Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

BURIAL AND CREMATION BILL 2001 (No. 127)

Second Reading

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the introduction of the Burial and Cremation Bill 2001 marks a change in approach to the regulation of burials and cremations in Tasmania. For the first time, burials and cremations, whether at a council, church or privately run facility, will be covered by the one statute. Currently, the Cremation Act 1934 regulates the establishment of crematoria, and regulations made under that act prescribe the authorisation required for a cremation.

Part 4 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 deals with cemeteries, and council cemeteries in particular. It should be noted that church cemeteries are subject to Part 4 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and any special acts establishing or regulating their particular religious organisation. The Southern Regional Cemetery Trust is not subject to Part 4 as it is set up and operates under the Southern Regional Cemetery Act 1981.

The bill before the House will consolidate the law relating to cremations and burials. It will cover the establishment and operation of all cemeteries and crematoria, whether operated by councils, churches or private enterprise. Although the bill will retain many of the traditional powers required to manage cemeteries and crematoria, it will provide comprehensive statute law reflecting a more modern and flexible approach to crematorium and cemetery management.

The bill will repeal the Cremation Act, and Part 4 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. It will also amend a number of the provisions of the Southern Regional Cemetery Act so as to make the Trust subject to the new act, in line with other cemetery and crematorium authorities.

I should emphasise that the bill will also recognise the changing needs of our modern multicultural community. Community attitudes to the disposal of human remains have changed markedly over the years. For example, cremation is now the preferred choice of disposal of human remains for the majority of the population where this option is readily available.

The bill also provides clarification in regard to above-ground burials in mausoleums. There is a substantial demand within Tasmania's migrant and ethnic community for this burial custom. An Australian standard is now available for the design and construction of mausoleums and this ensures that public health issues are adequately addressed.

The Tasmanian community recognises the very important role cemeteries play in our cultural heritage and the need to value and protect them. The Tasmanian Heritage Council registers cemeteries that have social and spiritual meaning to both local communities and the broader society.

The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 establishes the process for the protection and management of historically significant cemeteries. Cemeteries may be the resting places of notable individuals, such as the Christ Church graveyard at Illawarra near Longford, where famous Australian artist Tom Roberts is buried. They may also recall and remind us of historical events such as disasters. For example, the Queenstown cemetery contains a memorial to the 1912 North Lyell mine disaster victims.

In addition to spiritual and community values, cemeteries provide valuable insights into aspects of the past. Through the design of headstones and monuments, cemeteries show changes in taste and style, and how attitudes towards death have changed. In essence, cemeteries have heritage significance because they are social records. They add to our understanding of our historical past, contribute to our sense of place and are an important social and scientific resource which demonstrate the development of Tasmanian society.

Regulations made under the bill will, therefore, include measures to complement the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 and to ensure that the cultural values of cemeteries are appropriately respected. The bill also provides protection for the conduct of cultural burial practices and ceremonies absent from the existing legislation. These aspects of the bill have the strong support of the migrant and ethnic community and the Government is pleased that the bill will provide surety for grieving families from these communities.

The bill also includes provisions to enable Aboriginal cremations to occur on Aboriginal land. The Government first provided for traditional Aboriginal burials and cremations in the Aboriginal Lands Amendment Bill 1999. Although the Legislative Council subsequently rejected that bill, the Legislative Council Select Committee on Aboriginal Lands considered the issue and concluded that Aboriginal burials and cremations, as prescribed in that bill, should be permitted. The Government recognises that Aborigines have different values, perceptions, social structures, spirituality and beliefs from Europeans. These form the core of Aboriginal identity and are based on cultural values, contemporary social position, shared history and current experiences.

As I said earlier at the time of the handover of Wybalenna to the Aboriginal community, the Government is seeking to address some of the broader aspirations of the Aboriginal community. Recognition of the right of the Aboriginal community to conduct traditional cremations on Aboriginal land is another step towards self-determination for this community. Enabling the Aboriginal community to conduct Aboriginal cremations and burials demonstrates that this Government recognises the rights of Aborigines to practise their culture. The bill therefore enables Aboriginal cremations to occur on Aboriginal land. Approval from the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania to conduct cremations on Aboriginal land will be required, along with the approval of the Director of Public Health for use of the site for cremations. In addition, a person wishing to conduct an Aboriginal cremation will be required to comply with the new regulations and obtain the necessary medical certificates and permit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill has not been prompted by any particular problems in the funeral industry or in the management of cemeteries or crematoria. However, there has been a general recognition by the industry that there was a need to replace the somewhat old-fashioned and disjointed nature of the existing legislation. The bill introduces a negative licensing principle to provide for the regulation and control of cemetery and crematorium operators and persons dealing with the transport, storage and handling of human remains. This means that existing operators will be able to continue to manage their businesses. However, in the event that it becomes necessary or appropriate, in addition to convicting a person of an offence under this act, a magistrate can make an order to prohibit that person continuing as a cemetery or crematoria manager or from operating a prescribed business.

New operators will be required to notify the Director of Local Government of their entry into the industry. A magistrate can uphold an objection to that person managing a cemetery, crematorium or prescribed business in the very rare circumstance that it is not in the public interest for that person to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the review of existing legislation was not prompted by any problems in the industry. A review of the Cremation Act 1934 was necessary under the National Competition Policy implementation agreement. Although the potential restriction on competition was considered minor, the need for a review provided an opportunity to bring in new legislation that reflected the modern needs of our multicultural society.

Mr Michael Hodgman - They go everywhere don't they? The National Competition Policy goes everywhere. There's nothing sacred.

Mr JIM BACON - Well at least they found there were minor impacts on competition in relation to burials and cremations.

The review was undertaken by a working party convened by the Local Government Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The working party included representation from all key industry and stakeholder groups and the working party recommendations have formed the basis of amendments to the legislation proposed within this bill.

The legislative review did recommend that the granting of an exclusive right of burial in perpetuity in cemeteries should be discontinued, with limited tenure being renewable for a period of not less than 25 years. An exclusive right of burial is a right to be interred at some future date in a particular plot or portion of a cemetery. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has not accepted this recommendation. It is the Government's view that the Tasmanian community is not ready for such a change.

We have continued the current practice of allowing for an exclusive right of burial in perpetuity or an exclusive right of burial for 25 years with an opportunity for renewal. This approach offers a choice for families in deciding funeral arrangements. This legislation minimises the potential regulatory impact on business by removing a separate approval requirement for the establishment and approval of new cemeteries or crematoria. So long as a proposed cemetery or crematorium can meet normal land-use planning requirements separate approvals will not be required under this legislation. The land-use planning and development application processes include steps that require public health considerations to be addressed.

Much of the old legislation was based around the premise that only a council operated a public cemetery. Such an approach is not consistent with modern-day cemetery operation and the bill, therefore, makes no distinction between a council, a church, a private company or individual or corporation when it comes to the duties or responsibilities of a cemetery operator.

The bill also provides simpler processes to deal with full, disused or closed cemeteries, but ensures that land in which human remains have been interred will continue to be protected and afforded due dignity.

Regulations to be made under the bill are well advanced. Another working party representing major stakeholders has been assisting in the development of the three sets of regulations. One set of regulations will provide for the appropriate transport, storage and handling of human remains. This will be focused on ensuring an outcome-based requirement that these activities must not involve any risk to public health or public safety. The other sets of regulations will deal with the management of cemeteries and cremations.

The bill also provides clarification in regard to processes for the burial of the bodies of deceased persons other than in approved cemeteries. There is occasionally a request for a burial outside of approved cemeteries on private land or at sea. The bill provides an approval framework that will ensure reasonable identification, certification and public health-related preconditions are met.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill provides choice to individuals and families, flexibility to cemetery and crematorium operators and persons dealing with the bodies of deceased human beings, and caters for and protects cultural burial practices. It provides a much-needed updating of the legislation dealing with the disposal of human remains in Tasmania and will, I believe, serve the Tasmanian community well into the 21st Century.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for the information of members, but understand these amendments have been circulated to the relevant people in the Opposition and with the Greens, it is my intention to move amendments to clauses 39, 51 and 54 during the committee stages. I understand that those amendments have been made available to the Opposition and the Greens and perhaps if Mrs Napier can indicate whether in fact she has had -

Mrs Napier - I have only just got hold of them, I must admit.

Mr JIM BACON - This debate will no doubt be going for a while but if there is any way I can assist with that over lunch I will be more than happy to. These amendments are not in any way fundamental issues in the bill if you like. They are certainly, in relation to 51, about an authorised officer having the power to enter any crematorium or cemetery for the purposes of the act. And 39 gets an amendment to the effect that the Chief Magistrate may authorise a reopening of a grave of a deceased person whose death has been the subject of an investigation under the Coroners Act.

Clause 54 is essentially a machinery one to ensure the smooth operation of the bill and the act. As I said, Mrs Napier, if you wish, if this debate is continuing past lunchtime, certainly I can make the officers available to discuss it with you then, otherwise if there is a serious problem to you we could adjourn the debate for that to happen. However, Mr Speaker, having outlined those amendments, I will be moving those in the committee stage and I do commend the bill to the House.

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - Mr Speaker, as I understand, what we have here is an instance of really tidying up some legislation that deals with burials and cremations. I also note that it picks up one of the issues that I think everybody basically agreed with, that it should be possible to provide somehow for traditional Aboriginal cremations on Aboriginal land. There was never any argument about that one certainly on my part nor, I think, from any other member on this side of the House. As you quite correctly say, the Legislative Council select committee also came down in favour of allowing for the Aboriginal community to follow more traditional means by which they might be able to conduct traditional cremations. Given that I also detect that there is no opposition to that generally within the community, it seems that at least that is something we can move forward with. As you say within your notes, it is a step towards self-determination for those communities that are involved.

I only have some general questions to ask on the way through. I have some questions, given that I note this legislation allows for, and certainly recognises, that there is certainly a move towards a preference for cremation. I think that is increasingly occurring and I know on the north-west coast, with having watched that fairly contentious debate about the establishment of the crematorium in Ulverstone, that that has made a real difference to the north-west coast in terms of the options that are available We have had upgraded facilities, I think, that are being provided in both the north and south - certainly the south. That is a choice that many are making.

It also seems to allow for not only the location of remains within parkland settings, within gardens, within appropriate walls and so on, it is much easier to maintain and certainly over time, beyond the immediate family who might otherwise have cared for and looked after the much larger burial plots, it also recognises that given the demands with migrant and ethnic communities there is increasing interest in above-ground burials in mausoleums. When you visit the southern cemetery at Cornelian Bay you are really struck by the significant plots where there are a number of mausoleums.

It is quite right and appropriate that we try to find means by which people can dispose of human remains in a way that is consistent with their culture. I certainly have no objection to that, in fact I would be interested as to what the figures are that show what the percentage trend is in relation to the move towards crematoriums as against traditional burial in the European sense of being buried in the ground, as well as the trend towards being placed within mausoleums. I am conscious that you are indicating an Australian standard is available for the design and construction of mausoleums but, given that it is above ground, I always do wonder about what the long-term maintenance issues are associated with using such designs. It would seem perhaps that the public health issues are highlighted even more so.

While we are talking about that, I also note that it is possible to make private arrangements for the disposal of human remains and that there is a process by which in this bill you can apply to - I forget which section of the act it is now, section 41 I think - where you can be interred other than in a cemetery. I notice that in that section it particularly relates to the fact that you need to get written permission of the land-holder and the general manager of the council. I have flagged here I have a question, and it may well be covered further within the bill: are there any particular requirements as to what is to be asked of in terms of the maintenance of that burial site when the land is sold and you might have a new landowner? There might be a very simple answer to that.

I am also aware of a trend particularly with the move towards cremation for people to dispose of the dust of their relatives in quite a variety of ways. I know of some very close friends who, for example - I have mixed feelings about it actually - this particular person had such close ties with Tasmanians that half of the dust was dispersed in Victoria and half of the dust was disposed of in Tasmania. I know we are just talking about dust - dust to dust as it might always have come from - but I guess there is a mechanism for officially dealing with that or do we just turn a blind eye to those kind of instances? I know of people who have very strong affinities to Mount Roland, for example, who have gone up into the peaks of Cradle Mountain and thrown the dust to the wind because that is as exactly as the person requested within the guidance they gave to the family as to what should happen to them.

I know of other instances where the person's dust has been cast upon the waters of rivers and it may well be covered in some sense but I cannot see where because it mostly talks about landowners. Do people need approval to throw the remains in the sea, throw them into a river, a creek, from a mountain top that is owned by everyone? There is really a question about that because I thought it was quite appropriate. I am sure that a lot of people do not do that because most people like to know that is the spot where the remains of their forefathers are buried. I have just become aware of quite a number of instances where this is happening and I suppose in this debate it is not unreasonable to ask a question about what the procedures for that might be.

I think an important part of this act is to ensure that whatever is done is consistent with the tremendous reserve that we have of built heritage within this island of Tasmania. One of the advantages of slow development is that we have maintained a great deal of what history has left, be it in terms of the form of buildings or cemeteries. When I was a teacher in my very early years I had an itinerant job first up, in fact a couple of times -

Mr Jim Bacon - A gravedigger?

Mrs NAPIER - Not exactly a gravedigger, but I worked part-time at the Launceston Teachers College and part-time as an itinerant physical education teacher moving around the north and my responsibility was to help schools set up programs for physical education and sport. So you would go to small towns all over the north of Tasmania - down the east coast, to Derby, Campbell Town, Ross, Longford, Westbury - you name it. I have visited the cemeteries because I always found it was a really interesting way to find out a great deal about the history of that community. Evandale is a fascinating cemetery to walk through and in fact if you go through Bothwell and some of the midlands areas they are fascinating.

Mr Llewellyn - I do.

Mr Jim Bacon - He's another one.

Mrs NAPIER - Do you? In fact I have always been a strong supporter of tourism and I have often thought, 'Wouldn't it be wonderful if local communities could find some way by which they could help visitors share in the history of their town', because I think towns in themselves and communities have an important history in their own right. Would it not be wonderful if you could have guided tours of cemeteries. Of course we have them now and when you go through a cemetery you can have a look at how young people were when they died. When you go to Flinders or Maria Island you can see the instances where people have died in shipwrecks, or of disease that has run rampant through young people. I was thinking of the area of Sheffield, where many people died because of horse-and-cart accidents and in fact sometimes major slices of families would be knocked out because of one horse-and-cart accident.

In fact, I have an ancestor who is buried at Lorinna, not in a cemetery per se, although it might have been an old cemetery quite possibly. Both Dan and his wife are buried up there at Lorinna and I quite often go up there because I know that is where some of my forefathers grew up. They grew potatoes and took out timber and I went up with my grandparents to swim in the river before it became a dam and all those kinds of things, but I was always amazed that here was this meticulously cared for and built grave to the Wylies who were up there. In fact, every time I see the back of a Metro bus I see my grandfather passing by me - he is so much a Wylie it is just incredible and I keep looking at it and thinking I do not really know enough about his past and I must find out more about it but boy, was he a Wylie.

