Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2007 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

The only issue that seems to get any real discussion is the tenure of the grave sites. The minister said in his presentation speech that it will be perpetual, which seems to go against national competition policy as you are not allowing the market to decide what it wants.

What happens if the next minister changes the current view on tenure? Are those that are buried today assured of tenure or will this be changed by ministerial decree in the future? This then brings into question how much money should be paid for maintenance. Obviously, if you are contributing to pay for maintenance for eternity that will cost a lot more than if you are in a 25-year contract.

This debate has occurred in other jurisdictions, often at local government level, and many decisions have been made, such as that of Waverley Council where the cemetery offers interments on 25-year tenure, memorial shrubs, also on limited tenure, bronze plaques and maintenance-allowing families to choose. And they include group discounts for couples, families and families of four or six.

Albury crematorium offers memorial sites for periods of 25 years, 50 years or in perpetuity depending on the wealth and wishes of the family. However, here in the ACT, the minister has decided to set up a one-product market-that of tenure for perpetuity-and he has probably taken the most conservative line, as he does not want to risk the real debate.

I am also concerned about the practicality of the exhumation decisions of the Chief Health Officer being a disallowable instrument, as proposed by this bill. This will mean not only a waiting period following a decision but also quite possibly the members of this Assembly being lobbied to stop the exhumation of bodies, and I do not look forward at all to the day that this occurs.

In conclusion, I repeat: I will not be able to support this bill, for three reasons. One, national competition policy should not be allowed to continue unchecked. Two, the Assembly is being asked to trust that the minister will fix all the problems by regulation, which is obviously a little dangerous-and I believe that the regulations are still not written. And, thirdly, I do not look forward to the first time an exhumation order is debated in this Assembly by disallowable instrument.

MS TUCKER (11.52): Mr Speaker, basically this is the same bill as the previous government put forward. In part, it modernises the operation of cemeteries and crematoria by bringing up to date the description of the board, bringing the penalty system into line with the current practice of a system of units. And that much is fine. Indeed, as the Auditor General has pointed out in point 4.3 of the report on governance arrangements of selected statutory authorities:

The earliest Act, that is the Cemeteries Act 1933, pays minimal attention to corporate governance matters whereas the latest Act reviewed, the Stadiums Authority Act 2000, prescribes government's responsibilities for the Authorities Board and requires individual directors to be honest and diligent in their affairs.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .