Thursday, 18 March 2021

Bills

Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr FOLEY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:04): I rise today to add my contribution to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021, and from the outset I would like to pay my respects to Karen Ristevski, whose horrific murder and subsequent treatment by her murderer have been nothing short of horrific. I extend my deepest sympathies also to her family: to her children, also to her brother Stephen and to her wider family. What has happened to the family and what has happened to Karen is something that we should all be horrified by and devastated by, and as parliamentarians we must take this on board to make sure that these kinds of horrific actions of domestic violence which result in the needless deaths and murder of women must stop. It must stop. It is happening too often in our community, and for the people who are left behind it is just devastating to have to pick up the pieces and work through that. So as I said at the outset, I would like to just pay my respects to Karen in particular for her needless loss of life but also to Karen’s family.

The purpose of this bill is to protect affected persons against further significant harm, pain or suffering that may be caused as a result of the exercise of a right of interment. The bill also makes miscellaneous amendments to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003, clarifying how rights of interment held by more than one person can be exercised jointly and separately. It provides provision for refunds in the case of voluntary surrender of rights of interment when held by more than one person and clarifies the tenure for cremated human remains and makes other minor amendments.

As I referred to in my opening remarks, the key driver behind the amendments that are before us today is the horrific treatment around the burial site and particularly the headstone of Karen Ristevski. Karen has been laid to rest, but it was not her loving family who were able to influence what was on the headstone. It was her killer who devised the wording of the headstone and even had the most repulsive gall to leave a blank section on half of the headstone to indicate that that is where he should lie, and it should outrage every single Victorian that any killer would have the ability to be able to be laid to rest next to the person that they murdered.

This recommendation was first raised a few years ago. In fact in September 2016, just a couple of months after we understand Karen to have been murdered, the Victorian Law Reform Commission issued a report entitled Funeral and Burial Instructions. I note that sections of this report actually refer to amendments that would ensure that the legislative framework would be in place to ensure that this kind of treatment of Karen would not have occurred. In particular I refer to recommendation 6, which states:

The person with the right to control the funeral and burial arrangements of the deceased should forfeit that right if they:

…

(e) act in any other manner, before or after the death of the deceased, which the court considers makes it inappropriate for them to retain the right.

This is very similar to the amendments that are put forward in the bill that we see before us today. It is something that we need to take always with great consideration—recommendations provided to us, particularly by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. While it is certainly well overdue, it is very welcome that these amendments will be before the house today. I do note that the Victorian Law Reform Commission in this report related to funeral and burial instructions also recommended that a brand-new act in relation to funeral and burial instructions should be developed. I do urge the government to revise this document. I think it encompasses some very important elements of recommendations that would provide further security for families around the rights of those who have passed but also rights of interment and of family members and would assist to clarify the areas where there is confusion and there is dispute. I certainly encourage the government to take all of those recommendations on board. As I said, this report was actually published in September 2016. Had the government acted on this report and that recommendation to actually have a legal framework where a court could make a decision that for somebody who had the right of interment it could be deemed inappropriate for them to retain the right, we may not have seen the situation of the cruel treatment of Karen Ristevski and the format that her cemetery site and her headstone currently present today—and the grief and anguish that that has caused her family.

There are a number of concerns in relation to this bill that have been clarified to some level during the briefing that was provided to the coalition. There are still, though, a couple of sections which have not yet been clarified, and so I do ask that these are, hopefully, addressed through the contributions that are made to the chamber today. In particular we posed the question: can a cemetery grant a right of interment to someone else after becoming a sole holder of the right of interment? The department official said the drafters would be contacted to see if a drafting error had occurred. This is in relation to section 84H, so I will just refer to the outline. A bill briefing question was asked on notice as to why proposed section 84H does not make reference to section 73 in the principal act whilst proposed section 84I does. The department official said the drafters would be contacted to see if a drafting error had occurred.