Mr Llewellyn - I'll have a look when I go up next week.

Mrs NAPIER - Good.

It is not just significant persons. Certainly significant persons are part of the highlight of a cemetery I suppose but it is broader than that; it tells a history, not about the person necessarily but the community and I think it is important that this act acknowledges and recognises that. I was interested in the steps that are to be taken in relation to disposing of old cemeteries and the problems that arise when the people in charge of running the cemeteries do not have the financial wherewithal to be able to maintain them.

One of the current debates that relate to that would be Ockerby Gardens. I must say I shared some of the concerns of the people of the west coast whose forebears are buried there when I became aware that the depth of the helipad was going to impact on the grave sites, given that there were multiple burials. When I agreed to that bill going through this House, I obtained the assurance that this would not in any way impact upon the persons in those plots and that was the reason, given that I think it is an advantage to have a helipad in close proximity to the LGH -

Mr Jim Bacon - The headstones were removed some time ago long before, weren't they?

Mrs NAPIER - Absolutely. I am not talking about the headstones and I think it is very sad that we now know that many of the headstones were just destroyed. As I understand it, this act at least requires that if a headstone is in reasonable condition and you can read it, even if it is faint, it must be maintained, it just needs to be relocated in some appropriate spot. In fact, even in discussing that, one of the pleasures I have often had is walking around St David's Park and I walk up near the flowerbeds where you can read some of the headstones there and I think that in itself adds interest and is a recognition that that person was an individual who had a life and at least in some sense there is a small recognition of that life.

I will ask some questions as to exactly what we think this means in terms of existing cemeteries. Do we have a number of identified cemeteries in various communities around Tasmania that we know cannot be adequately maintained?

I have asked the Local Government Association of Tasmania whether they are comfortable with this bill. They said they were. There had been a lot of consultation regarding this bill over a period of time, trying to sort this whole area out, and they had no concerns. So I suppose my question is - and I accept that in the good faith that advice is provided - are we aware of the concerns that councils - and I use the plural - might have in relation to the viability of some of the small cemetery plots that they may now be responsible for? It might even be large cemetery plots, I suppose. Are we aware of moves or intentions by councils or other cemetery owners to redevelop these into parks? Are we aware of cemeteries that are proposed to no longer be used for cemeteries, and if so how many and where, that might be turned into parklands or that might be turned even into development plots, or that might be just sold to be available to be bought by anyone for whatever purpose that might be?

I guess it is a question of backlog, how much of a problem it is. I note in the bill that if there is an intention to no longer use an area as a cemetery, you have to give at least 12 months' notice and you have to advertise at least three times, I think from recollection. It might be slightly different in the detail when I look at that specific section, but it seems to me that it would be very important to try to ensure that people, as much as possible, who have people interred within that cemetery have an opportunity to at least be aware of that. I could not think of anyone who would be significantly opposed to turning an area into more of a parkland setting, although I suppose if we look at the move towards mausoleums you might say there are quite a few instances where major physical structures may well need to be changed.

I think of the very large settings over the burial plots of my own ancestors up in the Sheffield cemetery. They are very large. A number of times they have been subject to vandalism, and it costs a heck of a lot of money to fix them up, and I think one of them is particularly tackled because it is such an imposing plot. We do not mind paying, but there may be others who do, and sometimes cemeteries are subject to vandalism.

Mr Jim Bacon - They could be destroyed.

Mrs NAPIER - Yes, some of them are and if the families are not looking after them, then it is a question of who might be responsible. From my point of view, I would just as soon, within reason, put them into parkland rather than otherwise.

While we talk about this, it has been drawn to my attention that in Japan they actually drill a hole and they bury them top down to be able to reduce the space.

Mr Jim Bacon - Standing up.

Mrs NAPIER - The thought of standing on my feet for the rest of my life really -

Mr Jim Bacon - Not your life actually, Sue, it's longer than that!

Mrs NAPIER - My existence, anyhow. It has some interesting implications, but then again I do not think I would like to be on my head for the rest of the time. I guess you can guess already I am someone who wants to go to a crematorium, I have no wish at all to go any way other than -

Mr McManus - It's now in Hansard .

Mrs NAPIER - It is in Hansard , absolutely, and I have made it very clear to my family as well.

I guess I would ask - and it may be possible to get a little bit of information about what is the current assessment as far as Ockerby Gardens is concerned, and really taking on board the concerns, as I indicated, of people who have ancestral burial plots there within which there are multiple bodies. They said they did not believe the records were right about how deep those bodies were, and they believe the helipad would impact on some of those bodies. That really worried me, that if in fact the information we were provided with when we passed that legislation was wrong, and I would just, for the sake of those families too, want a reassurance that their concerns are not well founded and, most importantly, that this has been thoroughly investigated because otherwise I suppose we are looking at reinterment to another appropriate area.

