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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 674 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

People are buried in above-ground graves. Within one year and one day of having been buried the grave can be opened and the body, which presumably because of the weather is reduced to bones, can be pushed back into a stone coffin, and then the grave is available for somebody else to occupy. Incidentally, I did not bother to find out what would happen if somebody else in the family died prior to that one year and a day. But it just goes to show that there are alternatives around the world for this type of thing. All cemeteries have something in common, and that is the problem of finding burial plots. Certainly, plots are getting scarcer in our larger cities.

The second point is important. Some foetuses formerly treated as clinical waste may now, if it is the parent's wish, be buried or cremated. The definition in the legislation relating to foetuses has not been changed but there is now a personal choice and I think this is certainly a step in the right direction. Parents who prefer to have certain foetuses buried or cremated may now do so.

The Cemeteries Board composition has been increased to a minimum of four members, although I note with some concern, Mr Minister-and I am sure you are not running away because I want to raise this-that the maximum number is 12. Minister, I would be a bit concerned if I thought we were going to have up to 12 members on a cemeteries board. However, I note that the appointed board is now a disallowable instrument, so the Assembly itself can keep an eye on it.

I am not sure, but I understand that as a result of an amendment that was encouraged by the Greens, the number of board members was increased from three to four to allow for representation of both the general community and religious denominations. I am not sure that an increase from three to four would necessarily cover that, though I do fear that a full complement of 12 might be in a position to do so. It is not something, as I say, that I would welcome and I trust we can keep it to a minimum of four members.

The decision of the Chief Health Officer to exhume is no longer a disallowable instrument. I do not have any great problem with that, and I understand Ms Dundas may have something further to say about this. Lastly, there are a number of minor improvements to the current act.

I am disappointed, as are my Liberal colleagues, that we have not yet moved into the area of private cemeteries. This is not covered in the current legislation, though I do note-and I think my reading is correct-that the opportunity is there for the minister to introduce them if he so wishes. Obviously this is something that can be taken into account at some future time. If there is an increased need, if we see that there is a requirement out there, then perhaps the minister of the day can look at it. But certainly the absence in this legislation of a provision for private cemeteries is not a justification for us to oppose the legislation in any way.

The minister might, however, explain to me why I received an explanatory statement yesterday with a note saying that a revised bill would be tabled tomorrow. In examining this new explanatory statement, I could find nothing different from what was in the original explanatory statement that I received when the bill was first introduced. So the minister might explain if there is anything in the new explanatory statement that I should I have noted.

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