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

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 June 2011.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:11): I support this measure. Members may have forgotten, but we had a select committee on cemeteries in this parliament, which I chaired. One of the recommendations was really what is embodied in this bill. At the moment a body that is going to be cremated has to be identified before it is cremated. Obviously, once someone is cremated it is very hard to work out who that person was.

At the moment, if someone is buried there is no required identification. In fact, at the time of the inquiry I was told on a visit to Centennial Park Cemetery that if you wanted to get rid of someone, you put them in a coffin, put a name on the coffin, and the cemetery—and they were talking generally, not about their own—would never query that. If you write 'Bloggs' on it, that casket would be buried as 'Bloggs', and no-one would ever know.

It was put to me that if you wanted to be unscrupulous you could get rid of people by doing that. I am not saying that it has happened, but I was told that it could be done. I think it is a sensible measure to require the body to be identified prior to burial to make sure that the name of the person who is being buried is correct, and so on.

On the broader issue, I have had a lot of dealings with the Attorney on this, and he is developing a new cemeteries act. It is not an easy task. It is a very emotional issue, a very difficult one. In the metropolitan area of Adelaide, in reality, there is no tenure for someone who is buried unless you are in the Jewish community, where they have got a special arrangement, or you are in maybe a church cemetery in the metropolitan area, where they have some long term view about someone being buried, remaining there forever. However, the rest, generally speaking, are there by virtue of a lease or licence, which, if not renewed, that body can be dug up. The euphemism is lift and deepen, which really means bringing in a backhoe, dig the bones up, and whack them down again, and whack them down hard with a backhoe.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, probably with a concrete lid, in my case. When people are making funeral arrangements, they naturally are not focused on the minute detail and what they sign, and so on, and they often do not fully absorb all the details. The reality is that, generally speaking, in the metropolitan area there is no permanency when it comes to burial. You are there by virtue of a relative paying a lease or licence fee, and if they do not renew it then you can be dug up and put down again and other people buried on top.

In the country areas, that still applies, but the reality is that I do not think that country councils are going to countenance lift and deepen if they want to remain in office. In a country town, if a council allowed gravesites to be dug up and then more people buried on top, I do not think that council would last beyond the next council election. So, it works by default in country areas that you have permanency, but in the metropolitan area you do not.

I encourage the Attorney to hopefully move speedily in terms of presenting the parliament with a cemeteries bill, which would, no doubt, incorporate what the member for Davenport wants, that is, identification before there is a burial. As I have said, it is a very emotive issue, and those members who were on the select committee will remember the emotion. I still have people coming to me who are not happy with the current system.

Some states have permanent tenure; South Australia does not. I think the only way you could get around it would be by having a levy, which I know would probably be as popular as leprosy. But if you had a small levy, you might get enough money to manage all of the gravesites and you would probably have to refund money to people who had paid for maintenance of a cemetery plot.

Anyway, I support this bill. I understand that the government may support it. I think it would be better if it were in a total package focusing on reform for the whole cemetery industry. Currently, we have the government-owned Adelaide Cemeteries Trust, and we have Centennial Park in the metropolitan area. Centennial Park is owned by the Unley and Mitcham councils, which are not entitled to any profit but are required to pay for any losses. However, I do not think that is going to happen in the case of Centennial Park.

There are some other issues that need to be addressed, namely, natural burial ground and new techniques, such as promession and other techniques, which will be substitutes for cremation in the future. I support this bill, but I would prefer to see it as part of a package of a total cemeteries reform bill introduced by the Attorney.

The SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, I am not sure that a concrete slab would be enough to keep you quiet!

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: If it were reinforced, Madam Speaker, it might.

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