As far as the bill is concerned overall, it seems to be a sensible one. I will have a question about how active the role of the Director of Public Health might be. That issue comes up even in relation to the cremations that are conducted on Aboriginal land and was the only question I ever had in my mind and certainly it was asked of me by the public what the standards of health would be. What implications would there be in terms of how the cremations might be conducted as they relate to public health? I certainly flag that one because it is an issue that I would like to raise, although I am sure it can be worked through.

It seems to be a bill that brings together into the one act the more modern legislation that deals with the disposal of human remains. It will also allow for the recognition of multicultural practices of various communities and also of the Aboriginal community. It addresses some of the concerns that local government might have in relation to the issue and it also picks up the fact that those cemeteries in themselves are part of our heritage and they can be used to advantage as much as they might be seen otherwise to be a cost.

Ms PUTT (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be supporting this bill on behalf of the Greens. I would like to say at the outset that I am particularly pleased to see the provisions for traditional Aboriginal burials and cremations contained in this bill; the same provisions that were originally in the Aboriginal Lands Amendment Bill 1999. I think it is very important as part of our process of reconciliation, of moving forward as a society that recognises and embraces the cultural and spiritual beliefs of the range of our citizens that we do make sure that we have provisions that do recognise the cultural practices of the Aboriginal community in Tasmania. To enable Aboriginal cremations to occur on Aboriginal land of course is absolutely vital and fundamental to that.

I am also interested in the aspect of the heritage significance of cemeteries and the social record that cemeteries can provide. I stay in West Hobart at a house opposite an area which is an old Hobart cemetery and during recent work some burial sites were discovered that were not expected to be there and I know that just down the road at the Housing Commission area that is being demolished there is a similar situation with, I think, the Jewish burials -

Mr McManus - Windsor Court.

Ms PUTT - that are now being uncovered and appropriately dealt with as a result. So it is an important aspect, the heritage and social record aspect of burial and cremation.

I wanted to raise something which is not explicit here in the second reading speech and that is that a lot of the old cemeteries of Tasmania, particularly in the rural areas, are also important refugia of threatened plant species and that the management of these areas needs to be aware of that fact also. Often that is because these areas -

Mr Jim Bacon - Have you any examples of that, Peg?

Ms PUTT - Yes. My understanding is that in quite a few of the midland towns you will find that the areas surrounding the churches where there are burial grounds are really significant for endangered flora and that is often because the rest of the surrounding area has undergone much more significant change in terms of being ploughed up and regularly farmed or something like that and so the plant species have become confined to areas that are less regularly disturbed and so the cemeteries are actually areas where quite frequently plant species are found which are thought to be extinct and then they discover them just in the corner of a graveyard somewhere.

The importance of recognising that is to make sure that people do not go in willy-nilly saying, 'Hey, let's clean this place up and get in there with a dose of Roundup not recognising that what they might clean up could be one of the last examples of a little native flower or grass that has become confined to that area. I just wanted to again take the opportunity to highlight that.

The other area where we see these things is along the sides of the railway tracks and some of the roadside verges, again where they have been somewhat insulated from regular farming practices that might have turned over the soil more regularly or had a different grazing pattern or something and so all of these refugia are extremely important and it is important how they are managed.

I know that there have been some very exciting discoveries over the last decade in some of these country churchyards in respect of those threatened plant species and it needs to be taken into account along with the whole cultural heritage aspect so there is actually a natural heritage aspect as well, interestingly, to be seen in some of these areas.

I guess it has been my hope that we would be able to promote the significance of that to the congregations for those churches into the communities in those areas because I think that is the best way that we are going to ensure the ongoing protection of that particular habitat in those circumstances.

I do not really want to go on at length about this bill. It seems eminently sensible and timely to me that we should consolidate the legislation in this way. I had one question I wanted to ask: I have not had the opportunity yet to get a briefing. This has to do with time constraints and the fact that I have been doing something else for the last half hour. I simply wondered about the capacity for people to choose to be buried somewhere other than in the normal graveyard should they so wish. I know I once attended a funeral where the person was buried on their family property and I just wanted to understand whether or not that sort of practice is going to be allowed.

Mrs Napier - Yes and the property could be, if they're the landowner and probity hasn't been established -

Mr Jim Bacon - Yes, I've got an answer.

Ms PUTT - Anyway I would be interested in that because I know there are some people who have a particular favourite place which is where they want to be buried and where their family wants them to be and all the rest of it.

I would just like to make sure what the situation is there.

Mr McMANUS (Franklin) - First of all we recognise that this bill is a good bill because it does a number of useful things. The first, I guess, is it consolidates a number of different regulations into one act. I have no doubt that in part it was driven by national competition policy principles and we see that by the fact that in the south of Tasmania anyway the Southern Regional Cemetery Trust is being wound up but the effect of that, I think, will be a positive one in that we are going to see a more flexible set of arrangements for people seeking burials and/or cremations.

