HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INTERMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading debate resumed.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:18): I also rise in support of this bill, and I commend the member for Davenport for bringing it before the house. I express my support on the basis that I am probably one of the few people in this chamber who has been a curator of cemeteries and a member of the Cemeteries Association of South Australia, on its executive.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. For those who are inquiring as to how I got that level of recognition, it was from previously being a local government CEO; one of the roles delegated to that position is to become a curator of cemeteries. I took a two-year appointment to the Cemeteries Association of South Australia on the basis that I had a particular interest in cemeteries. To me, they are sacrosanct. They are a place where our earthly remains should forever lie; I will always believe that. It concerns me that cemeteries are seen by some as a business opportunity—and they are. I understand the dilemma—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True; short-term tenancy—of being able to create facilities of a sufficient size to allow for the interment of all of our remains as we go through the generations of our society. It is an important issue to me. I will admit to the house that, if I am guilty of one thing, it is of deliberately putting something I knew to be wrong to one of the local government authorities I worked for: I put before the council a policy where interments would be in perpetuity—not just a 99-year or 25-year lease but in perpetuity—even though I knew that the legislation did not allow for it.

Mr Pengilly: When you're dead, you're dead.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True—and I was pleased that the council gave its support for that. After I left, I think the new CEO noted that what I had done was not quite kosher, and they have changed it a bit back to conform with what the legislation requires. However, at that stage, I managed to put a reasonably convincing argument to my elected members that we as a society have a responsibility to respect forever those who came before us and those who are interned in the cemeteries in our communities. It frustrates me where these 25-year lease options and that sort of thing exist and then you have the mass advertising of the leases that have expired and you attempt to contact the family members to either extend the lease or to—

The Hon. R.B. Such: And you never find them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And you never manage to find them. It is just physically impossible to do so, as the next generations move onwards, so I think this bill by the member for Davenport is a very sound one. The member for Fisher is correct that there are other issues attached to interments and the protection of our earthly remains that need to be pursued by this parliament but this bill is a step forward. It will give greater confidence to all of us that when our time comes we will be protected in the way that we should be.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:20): I rise to briefly indicate my support of the Local Government (Interment of Human Remains) Amendment Bill 2011 introduced by my colleague. It essentially was to provide for a criminal offence and a very significant fine if someone attempts to dispose of or inter in a burial process either remains or cremated human remains contrary to the regulations. So we already have quite a significant amount of law that deals with the lawful disposal of human remains and that is very important.

We also have another quarter of law which provides for where one can have the human remains disposed of and the importance of following the process if one wants to be buried outside of a registered facility, etc. It is an important aspect to cover a current problem. I agree with the member for Fisher that some more comprehensive consideration needs to be made of the provision of services of cemeteries. They are sacrosanct, as other members have said. They are matters that incite considerable passion in families. Not only do they fight over estates but they fight over how their loved one should be disposed of. It is a very passionate matter because it is usually undertaken at a time when there is an enormous amount of grief.

Just this week I have had to view a burial licence for a lady known to our family as Aunty Betty. Mrs Betty Everett passed away this week. She was very senior in years. She is no relation to me or my family by blood but, interestingly in another cemetery story, she first met my grandmother when my grandmother was burying her father at West Terrace and next to her was Mrs Everett's young brother being buried after trying to save somebody in the River Torrens from being drowned. He was posthumously recognised, I think at about the age of 12 years, by the Queen for his heroic attempt. Nevertheless, he lost his life.

On this day Aunty Betty met my grandmother and Aunty Betty Everett's family have been very close to us ever since. Indeed, she had two daughters one of whom has since passed away and a second daughter who is a special-needs person born with a disability of whom I am the legal guardian. I have remained, as our family has, in great friendship with this family over a number of years. I am indebted to Aunty Betty for all the wonderful things she did for our family and if in any way I can now support her grandchildren who are left and her daughter (who resides in supported accommodation here in South Australia and whom I will continue to support) then I will be very happy to do so and it will be my honour to do so.

What is important is that, when we are addressing these issues of the peaceful and loving disposal of our relatives or friends and laying them to rest, we do so in a manner which is protected by law and we have confidence that the law will protect them. If people are going to be given a 99-year lease or the like, then we must not have a situation where subsequent administrations in local, state or federal government—because they want to dig for gold or do a housing estate or anything else—should be able to interfere. It is very important I think that before other levels of government act in a manner which might disturb what is a reasonable expectation of a family or their descendants, then that should be respected.

Finally, we have opened up other areas of legislation, just in the time I have been here in the parliament, to dispose of the remains that were dug up accidentally at Glen Osmond, in a site that was opened for development. In fact, as they were progressing the development, they found the skeletal remains of persons, who, funnily enough, were believed to be possible relatives of mine, not because I am the local member, but who had been related to others from early settlers.

In any event, we had the assistance of the then attorney-general, who I really compliment (and I do not want to get into the habit of it, that is for sure). Although he took a long time to do it, he did finally present amendments to this parliament so that we could lawfully re-inter those remains after the relatives had decided that they would proceed with a cremation. There was no way that we could identify the bodies from the remains that were there, as there were no records of what was in a burial into a crypt back in the 1880s or thereabouts, and we had to change the law here in this place to enable the deceased to be re-interred.

There are times when we need to recognise that as a parliament we have a very important responsibility to make sure that we protect those who have lawfully a reasonable expectation of a continuum of the right to peaceful burial and interment without being disturbed. This bill, I hope, will serve as a reminder of the potential of a criminal conviction if one is to breach the regulations that are already in place to ensure that we have proper disposal and peaceful rest of our deceased loved ones.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT