your lease that you thought that you had, that you paid hundreds of dollars for, is no longer current and you now need to buy a more expensive lease and here is our new pricing booklet that you can consider.'

The Attorney-General herself then received a letter on 18 December 2020—so almost a year ago, some 10 months ago now—from more constituents of mine and they wrote directly to her:

Dear [Attorney-General],

We respectfully request that you review our situation. On 27/12/2015 my wife and I purchased the leases on 3 plots (for ashes) at the cemetery of St Philip & St James Anglican church at Old Noarlunga. These being for myself…my wife…and our son…who is [sadly already interned]...

We paid $400 for each lease, plus…fees, [that were paid] in good faith from the church, the full payment being [over $1,700]. The leases run for 25 years from the internment of the ashes. However as time has transpired the church has now been sold…We received a letter from [the new owners] informing us that we now have to take out a new lease on our plots at the higher rate of $2,500 each.

Which is a significant amount in addition. It continues:

They apparently have received the money we paid to the church, being $800 for the 2 plots, and now demand us to sign a new lease or sign a relinquishing form.

Our view is that the cemetery was never closed and we had paid our monies in full, or so we thought. We [believe] this is outrageous, surely they should honour the leases purchased from the church without us paying these extra high prices.

As an aside, to go from $800 to $2,500 each is taking all three leases that they had including, sadly, their son, who is already interred, up to $7,500 each. The letter continues:

We ask if you could intervene and review the current situation honouring our contract, also, we would like to know the basis of their approval and how they have the right to terminate our lease from the church.

Please find [attached] copies of receipts of purchase and documentation of leases plus the letter from the new owner showing the new lease prices re their brochure on ashes internment...

We ask that you give this matter your earliest attention to rectify our situation.

…yours sincerely,

[the constituents]

The Attorney-General received that second letter in relation to this last year as well. I then wrote to her on 4 January on behalf of the same constituents, and I said:

Dear Deputy Premier

I write to you on behalf of [my constituents] of Old Noarlunga, regarding their concerns in relation to increases in lease prices at the Cemetery On the Hill, previously owned by the Anglican Church.

[My constituents] are concerned that the new owners of the Cemetery have taken steps to significantly increase the costs of leases held by the Church prior to its sale.

[My constituents] believe that lease holders have been misled throughout the process of the sale and that they have been unfairly issued new leases at the higher cost.

I understand that [my constituents] have written to you directly and they have provided me a copy of this letter. I have enclosed a copy for your reference.

As such, [my constituents] would like to know whether there are any measures that can be taken to prevent lease holders being forced to pay much higher costs for these plots. [In particular, is this a breach of consumer law?]

I trust that you will take [my constituents'] concerns into consideration and provide a response in due course. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Picton MP

Member for Kaurna

Eventually, a few weeks later we received a letter from the Attorney-General dated 20 January 2021, some eight months ago, in relation to that, which states:

Dear Mr Picton

Thank you for your letter of 4 January 2021 on behalf of your constituents in relation to their concerns regarding increases in interment right prices at the Cemetery on the Hill (the Cemetery).

It is regrettable to learn that the new owners of the cemetery at St Philip and St James Church are declining to honour the interment rights previously issued by the Diocese to [your constituents]. It is equally disappointing that the new owners are demanding payment of substantial additional fees from [your constituents] to secure their interment rights.

Unfortunately, I am not able to directly assist members of the public to resolve disputes involving matters of private concern. However, I do take the issues raised by [your constituents] very seriously and have referred them to Consumer and Business Services for investigation.

While I am not able to discuss the nature of the investigation, I trust that Consumer and Business Services will take appropriate action if the actions of the new owners of the cemetery constitute unlawful business practices or are in contravention [of] the Australian Consumer Law.

I have responded directly to [your constituents] to advise them of the action that I have taken. If they have not already done so, [your constituents] may…wish to seek independent legal advice in relation to their concerns.

I trust this information assists.

VICKIE CHAPMAN MP

DEPUTY PREMIER

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

At least we have progressed one step in relation to January. In January, the Attorney is at least willing to refer it to the office of consumer and business affairs to investigate, whereas last year, when this was raised, back in June and July, she simply told them, 'Here's a phone number for some lawyers. Go ring some lawyers. You deal with it. I can't do anything.' At least we have had some progress now with the Attorney-General being willing to at least refer it to her department to look at what are quite serious and concerning issues for my constituents.

The matter then became a public matter on 18 February 2021 when The Advertiser and the Messengerran an article, 'Families shocked to find expiry stickers on loved ones' graves at Old Noarlunga cemetery’. This was written by Kaysee Miller on 18 February 2021 and it states:

Families have been shocked to find lease expiry stickers on graves of loved ones at a cemetery in Adelaide's south—despite some having more than 30 years remaining.

Southern suburbs families have been shocked to find lease expiry stickers on the plaques and headstones of loved ones at an Old Noarlunga cemetery—despite the leases having years to run.

Stickers at the Cemetery on the Hill at Church Hill Road state that the lease has expired and families need to contact the cemetery to organise renewal.

But some families claim to still have more than 35 years remaining on their contracts.

One man—who wished to remain anonymous—said a contract showed the lease for his family member’s ashes plot had 38 years remaining.

'We were in disbelief when we saw the stickers everywhere and it’s had a severe emotional impact for us,' he said.

'I think they should be honouring the leases that stand and honouring it as a cemetery and not as a money-making exercise.

'Some of the gravestones in there are of historical significance and shouldn’t be tampered with, full stop.'

Another family who took out a $600 lease in 2017 was told a new, 25-year lease would cost more than $2900.

Owner and cemetery curator Darren Bacchus bought the cemetery and connected church—previously known as St Philip and St James—from the Anglican Diocese of The Murray in late 2018.

Mr Bacchus—who plans to restore the church and grounds and host functions there—said no leases were transferred to him at the time of purchase, leading him to use the stickers and newspaper advertisements to contact families.

'Unfortunately the Anglican Church did a disservice to the people that were there, they never communicated any information to them,' he said.

'It’s a hard job to do when you’re talking about a passed one that’s buried there but we have to [be] financially responsible and it does cost money to run cemeteries.'

Mr Bacchus said as a 'goodwill gesture' he would honour leases of 25 years for ashes and 50 years for burials.

A spokeswoman for the Anglican Diocese said the Diocese fulfilled its obligations—in accordance with the Burial and Cremation Act—for the transfer of cemetery leases at the time of the sale.

'Our expectation has always been that the existing leases would be honoured by the new owner in accordance with the legislation,' she said.

'As from settlement the new owner was obligated to permit the interment of remains of the person to whom the interment rights relate and to leave the remains undisturbed at the interment site for as long as the interment rights remain in force.

'The owner does not have a unilateral right to terminate interment rights nor to vary the terms upon which interment rights are held.

'We are disappointed at the action of the new owner and concerned for the interment rights holders who have been confused and misled.'

The spokeswoman said lawyers for the Diocese contacted Mr Bacchus regarding the matter and later Consumer and Business Services and the Attorney-General’s office.

A Consumer and Business Services spokesman confirmed the department was investigating a complaint in relation to the matter.

So this, eventually, as you can see, did hit the media, but some, I believe, seven or so months after the Attorney first had the issue raised by a letter from me and decided to ignore those concerns. The article that was published included a picture of the stickers that were being stuck onto headstones at the lease. The sticker is labelled 'The Cemetery on the Hill' and says:

The lease for this grave site has expired. Please contact our office on 8317 6044 to discuss renewal options.

Please note this site may be used for a new interment in the future if this plot is not renewed.

You can see that there would be very significant concerns in relation to those constituents. So we had the issue raised back in June last year, we had the fob-off response from the Attorney in July, we had it raised again with her from constituents in December and again by me in January, we had a slightly less fob-off response from the Attorney at the end of January, then we had the article published in February, and then still there was no news.

Still there was nothing the government said in relation to their investigation, and I spoke to a number of very stressed, very concerned constituents in relation to the status of this—in relation to their lease rights and whether payments were going to be forced upon them to continue what they thought they had very substantial lease rights in place for. So with no news coming—again, for months—on 4 May this year I wrote again to the Attorney-General:

Dear Deputy Premier,

I write to you on behalf of several of my constituents regarding their concerns in relation to the management of leases at the Cemetery on the Hill in Old Noarlunga.

These constituents all received letters from a representative of the Cemetery that indicated their intention to upgrade the grounds.

In this correspondence, the representative recognised that despite previous arrangements being in place with the former owners of the Cemetery, the Anglican Church, interment rights must be re-negotiated with the new owners.

These constituents advise that the representative offered a significantly increased price—

which I underlined—

in comparison to their original agreement.

They are concerned that despite being dated as 21 April, these letters were only received on or around 28 April.

Clearly there had been another round of letters that had just been sent to people before this letter. It continues:

These letters noted that the price would have a further substantial increase in price if it were not agreed to by 5 May, affording only one week to agree to a significant financial outlay or obtain legal advice.

These constituents were under the impression that the existing leases must be honoured irrelevant of the transfer of cemetery ownership, and that this interpretation was confirmed in a letter from the Bishop of the Murray, The Right Reverend Keith Dalby, dated 10 July 2020.

I understand that the office of the Diocese of the Murray has recently communicated the details of a Senior Investigator for Consumer and Business Services (CBS), who has been assigned to investigate these concerns.

As such, these constituents would like to know whether:

An investigation by CBS is ongoing and if there is an anticipated time of completion

The details of this investigation are being publicised to ensure that all stakeholders impacted by these new arrangements have an opportunity to voice their concerns

The Attorney-General's Department has any scope to request a delay of the 5 May deadline communicated by the Cemetery on the Hill until these concerns are adequately considered

I note that I previously wrote to you regarding related concerns on 19 June 2020 and received a response from you on 9 July 2020. I have attached this correspondence for your reference.

I trust you will take these concerns into consideration and provide a response in due course. I look forward to your reply.

Then I received a letter from the Attorney-General, dated 31 May 2021:

Dear Mr Picton,

I write in response to your letter of 4 May 2021 regarding concerns with the management of leases at the Cemetery on the Hill in Old Noarlunga. I have sought advice on this matter from the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (Commissioner). I apologise for the delay in formally responding and note that my office has already contacted your Electorate Office to provide an update.

Consumer and Business Services (CBS) is currently investigating potential breaches of the Australian Consumer Law and the Burial and Cremation Act 2013 by The Old Noarlunga Cemetery Pty Ltd (Cemetery). As the investigation has not yet concluded, I am unable to provide you with any specific details.

I am advised that the Cemetery has deferred their price increase for leaseholders who have been in contact. The Commissioner will consider whether to seek an injunction to further safeguard the interests of leaseholders.

Whilst the Commissioner does not publicise investigations unless a public warning is issued or an enforcement action occurs, investigators are attempting to contact all leaseholders.

For further information, please invite your constituents to contact…[the] Manager, Inspections and Enforcement Operations…

Thank you for writing on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

VICKIE CHAPMAN MP

DEPUTY PREMIER

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

That was the latest correspondence that we had from the Attorney-General in relation to this matter but, clearly, what was identified was that there was a deficiency with the legislation. What clearly has been identified, as I raised with the Attorney-General in June last year, is that some change to this act may be necessary to make sure that these sorts of situations do not arise again or can be remedied in this specific case.

To date, I have not had a confirmation from the Attorney-General in relation to where the specific investigation from Consumer and Business Services is up to. Have they formed a view in relation to—as she said—potential breaches of both the Australian Consumer Law and the Burial and Cremation Act of our parliament, and what action has been taken, if any?

Clearly, this legislation has now been introduced, as I said, to address what I suggested to the Attorney-General in June last year, that law reform may be required, but I think we do not yet have confirmation as to whether this will address this specific case of my constituents, who are clearly very concerned about their own status in relation to what is now the Church on the Hill.

This bill seeks to amend the Burial and Cremation Act 2013 to address, as I said, these issues faced by the holders of valid interment rights who have had difficulties enforcing their rights against the cemetery authority. This bill clarifies that interment rights may be enforced against the relevant authority and also creates various new offences. In most instances, a cemetery authority is the owner of the land.

As we have talked about over the past few decades, changes in population levels, church attendance and church incomes have seen increasing numbers of churches being decommissioned and sold for residential or commercial use. Where a cemetery is attached, the new owner becomes the cemetery authority, unless there is another body that is responsible for its administration.

This is an important fact in relation to what has transpired at Old Noarlunga because, although not being an investigator—and we may hear a proper report from the Attorney in relation to that investigation—my suspicion is that probably the purchasers of the Old Noarlunga church and cemetery were not aware of their responsibilities in relation to the cemetery that was attached. I am sure the real estate agents who were selling it off were not saying, 'By the way, here are all the details and obligations you are going to have in the future that are quite arduous to manage.' I am sure that was something they have been finding out as they have been going.

It is going to be a continual issue. We do see more of these properties being sold and we need to be very clear about what the obligations are on people who purchase these properties. This would say that the new owner becomes the cemetery authority, unless there is another body that is responsible for its administration. The increasing number of churches and cemeteries that are owned by people or organisations with no background in managing cemeteries may lead to greater issues around misunderstanding or noncompliance with the laws.

Under the proposed bill, the relevant authority for an interment site must comply with their obligations. This was previously a civil offence only and this bill is proposing to criminalise this activity. The maximum penalty for noncompliance with this obligation is $10,000 for a natural person and $20,000 for a body corporate.

The bill proposes a new offence of removing cremated remains from or reinterment of cremated remains in a cemetery or natural burial ground. An offence is also proposed should a person or body corporate cause, suffer or permit either act. The maximum penalty for these offences is $10,000. Notably, these interment or removing offences do not apply to cremated remains interred directly in the earth or where authorised or removed by the relevant authority for approved site maintenance purposes.

I understand that in the other place there was a considerable amount of confusion on this matter from the Hon. Rob Lucas, who had carriage of it, and we look forward to some better understanding and further clarity during the committee stage around how these defences would work in relation to moving for site maintenance purposes.

Clearly, as I have said, this has come in relation to what has happened at the St Philip and St James church. As I said, this is a very historical church. It was established in 1850, only 14 years after the colony of South Australia was established in 1836. This obviously led to a very emotional situation for those families and it has been certainly my honour to represent them to try to advocate for these changes. I am glad that we have now got to this stage after over a year of advocating that we should have some changes to this area of law to hopefully address their situation and also others in the future.

This bill seeks to prevent what has happened to the leaseholders of the Old Noarlunga church from occurring in the future. Notably, it is not a defence for a defendant to claim they were unaware of the existence of an interment right when they assumed administration of the cemetery or natural burial ground. That issue of 'I wasn't aware of this' would no longer be potential defence under this legislation.

The exception to this is if they can prove that they took reasonable steps to identify interment rights in existence at the time they took over. I am certainly not aware of any issue about that at the Old Noarlunga site. In fact, it is apparent that there was an awareness of those interment rights because the new owners were able to write to the leaseholders and say, 'Here's our brochure for the new lease payments that you're going to have to make.'

We were told by the Attorney-General's Department that targeted consultation has occurred and that the bill has received general support from various groups, including relevant cemetery authorities and associations. The opposition have raised a number of questions with the Attorney-General's Department, some of which are about where the public register is currently located for burials and cremations. This will become increasingly important for buyers of the increasing number of cremation sites or churches that come onto the market. The absence of an accessible and clear register may add an unnecessary burden to both prospective land buyers and to people who have had an interest in the remains of their loved ones.

I am very eager to hear the Attorney's contribution both in the summing up of the second reading and in the committee stage to know some very clear answers to questions about what has happened in my electorate. Is that investigation is ongoing? Has any action been taken? Why were the concerns that were raised with her in June last year ignored? Why was there no action on this sooner? Importantly, will this legislation, once passed, apply to the Old Noarlunga site, i.e., would it have some retrospective ability to consider that situation that people are facing? Or is this now dealing with future cases where the sales may occur but the people in Old Noarlunga will not be able to get relief in relation to the provisions of this act? These are questions we must have answers to in relation to the debate on this legislation.

As I said, I think this will be an increasing issue over the next decades for a number of reasons. One is the future sale of these churches, which is likely to occur across metropolitan Adelaide and also in regional areas across South Australia, where in many of those regional areas, cemeteries are attached to the churches. Therefore, the people who purchase those churches will have no experience in running cemetery operations and will therefore be in a similar situation to what has happened in Old Noarlunga.

At the same time as that is occurring, there is an increasing need and demand for burials and cremations across the state. It sounds a bit morbid to talk about it, but we are expecting the death rate in South Australia to increase over the coming decades. The population projections in terms of age make it very clear that the number of people who will pass away in South Australia will increase over future decades.

There needs to be appropriate planning for where either cremations or burials, which are particularly intensive in terms of the use of space, take place. Of course, we already have legislation that parliament has decided about the re-use of some sites. I believe that it already occurs in places like Centennial Park and others, where sites can be re-leased after a certain time but demand will increase. Perhaps very timely, only yesterday there was an article in The Advertiser by Miles Kemp, entitled 'Plotting for burial surge', which raised this very issue. It states:

The search is on to find land with the same space as 11 Adelaide Ovals to help cater for growing demand for burials.

Adelaide Cemeteries CEO Robert Pitt said 20ha of extra land was needed to service Adelaide's southern suburbs.

Very fitting in this current discussion. It continues:

The ideal option would be a single site south of O'Halloran Hill.

Mr Pitt said the challenge was caused by an ageing population and estimates of an increase in Adelaide's death rate from 14,000 a year now to between 29,000 and 36,000 by 2050.

'This has broad implications not only for cemeteries, but for the entire community, with South Australians becoming increasingly exposed to death and grieving,' Mr Pitt said. 'We need to be prepared for the social, as well as logistic challenges.'

The state government's 30-year plan for Adelaide identified the need for a new cemetery in the outer-southern metropolitan area.

Adelaide Cemeteries runs four large sites: Enfield Memorial Park—

I am sure very well known to the member for Enfield—

West Terrace Cemetery, Cheltenham Cemetery—

I am sure well known to the member for Cheltenham—

and Smithfield Memorial Park. It also runs three smaller sites for councils.

West Terrace and Cheltenham are both full, and Enfield has 9.4ha of available space.

'The next challenge for Adelaide Cemeteries is to locate and obtain a site to serve communities in the south,' Mr Pitt said.

'Any new cemetery must include an area for natural burials and landscaping featuring indigenous plant species.

I think natural burials are something the parliament has previously debated and created a regulatory process for as well. It continues:

'With the number of sites set at 3000 graves per hectare, plus buildings, road networks and gardens, we require 20ha to implement a long-term plan for more than 60,000 burial sites.'

Mr Pitt said about seven out of 10 people who died in South Australia last year were cremated.

'(But) this figure has plateaued as many emerging cultural and religious groups have faith-based commitments to burials.'

The authority is also modernising crematorium filtration standards and planning for a third crematorium at Enfield Memorial Park.

'Cemetery planning requires foresight far beyond the practicalities of acquiring land and cremators,' Mr Pitt said.

'Ultimately, we help families navigate one of life's most significant events and that requires a broader community discussion about expectations and values.'

The authority's death rate estimates are based on extrapolations from census data and immigration rates.

To help meet demand for burial plots, the authority recently acquired 34ha of government land to expand Smithfield Memorial Park.

Smithfield will eventually become Adelaide's largest cemetery.

Clearly, you can see that the demand, in terms of burial plots, is going to go up. As such, there is going to be a demand in terms of people making lease arrangements.

I am sure people who are going via the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, as a government authority—and we know that based on a recent Ombudsman's report into the conduct of former Minister for Transport and Infrastructure in relation to that—will be certain in terms of their rights being upheld, but for those people who are looking for other burial sites we need to be very clear about what the rights and responsibilities are in relation to those matters. That is why it is very urgent that we progress with this legislation and that we make it as clear and as robust as possible.

I have to say that the best burial site I have ever seen is that of my mother's father's family, the McKinnons, who immigrated from the north of Scotland well over a hundred years ago. They settled in the region of Clare in the member for Frome's electorate. The McKinnons made a good contribution to the Clare area. I once went to the tourist information desk in Clare and, using some family tree information that had been collated by a relative, was able to find where the McKinnons were buried.

I have to say, you could not find a more idyllic location to be buried than where some of my ancestors, the McKinnons, are buried, about 20 minutes outside Clare, overlooking a beautiful vineyard, completely undisturbed. Nobody is going to be coming there anytime soon, I would imagine, to revise those leases that have been there for well over 100 years.

However, for those people who want to have their burial plots in Adelaide, around Adelaide or in some of our regional centres, there will be demand. There will be increasing issues in terms of demands on those sites and also the management of those sites when they inevitably, many of them, end up in private hands as we are seeing that change in church ownership.

That is why getting this right is so important. That is why I raised the need for law reform in this area with the Attorney-General last June. I am glad that we are finally getting to this stage, but there are still many unanswered questions that we need to address through this debate and others to make sure that those people who have been affected in my electorate and Old Noarlunga can get the rights they believed that they had satisfied in relation to this case.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:15): I rise today on the Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill 2021. We have heard at length from the member for Kaurna how this is an issue that he first raised with the Attorney-General last year in a request to investigate and have a response to this very concerning situation. As I understand it, the problems were experienced by the interment rights holders in a cemetery attached to the decommissioned Anglican Church of St Philip and St James, which was established in 1852. This church is in Old Noarlunga and the situation has been raised in the media, in particular the actions of the new owners of the site. It is no longer owned by the Anglican diocese, which was the former owner, and now is owned by what one would say are non-traditional owners.

It is interesting looking at this today because I think it was just on Sunday that The Advertiser ran an article about churches that were redesigned and re-used. In fact, they are in great demand with people interested in doing up old churches, but of course many of the churches, particularly in regional areas, also have a cemetery out the back. This issue is likely to come up more often as people seek to purchase churches. As there is less attendance and perhaps fewer people living in a particular area, those churches go on the market.

In this particular issue, the new owners of the site refused to honour the interment rights issued by the Anglican diocese and in fact some rights holders were asked to repurchase the rights at inflated prices. Obviously, that was a shock, and I guess when they sought remedy they were disappointed that they were not immediately supported by these actions to seek remedy from these non-traditional owners in repurchasing and asking them to pay an inflated amount.

Although this is not the subject of the bill, I understand the new owners also changed the appearance of the cemetery, removing all the trees and replacing the traditional fences and gates with bare metal. This, it seems, has been a much-supported cemetery in the past, and even though it was an Anglican church for more than 150 years, I am advised that the cemetery caretaker for much of the last 20 years was a person of the Catholic faith, who lived across the road.

What this bill does is amend the Burial and Cremation Act of 2013 to address the issues faced by the holders of these interment rights who have had difficulties enforcing their rights against a cemetery authority. The bill was triggered not only by the media reports but by the member for Kaurna writing to the Attorney-General, who eventually, as I understand it, requested that her Consumer and Business Services division investigate this very issue.

The bill clarifies that interment rights may be enforced against the relevant authority and creates various new offences. A relevant authority for an interment site must comply with their obligations, with a maximum penalty of $10,000 for a natural person and $20,000 for a body corporate. In addition, removing cremated remains from, or reinterment of cremated remains in, a cemetery or natural burial ground, or to cause, suffer or permit either act, carries a maximum penalty of $10,000.

When I consider that these penalties are being put forward, and we are debating them today, I also think it would be important to have an education program for people who purchase former churches that may have had a cemetery attached, with the greatest intention of purchasing a brand-new property to convert, to live in or maybe to use as a commercial enterprise. The new owners, who will probably then subsequently become the relevant authority, need to make sure that they are aware of the commitment that they have, the commitment to this purchase of a burial ground and a cemetery. I raise with the minister here today, the Attorney-General, that discussions of the implementation and the assenting of this legislation must come with an education program and an understanding of those obligations on those new authorities.

The bill does introduce new offences for removing remains but does not introduce any offences for interfering with remains and, as such, once you remove the corpse or remains there are no other further offences or penalties. Labor will introduce separate legislation to deal with people who conceal a corpse to try to cover up a crime and will include further offences that impose penalties for dismembering or interfering with a corpse.

When I talk about death, and I think about burials or cremations, I consider that I had a unique upbringing because my father was an undertaker. We lived in a country town and the funeral parlour, as it was called, was attached to the house. In general, my father would bury or potentially cremate and participate in about 80 funerals a year, so I had a unique connection to death during my childhood. The one thing it taught me is that grief and loss are experienced very differently by every person. Depending on how death occurs—if it is sudden or expected—everyone's grief is different.

In particular, often when people have unresolved issues within a family and there is a death, it causes very deep distress, so I can only imagine the trauma for the people who experience this unexpected request to pay an additional amount for leases, an increased amount, or had no knowledge that an expiry of the lease was coming up. We cannot underestimate the impact that this has on people.

People deal with death in different ways. Some people have said to me when experiencing a sudden loss, 'I don't know if I'll ever get over this,' and others say, 'It's not about getting over, but you never forget.' For people who have been shocked by this request, together with the feeling that there is no remedy to support them and a lack of voice, it is incredibly important that we are debating this legislation today.

One of my jobs when I was growing up was to rewrite the records for Pfitzner Funerals, and they went back more than 75 years. Different family names would often come up. People were buried at small locations in the Mid North, such as Eudunda, Robertstown and Kapunda, and then sometimes very, very small places, which I suspect would probably come under this type of information because those churches are not active anymore.

At the time, they held vibrant populations with very vibrant church attendees, but as people changed and more people came to the city those churches were abandoned. When reading this bill, I reflected on the work that I did as a teenager recording and summarising when those deaths occurred and where people were buried.

It was a unique experience for me to be that close to death. I know why my father sought that career—because he wanted to help people. He wanted to be there to support them at a very, very difficult time. When death occurs decisions have to be made quickly. Sometimes people have had time to prepare. As we have seen advertised, people often pre-plan their funerals now, but that is not always the case.

I often see in the old cemeteries around the area that very young children lost their lives because of diseases that we no longer suffer from. You can see families who have lost multiple children at very young ages, and these families want to support those cemeteries because that is their connection.

When I was looking into this, some research described what a burial plot or a cremation plaque means. It is a valuable and emotional anchor point and a comfortable and soothing place for family and friends to return and reflect. I think it is important for us to consider what the Centennial Park website talks about, which is the importance of cemeteries because they are fundamental to us in terms of how we respect and how we remember.

Recently, we have had some discussions about our needs here and, of course, the reality is that we have an ageing population. Right now we have the need for about 14,000 burial sites a year, and that is expected to grow to about 36,000 burial sites by 2050. When interviewed, Robert Pitt, the CEO of the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, talked about the need for a potential super cemetery in O'Halloran Hill equivalent to 11 Adelaide Ovals. He also talked about Smithfield Memorial Park, which has recently been expanded to 53 hectares.

One really interesting commentary I took from that was not only the growth of the need but also a changing movement, in that almost 80 per cent of South Australians refused to be buried and 20 per cent cremated, but that has now levelled out. Last year, seven out of 10 South Australians chose to be cremated. Of course, what this goes to is choice, and the choice for South Australians now is to be buried traditionally, to have a natural burial, to be embalmed, I imagine, and be in a mausoleum or, of course, to be cremated.