The comment that I would particularly like to endorse as made earlier by my colleague, Mrs Napier, was the issue of the protection and in one sense promotion of multicultural values and providing a range of alternatives. I know that the Catholic cemetery at Pontville in recent times has played a particularly prominent role in the Italian community because of the options that it allowed and particularly with reservations for family plots. So there are a whole range of values which need to be reflected in a bill such as this and I believe those values are reflected. Previous speakers have raised the issue of our social history and those historical values which are important to us all.

A question that I have is similar to questions that Mrs Napier raised earlier along the lines that after 25 years if a cemetery is not being used then it can be closed. My question would be what happens after it is closed? Is anyone held responsible for its long-term maintenance? Does the land use of that particular plot change? As I understand it in the past once a particular site was designated as a cemetery then that was it for all time. So I would just be curious to know what the implications of this bill might be in that regard.

Certainly I think it is a good thing that now provided they comply with the relevant guidelines anyone can operate a cemetery and there are - I suppose this is a little bit too commercial for the topic - but there are many commercial opportunities for various types of service provisions that this bill I think will promote. I endorsed the comments that were made earlier about the desirability of allowing indigenous Aboriginal cremations on Aboriginal land. I would like to know though what regulations need to be complied with in order for that to go ahead. I mean when cremations for instance are performed in a contemporary and modern sense there are strict guidelines which apply to the furnaces, operating temperatures, emissions. There is a whole range of very strict standards.

If, as I would expect that there would be, a different set of standards would apply in this particular case where we are talking about indigenous cremations on indigenous land, I would like to know what limitations there are; what measures are in place, for instance, to deal with sensitivities of say surrounding landowners, how those sensitivities are dealt with, whether or not these things can occur on any land identified as Aboriginal land. I mean whether it be a rural area or a semi-urban area. I also acknowledge the point that was made and I have this as a note also:

the issue of non-indigenous burials on non-indigenous land.

Ms Putt coughing .

Mr McMANUS - Sorry, you were coughing. I thought you were laughing. That is -

Mrs Napier - What about floating bodies down rivers? Do the Indians still do that?

Mr McMANUS - There is a real case for that and I think that provided the guidelines have been drawn up appropriately, people, indigenous or non-indigenous, ought to have the same access. I do not think we should be so presumptuous as to assume that there would be non-indigenous people that would not have a particularly strong view about where it is that they wanted to be buried. While I accept the distinction I certainly would like to hear how those two issues are dealt with.

Just on the issue of cremated remains, I am assuming that under the new bill the same kind of provisions would apply and that is, with cremated remains there is a great deal of flexibility in terms of how those remains are disposed. I have been on the back of my friend's family yacht as we have scattered cremated remains down the Derwent on the favourite Sunday yachting route. Equally, people who feel very strongly about their gardens and their rose bushes or apple trees or whatever else, up until now have only had the opportunity to be cremated and have their remains disposed of. There are occasions where there is a conflict between the personal beliefs of the individual; not all people, still to this day, believe that it is acceptable from their perspective to be cremated, therefore the chances for disposal of their human remains are or were historically more limited.

I guess what I am seeing from the amendment bill that is before the House is a whole range of positive outcomes in terms of levels of service provisions, in terms of legislative consolidation and in terms of the potential for better options for the future. How historical values, our social history is to be protected and particularly once this legislation is in place, it will be interesting to see to some extent whether it fragments tomorrow's social history. In other words, if we went back to the 1800s we would know that wherever there was a country church there would almost certainly be a country graveyard. The tour aspects and the opportunities to go back and get a sense of what life was like back then are activities enjoyed by many. I wonder, if we provide the additional flexibility in 2002, whether or not people living in 2052 or, say, 2102 will be able to make the same kind of reconstructions.

The final question I have is one about how, if burials are allowed, say, in residential areas - not so much residential but semi-residential areas, appropriately large-sized, appropriately marked blocks and all the rest of it, if that will be allowed or even if it is in rural areas, will the local councils be able to have the final power of saying, 'Yes, you can do that' or 'No, you can't'? It would seem to me that there needs to be some consistency in terms of the way -

Mr Jim Bacon - It's always appealed in the RPDC anyway, isn't it?

Mr McMANUS - It is just a question, Mr Premier, that can come out in committee: whether or not the plots have to go through. It might be, perhaps it is, that they go through the normal planning approval system. There is a due process that is applied similar to that of residential subdivisions or change of use or whatever, I do not know. It is just a question and I would like to have explained to me how that kind of consistency will work in a statewide context so that people basically are dealt with in an even-handed manner.

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support for this bill. I think the debate has shown that there is genuine interest in this issue. Sometimes you think you go from the sublime to the ridiculous in this place, from question time to a debate about burials and cremations, but I think the contributions of members do bear out what I said in the second reading speech to the effect that people's attitudes in relation to burials and cremations have changed and having modern legislation that not only consolidates in existing laws but does allow for the change in public attitudes and particularly specific groups in the community and their concerns, I think, is a very important step forward. I am grateful for the support in relation to Aboriginal cremations, which I do understand was present when I introduced the original legislation which subsequently floundered in the Legislative Council. However, I do recall members in this House supporting that aspect of the legislation, as they did in the upper House. I think that is positive as well. Support for the cultural practices of various ethnic group s in relation to above-ground mausoleums I think is really a long overdue provision.

