Page 649 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (4.14): The opposition will support this bill, but we have some grave concerns. We raised these concerns during the briefing, and they remain the same. I acknowledge the minister and the directorate staff for providing that briefing and answering our questions; however, those underlying concerns remain.
The government has told us that this bill is the way to account for the distinctive cultural and religious needs of citizens, that it is the way to impose more needed government oversight of the business and that it will modernise the current act and improve the make-up of the trust. We remain concerned that it is a government smokescreen—a cover-up for the reckless and gross incompetence of the government and a plan for the government to unnecessarily compete with private business
The very first thing the bill does is to outline the objects of the act, which is to provide a financially sustainable model for management of cemeteries and crematoria that recognises and provides for the diverse needs of the community. In a nutshell, this is to fix up the financial mess of the current system and make sure that the funeral industry delivers what the community wants. It creates a framework to ensure that community needs and preferences—in particular, religious and cultural needs—can be met. This is achieved by requiring operators to consider community needs when operating a facility, and making it an offence for operators to refuse any reasonable request made on the basis of religious or cultural needs.
This is important, but it is what successful businesses do every day of the week. We fear it is government red tape—even more government red tape—to further interfere with business. It will re-create a management system that already exists and fix the government’s financial mess. The opposition is very concerned about the red tape implications of this bill—interference with business and lots of government-dictated paperwork and record-keeping.
The government wants to change the current act to fix up the unfunded long-term liabilities of the current system. The government wants to get more access to Canberrans’ cash by setting up its own crematorium. The government said it had received 740 surveys, seven submissions and 250 in-person consultations, and had received comments during pop-up stalls and focus groups. The government said it had had special contact with religious groups including the Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Sukyo Mahikari and Brahma Kumari communities.
I have been told that funeral homes and funeral directors in the ACT have not been consulted. The opposition has had some conversations with the Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, Sukyo Mahikari and Brahma Kumari representatives, and my colleague Mrs Kikkert will speak more on that. In general, none of the people we have spoken with have expressed any overarching concerns about the operations of the current private crematorium. I did hear concerns from them about capacity—for example, people of the Hindu faith may not be as easily accommodated by the current operation—however, I am assured that the current operation is about to expand. The operators are doing that off their own bat, without the need for imposed regulation, and because they are keen to provide a service to the public. They are keen to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video