As we have an increasingly diverse community, we often see that different groups have different desires from a religious perspective or from a cultural perspective. In fact, in 2016, I was very honoured to attend the first dedicated Buddhist burial area in Enfield Memorial Park. I attended along with the Governor at the time, Hieu Van Le, this very important opening. The Adelaide Cemeteries Authority took the time to sit down with the Buddhist community, to talk to them about customs, experience and the traditions.

The Enfield Memorial Park Buddhist Garden has 115 burial sites and 200 sites for cremation. There is a Bodhi tree that was planted, which was very important to that tradition, and a Buddha statue 13 feet tall. Most importantly, a circular road was built which enabled the family to walk with their loved ones three times around the Buddhist statue in that circular roadway to respect what they do.

I had the opportunity at a similar time frame to be at Centennial Park Cemetery and have a time with the Hindu community, who had been having a series of consultations about how they would like to have their faith and their culture respected. They took a series of consultations and an understanding of how their community could be best supported. And of course we have had requests from the Italian community, reflected in both the Cheltenham Cemetery and Enfield, for a mausoleum, which was opened in September 2020 in Cheltenham with 96 companion areas and 16 singles.

The reason I talk about this and our diversity is that it is about choice and it is about respect and it is about honouring people who have gone before us and to acknowledge how important it is in going forward that we respect people. This is an incredibly important area of life: that we respect those who have gone before us.

We do know that, when places of worship are deconsecrated and decommissioned, we must show that human remains are shown the proper respect and care, and this bill goes to the heart of how we will do that, because now there will be penalties if that is not complied with. It is true that sometimes people make the decision to reuse burial sites. Culturally, for example, in Cheltenham Cemetery almost 40 per cent of burial sites are re-used. This is a choice, this is through transparency, and it is through providing certainty to families.

I would like to congratulate Chris Picton on his advocacy, an advocacy because this is such an important area for his constituents. Everyone knows, in elected office, you never know what someone might come and ask you to help with, what their area of need might be. To the member for Kaurna, I think you have taken a dignified path to raise this with the Attorney-General and, after some time, it has been brought here to the house. I give my support for this bill but raise some concerns regarding education, and obviously some questions about how we best can support these non-traditional owners, which numbers are likely to grow in the future.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:34): I rise to say a few words on this important bill and to speak about a couple of cases in our local area. One that has been raised is about the church at Old Noarlunga, which was in the electorate of Mawson for a while but is now in the seat of Kaurna. The Anglican church in Old Noarlunga, built in 1852, is somewhere I drive past quite often. I think it would have been an appealing place for people looking for a final resting spot: sat high on a hill, overlooking the Onkaparinga Gorge and out towards Gulf St Vincent, named after the patron saint of grapegrowers—a very pleasant resting spot, I would have thought.

Driving past there in recent years, you can see that the church and the surrounding cemetery are not in as good a condition as they were back when it was a functioning church. I get it that in recent decades we have seen across most denominations a decline in the number of parishioners and churchgoers and that it has become harder and harder for those who are members of a church to be involved in working bees and weekly or monthly programs aimed at maintenance and keeping the gardens neat and tidy.

When someone picks their final resting spot, they do expect it to be forever and for someone not to be allowed to come in and buy up the cemetery and not honour agreements that were done by the deceased or their family members. I know a lot of people are very set on where they want their final resting place to be, and they predetermine it before they die—in many cases, they put it in their will as an instruction of where it is they want to be buried. You expect that to be forever or for at least the term of the lease you have on your particular plot.

I had an interesting experience just a few weeks ago. I drove around the corner from Seaview Road at West Beach into Stanhope Street. I was with a friend, the mother of a couple of really good mates of mine, Tim and Grant White, and I said to Patsy, 'This is my old house.' As I looked up, my house was not there anymore. The house I grew up in had gone and there was a for sale sign up for two blocks of land saying that they were going to subdivide it.

That hit me in an emotional sense—the place I lived from the age of 10 through until 20, where so many funny things happened, where so many life-changing things happened, and you can imagine that as a teenage boy there was a bit of action down there. Dad had a pool table and a big bar and he wanted all our mates to congregate at our place; if we were going to smoke cigarettes, we had to smoke his cigarettes so we were not getting any wacky tobacky. That is the sense you had of where you lived.

It was just 10 years of my life that were spent there, but they were very important 10 years. A lot of things got done in that 10 years and there were a lot of awesome memories. Then I thought about it, and I thought, 'Well, someone else is going to make their memories there in those two houses that will replace the one that we lived in in my teenage years.'

It is a bit different when you talk about real estate of the dead and the people who have picked their plot, picked where they want to spend their forever, and I think we need to protect those people because it is a lot different from a house or a subdivision. I support anything that will strengthen those ties and stop people coming in and changing what was the intent of a person or indeed the intent of the relatives and family of the person who has died.

We have an issue at the moment in McLaren Vale. The Uniting Church is selling a 2½ thousand square metre plot. There is an 1844 pioneer hall and graveyard on that site, right in the dead centre of McLaren Vale, and there are grave concerns about what is going to happen in the future with this cemetery.

Chris Cotton is from Harcourts Wine Coast Real Estate and is a good mate of mine, and I ran into him at the supermarket the other day. This issue exploded on Facebook when it came up; it is a real concern for people in the local area. He said that he might not be selling too many cemeteries into the future because he cannot get to a lot of other listings because his phone is running hot from people who have all sorts of questions about buying a cemetery. I think he said there are 40 or 48 plots still to be sold there, so it is actually a bit of a money-making concern for someone with the right sort of experience dealing in funerals.

I like the way that Chris has pointed out the issues quite publicly and openly in his advertising, and also in the editorial that The Advertiser ran a couple of weekends ago, where they have quoted Chris as saying that the property's new owner would also be required to adhere to government regulations regarding the care of cemeteries. Most important is that no-one can ever build on top of it or desecrate it in any way, and they have to keep it clean and tidy. Any future burials that have already been booked have to be honoured by whoever buys the property as well. He said that people with loved ones buried on the site would also be able to visit as they please.

I think he has done a very good job, but sometimes we do not know the intent of people who buy places like this who then try to do something that goes against the will of the people who are buried there and goes against what the people in the town would like. Obviously, cemeteries play a vital role in local communities. Scattered throughout Willunga and Aldinga are churches—there are two in Aldinga on either side of the road and both have little graveyards—and there are a couple of cemeteries at least in McLaren Vale that have been associated with churches and they mean a lot to the local people.

We can go and look at the names on the gravestones and see how they correspond with road names around the place or suburb names. At the Aldinga church there are people called Maslin buried there and, obviously, Maslin Beach was named after them. There are names like Sellick and Caffrey that you come across, and many others, that talk to the pioneers of our local area.

When you look at the Uniting Church block and cemetery that is for sale by Chris Cotton of Harcourts Wine Coast in McLaren Vale, it dates back to 1844. My great-great-great-grandfather came out on The Buffalo in 1836 with the pioneers who set up the colony. He had a beautiful plot of land in Partridge Street at Glenelg, but he thought he knew better and he swapped that for a block at Prospect Hill. He was going to find his fortune in gold prospecting but, of course, he did not come up with any gold. He had 15 kids and they used to go to McLaren Flat and do a lot of grape picking and things like that.

Back in 1844, some of the people that my great-great-great-grandfather was knocking about with probably ended up in the cemetery that Chris Cotton has for sale, and of course there have been hundreds of people who have followed after them who have been buried there, and they would all expect the sort of protections that we are looking to give them with the changes to the rules to make sure that we can do the very best by them and the very best by those who are to join them in the future.

There is a beautiful little cemetery in between McLaren Vale and Willunga called the Strout Road Cemetery. This year, we had a massive battle that went over a year—one that the government did not help us out with at all—to stop PFAS being dumped in the McLaren Vale wine region. It would have been a complete disaster if it had been approved. We rallied the community. Thousands of people signed petitions and 348 people turned up to a public meeting at Tatachilla Lutheran College in October last year. We really had the community behind us on that battle. We asked the government to step in and direct the EPA not to even consider this when we have an $850 million a year food, wine and tourism industry in the McLaren Vale region, one that employs thousands of people across hundreds and hundreds of small businesses.

We have a pretty strong feeling in our local area about protecting what we have. It is why we came up with the character preservation legislation that has locked in forever—unless the Liberal Party want to go in there with their developer mates and try to sneakily change things, because we know the Liberal Party were against this legislation when it went through. The Deputy Premier at the time said that this would bugger up everything.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, we are actually talking about cemeteries.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, and I am going to get to the point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will get to it?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Absolutely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It is a crescendo worth waiting for, Deputy Speaker. What I am about to say is a beautiful thing, a very emotional thing, and I just want to build the picture for everyone, those viewers at home watching the telecast of this wonderful session of the South Australian parliament House of Assembly proceedings in the green house on the World Wide Web.

We really care about our place, and one of the reasons why we are so strongly involved in fighting to protect what we have is someone who went before us, someone who was not only a leader in the wine industry but a leader in terms of protecting what it is that we have environmentally, whether that be stopping the subdivisions or whether it be protecting the groundwater from all sorts of attacks. That man is Greg Trott. Greg was the founder and owner of Wirra Wirra wines in McLaren Vale and very much loved by everyone.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, well, he would be very ashamed of the Liberal Party these days, of how they want to trample all over McLaren Vale. I am sure that he allowed you to have the meetings there because he wanted to educate you about how important our local area is and he wanted to—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: He was a great member.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: He was a very nice fella. He wanted to wrap his arms around you. Anyway, when we got news that the PFAS proposal had been knocked on the head by the Environment Protection Authority—something that our whole community had aimed for—the first thing I did was send out a message to a fair few people saying, 'Let's get to the pub at 4 o'clock.' So we went to the McLaren Vale pub.

On the way, I went and picked up Joe Petrucci, a very good friend of mine and someone who is passionate about protecting McLaren Vale. Joe was a neighbour of Greg Trott and loved Greg because he was one of those people who welcomed the Petrucci family into the area of McLaren Vale, and, of course, the Petruccis are held in the highest esteem

On the way to the pub, I picked up Joe half an hour early and said, 'Let's go around to Trotty's grave and have a little drink.' He was the person above all people who was the caretaker of the area of McLaren Vale. He was someone who inspired me and so many of us to aspire to protect and really look after the region. Even in death, we can go to graveyards and have a drink with our mates or spend time with them or pay tribute to those people who have done wonderful things.

That little Strout Road Cemetery is a place where so many people aspire to be. I know another great friend of Trotty's, Philip White, had a close encounter with cancer three Christmases ago now. He has had a couple of bonus Christmases, as we say. I sat down with him one night and we had a couple of local reds. I said, 'Well, Whitey, you are going to have to plan now. Do you want a burial or do you want cremation?' We worked it through and he said, 'Ooh, I want to go into that Strout Road Cemetery. Imagine being under the ground in there with Trotty.'