Some questions were asked about the extent of cremations compared with burials. Mrs Napier, just as an example and this relates to Cornelian Bay, the Southern Regional Cemetery Trust, I would be very surprised if there were substantial variations from this in other parts of the State. It would seem to me it is a social view that people have and it is highly unlikely to vary greatly between different parts of the State. Currently at Cornelian Bay 85 per cent are cremations and now only 15 per cent interments. A mausoleum has been erected and all 32 places have already been sold, so an extension of the mausoleum is proposed.

Ms Putt, Mr McManus and I think Mrs Napier asked in relation to interment outside a cemetery. Yes, there are exceptions. It is not compulsory for people to be interred in a cemetery. The first exception is an interment on private land. This will be allowed but the person arranging the interment will need the approval of the landowner, obviously, the approval of the Director of Public Health and the approval of the general manager of the council. The approval of the landowner must be accompanied by a plan showing the exact location of the proposed grave - again, for obvious reasons - and of any other graves. A record of the proposed grave is noted on any section 337 certificate issued in relation to land - and that goes to title searches and things. That would ensure that in any title search being done for a prospective purchaser, the council would be required to notify on a title search that there were one or more human remains interred on the private land.

It will be expected that a person expressing a desire to be buried on private land will have to make prior arrangements as the necessary approvals cannot be effected within a reasonable time of death because of obviously Public Health, private landholder, notification of the council and so on. Provision is intended to address burials on rural properties and public health considerations are not expected to allow burials on private land in built-up areas. So clearly it is the situation mainly pertaining to people who live in rural areas with larger properties and we do respect the wishes of people. In some cases, as Mrs Napier was talking about, there have been many generations of the same family where that property has been in the hands of that family over generations and certainly we would not want to do anything to change that. As Ms Putt pointed out, there are people who wish to be interred, for whatever reason, in particular places and provided they have the necessary approvals they can do that.

Interpretative material will emphasise - that is, interpretative material issued by the Local Government Office and local government - the careful consideration that needs to be given to some issues such as assured future access to the grave site when contemplating burial on private land and burial at sea may be permitted by the Director of Public Health subject to conditions as it has been in the past.

The bill places no restrictions on the disposal of ashes and without wanting to be too light-hearted about this matter which I know is a serious issue - of course people have sensitivities about it - but I did recently see a program on television about the death of Frank Zappa, as the leader of the Grateful Dead and I must say that some of the antics that went on with his ashes - whether or not it was in accordance with his wishes, I do not think it is the sort of thing that people would want to see arising out of this bill. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that their methods of disposal of the ashes had more to do with other activities they engage in perhaps than respectful - no, they thought it was very respectful disposal of his ashes.

Ms Putt - Oh, no.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - No examples.

Mr JIM BACON - I just gave her one but I do not wish it to be on the record. I certainly do not want to explain what it was except that it seemed to me to be a most bizarre episode.

That may well have been the wishes of the family but clearly there are sensitivities in the wider community as well as on that occasion which again involved a show business personality and perhaps in Hollywood that is all a bit different but there were huge arguments at the time about who was going to do what with the ashes and subsequently much of them just disappeared off into the breeze which may well have suited Frank Zappa. Certainly the argument is going on between the people left behind. I can understand why he would be glad to be away from them.

Talking more seriously -

Mr McManus - Was that free-to-air cable or a video?

Mr JIM BACON - It might have been on pay television.

But generally speaking the bill places no restrictions on disposal of ashes and we certainly recognise there are many people who now ask for their ashes to be either disposed of at sea or on particular bits of land.

Mr McManus raised an interesting question really about what history we will be able to see in the future about modern practices. I have to say if 85 per cent of people who die are currently being cremated - I know in my family experience, my father was cremated in 1962 and my sister cremated in 1994 and as far as I am aware there are rose bushes, one at Springvale Crematorium for my father and one at Bendigo for my sister but they are in no way distinguished from any other rose bush and that to me - I have no wish to visit those places but I understand that other people do like to visit grave sites of family members and so on but in fact there is no record in those places. They are fairly anonymous by their nature and even if there is a plaque with a particular name and the dates, birth and death, on there is certainly not the wealth of information that has been available particularly from the nineteenth century, early twentieth century on the gravestones that Mrs Napier was describing.

She mentioned the gravestones which are currently in St David's Park on the wall at the rear of the Supreme Court -

Ms Putt - As a result of a boating accident and all this sort of thing.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes. I know Minister Llewellyn is another who is a regular visitor to cemeteries. I should point out this is entirely in daylight hours; he does not visit them after midnight or anything. He shares the interest Mrs Napier has which I do as well because I think there is an enormous amount of social history. Just the fact that you look at these old graves, the number of children who died not just as infants but in their first 10 to 12 years of life is staggering for us who live in modern times where, well for a start there is a much lower maternity death rate and a much longer life expectancy for everyone. All around Tasmania there are gravestones recording particular maritime disasters, losses at sea -

Mr JIM BACON - Mr Speaker, returning to the Burial and Cremation Bill, I have a couple more comments about the amendments that I have given notice I am going to move. I think the only outstanding questions were that Mr McManus asked about the closure of cemeteries and I think some of Mrs Napier's comments were also relevant to this.

The bill will continue the various powers of cemetery managers to close a cemetery. The manager of a council or the Director of Public Health may temporarily or permanently close a cemetery or part thereof that is prejudicial to public health or public safety. The bill provides that the manager may sell unused portions of the land, provided there are no human remains in the ground. As with the current legislation, if no interments have taken place for a period of 30 years, the cemetery manager may convert the cemetery into a lawn cemetery. If there are exclusive rights of burial in relation to the land, there is a process for coming to an agreement to resolve that matter.

A cemetery manager has wide powers to deal with an unused, vacant or disused cemetery; however, there are conditions in relation to the removal of human remains and the removal of gravestones. A general manager may approve an activity being conducted at a former cemetery that is in keeping with quiet recreation. I think those were pretty much the arguments about Ockerby Gardens at the time, that in fact it had been closed for many years as a cemetery for interment. There is no question that human remains were still in the ground there but the headstones had been removed. I think they went out to Carr Villa but I am not sure.

Mrs Napier - Well, some of them actually got trashed.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, that may well be so, but some of them were removed in any event. Some may have been disposed of and it certainly is a great pity if that history is lost, particularly as you referred to some families who have many generations who have lived in Tasmania. That obviously is distressing and that is why we have these conditions in this legislation in relation to closure.

Mr McManus asked questions about the Director of Public Health. The Director of Public Health has an overriding duty to ensure that public health considerations are taken into account in cremations and interments on private land. He or she would impose conditions necessary for public health purposes and it is difficult to be more specific than that in relation to the Director of Public Health simply because of the very many different circumstances that may apply.

Mr McManus - Are we going into committee, Premier?

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, because I want to move these amendments, so if there are further questions on this we can deal with them then. Just in relation to the amendment to clause 39 that I intend to move, this results from a request from the Chief Magistrate who wrote earlier this year and asked for this amendment to clause 39. In his letter the Chief Magistrate said:

'Although the court commented upon the draft of the bill and those comments were accepted, subsequent developments of both international and national significance and our own recent experience have prompted a refinement of our views in the light of the form of the bill as introduced. This matter is inextricably intertwined with the proper and sensitive management of situations that involve the lawful retention and examination of body organs for the purpose of the Coroners Act 1995, section 36, subsection (4), and in some cases the return of those organs to coffins at the request of the next of kin.'

So that is why the Chief Magistrate has sought that amendment. The other amendments to clauses 51 and 54 are at the suggestion of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that in drafting the bill he has taken the opportunity to make some minor changes to give an authorised officer the power not only to enter premises but also to be able to inspect documents, take copies and remove objects for the purposes of gathering evidence of contravention of the act. So the need for these minor additions came to light when the drafting officer was preparing regulations under the bill.

Mr Speaker, I think we have had a wide-ranging discussion of burials and cremations; it is not often that we get to discuss burials and cremations here. We have gone all the way from Frank Zappa's ashes being disposed of in ways that perhaps would not be the wish of the vast majority of people. I think most importantly this legislation consolidates different acts of Parliament that have previously referred to burials and cremations, brings them into one act and also recognises the fact that social attitudes to burials and cremations have changed over the years.

I think the discussion particularly in relation to the cultural heritage involved in grave sites and cemeteries around Tasmania is extremely important, and I think it is part of the burden, if you like, that Tasmania carries. It is actually an asset that we have so much heritage particularly nineteenth century heritage that I continually trot out. I was told that more than half of the nineteenth century stone buildings still standing in Australia and New Zealand are in Tasmania, and I think you would find a lot of those would be old churches with cemeteries or burial grounds attached. So this is a great asset of the State having this heritage; it is also a big burden in terms of properly protecting it, maintaining it and presenting it in -

Mrs Napier - That's why we want that Plenty link road for the trucks.

Mr JIM BACON - Whatever.

The one thing I cannot answer is Ms Putt's comment about endangered species in graveyards. I can accept the point she makes that the land, other than the six-foot-deep holes that have been dug, it may be -

Mrs Napier - You could have a lot of introduced weeds, actually, on people's footwear.

Mr JIM BACON - What immediately came to my mind was that this is quite bizarre because I would have thought one place where exotic imported plants had been taken in bulk over the last probably 200 years, was grave sites, and all sorts of flowers and plants have been put there as a mark of respect according to the custom of the time. So I was a little surprised to find that in fact cemeteries were havens for endangered flora -

Mrs Napier - Only in the bottom corner, though.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, the bottom corner where there has not been a grave dug. Not fauna, I notice, only flora. That came as news to me, but in any event, legislation which is in existence, both State and Federal, in regard to endangered species of plants or animals of course would still apply. Having given those responses, Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support of the bill.

Bill read the second time.