We talked a little bit further about what he wanted on his tombstone and he said, 'I saw this one once, and this is what I want on my tombstone.' He said that he wanted 'What are you looking at?' He said, 'When people go through the graveyard, they'll be able to have a bit of a laugh.'

There are some very funny tombstones around the place. One of my favourites is the one that says, 'I told you I was sick,' and someone else put, 'I was hoping for a pyramid.' These are not all in the Strout Road Cemetery; these are ones I have collected over the years. Mel Blanc, the LoonyTunes guy, who we all know as the voice of a thousand characters, what do you reckon he has on his? 'That's all folks!' Anyone who watched the cartoons would remember that was the final line. This one here I really like:

Uncle Walter loved to spend

He had no money in the end

But with many a whisky and many a wife

He really did enjoy his life.

Someone said on theirs, 'Reincarnating. I'll be right back.' Then in brackets they said, 'So don't touch my stuff.' Someone else said on their tombstone, 'I will not be right back after this message,' and another fellow, who died at 78, said, 'I was supposed to live to 102 and be shot by a jealous husband,' so his aspirations were not met.

Getting back to the point of this bill and my support of it, we really do need to offer every possible protection we can, because people can come in and buy up these cemeteries and do bad things, do things that were not the intended purpose of that particular piece of land when people asked be buried there or when their family decided that was where they were to be buried.

I go back to Millicent for funerals, hopefully not too often. It is where a lot of my family are buried: my grandparents on my dad's side are buried there, and we were back there towards the end of last year for the funeral of my godfather and uncle, Uncle Kevin. While you are there, you want to go around and have a look at where Nan and Pa Bignell and a few of those others are.

I had Dusty with me, and I told him to be careful, that he was not allowed to dig anywhere because, as much as we loved Nan and Pa Bignell, it has been 20 years for Pa and probably eight for Nan and we did not really want him digging them up. Dusty was good. He had a bit of a lick out of the fountains. He got a drink because there were some flowers and there was some water and he had a little drink out of that. It is a nice place to go and remember your loved ones, remember those people.

If people do not know, Dusty is my dog—Dusty the Kangaroo Island kelpie. He is on Facebook, he has his own beer called Dusty Draught and he is quite a character. He actually did a Facebook post from the cemetery saying, 'The old boy's told me I'm not allowed to dig anywhere here.'

We walked around and we saw lots of our relatives' gravestones. I had attended some of those funerals when I was six or seven, eight, nine or 10 years old. They really allow you to do that. I would hate for those people who have their loved ones in the Anglican church down at Old Noarlunga cemetery to go along there and find that something has happened to their loved ones or the gravestones of their loved ones. It is a very special connection.

You do hope that in death you will live on in people's memories but also that you will live on in a place where people can go. I think you would find that, in any town or suburb anywhere around South Australia, people do make pilgrimages to these places. People who are interested in the local history of a suburb or town or village can go and look at those who went before them, who played an important role in a community sense or in a leadership sense, or just in the sense that they were very much loved by their family. The kids, grandkids, great-grandkids and so on of those people can go back to those places and spend some quiet time giving thanks to their forebears, as well as others, whether they be related to them or not.

I really hope that as a parliament we can all come together on this and do the right thing by the dead, do the right thing by those of us who will be dead one day and by everyone who comes after us, that we give them the protection that in many cases the church cannot give them anymore because of the decrease in their congregations. It is really important, and I hope we can give those protections to people in the future.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:54): I also rise to speak on the Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill 2021 and I congratulate the government on bringing this issue to the parliament. As we have seen from a fairly well-publicised case of a cemetery not being protected and not being revered in an appropriate way in the outer southern suburbs, it is certainly my concern that this is something that will not be restricted to that one incident and that one location.

As you would be aware, as a member of parliament representing a regional constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many towns and communities across South Australia, both in metropolitan and in regional areas, where people have settled, particularly over the last 170 years or so. Over time, they have congregated together to establish a church in one of the various—predominantly, but not exclusively—Christian faiths in their area. They have erected a church and, of course, as members of the congregation have passed on, they have wanted to be buried in those locations.

You only have to look every so often at the stories that run in the local media, including in The Advertiser, about the current state of the real estate market, where there seems to be an increasing trend for people—particularly in regional South Australia, but not exclusively—rather than purchasing what we might regard as a more traditional home to instead purchase a church and presumably choose to renovate it and live in it. Of course, there are also others who choose to purchase these properties with more commercial intentions at heart.

While we have had this particularly well-publicised problem, this is something that is likely to continue. I would hazard a guess to say that perhaps most members, like me, were not aware of the current legal framework that applied to this particular problem and what the law allowed, what it precluded and what the penalties were for those activities that the law precluded. It is nice to get some additional stricture around this.

Of course, while many of us might think that most of those former church properties have either left the ownership of the church or that they have left the ownership of those organisations that had not just the responsibility but also the intention of maintaining these cemeteries, we should not rest assured that this will be the extent of this issue's frequency emerging in the community.

This is likely to happen more often. It is likely to impact more and more communities, particularly—and, as many including me would say, regrettably—as more and more people drift away from the church, even if they do identify as being religious or following a religion, let alone what was previously the dominant religion here in Australia and South Australia, that is, Christianity. That drift may continue to occur.

The capacity of churches to maintain the numerous assets they have will likely continue to diminish unless there is a sudden reversal of this trend. I do not think that many are expecting that to occur. With this problem well identified, now is of course the time for something to be done to better set some more contemporary community expectations around how this should be managed. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.