As it stands, cemetery trusts can grant rights of interment to individuals as it sees fit. A clarification is being sought as to whether this bill limits cemetery trusts in granting such rights. This is an important point and it does require some clarification. If an amendment of the bill is required, then I would ask that there is an attempt. I know it is late in the day on the final sitting day, but it would be appreciated if that amendment could be circulated to ensure that we have a prompt addressing of this gap in the legislation, a drafting error in this legislation. That amendment could be perhaps passed today and then therefore taken to the Legislative Council in the following sitting week, and we could get some clarification for the Ristevski family to have more prompt action to resolve the problems which surround Karen’s headstone. I hope that will be taken on notice. I know we are on very short time frames. I think it has to be circulated before 3.00 pm, so I hope the advisers are listening and we do get an amendment circulated shortly.

The second point that I would like to raise is a question that we posed: does the bill cover cases other than when the holder of the right of interment has murdered the person interred in the place of interment, for example, in cases of sexual abuse? I think all members of Parliament would agree that while the case of Karen’s heinous murder certainly should result in revocation of the right of interment, there are other heinous acts which occur in our community—which we would love to see wiped out but still do occur—and we must recognise and ensure that similar situations are not occurring. I will give the example of sexual abuse. It would be horrific if there was a sexual abuse case of a child and the parent who conducted that assault was still granted the right of interment. We could still see similar situations where a familial burial plot was put together, which would be deeply offensive to other family members and disrespectful to the victim of the assault.

The response we got from the department at the time of the briefing was that it was confirmed that the bill does have a wider scope than the examples presented and that it includes convicted offenders of any crime and responsible persons determined by the coroner to have killed someone. But the operation of the bill requires an affected person to demonstrate how they would be impacted or would have been impacted by the exercise of a right of interment by such a person. There is therefore a higher obligation to have to demonstrate that, rather than it being an automatic refusal of the right of interment over another family member. I think that this needs to be worked through. There needs to be a level of security for all people in the future who may be victims of horrific crimes that there is an ability to not have to jump over too high a hurdle to prove that there would be a significant impact from the exercise of a right of interment by their abuser, by their murderer or by whoever had wronged them. This should be certainly not too much of a challenge for the family, and of course we want people to be able to be put to rest as soon as practicable. This is particularly relevant for various religions, where there is a very short time frame that they have to conduct their interment rights. In some religions, it is as short as 24 hours or even sooner, so we do need to ensure that we have a legislative system that is also practicable and applicable and is able to be applied within the precious hours that may exist between someone passing, or their death, and the time that they are then interred, or put to rest.

I hope that this does not put too many additional hurdles in place and that people are duly respected at the time when they need it most. I think that is probably the most important part. I have been to a lot of funerals in my time. I have had loved ones leave this earth far too early. It is a time when people are working through all of their emotions of grief. It might be anger and hurt, it might be loss and the feeling that they could have done something better or differently, even those final words that they could have passed on to somebody they love, and people dwell on that for years and years to come.

We cannot have the system around the mechanisms and the practicality of burial rights and interment becoming more of a stress and an emotional and mental obstacle for people when they should be focused on their own wellbeing and looking after their family’s wellbeing as well. We know the burden of organising a funeral can be very, very difficult. Sometimes it is a distraction for the family to get on and do something practical, but always that grief comes through, and we simply cannot have legislative mechanisms that draw out the process of right of interment and determining or appealing who has that right of interment for months and months. It is simply not fair on the family members to inflict that on their mental health and wellbeing at that very, very difficult time.

There are other matters that were raised during the bill briefing which I will briefly touch on. We asked the question: if multiple affected persons make an application to the secretary that might be in conflict, how does the secretary resolve such matters? It was responded to us that in cases where there are conflicting requests the secretary can ultimately determine not to act or may make a compromise as they see fit. Further, we asked: if the cemetery trust becomes the sole holder of the right of interment, can it look after places of interment and subsequently erect memorials? It was stated to us that if an affected person contacts the cemetery trust requesting a memorial or other amendment to be made to a place of interment, the cemetery trust can write to the secretary seeking to alter a place of interment and the secretary can decide to approve or deny such a request.

We also asked if the amendment to section 78 of the principal act caused complications in family disputes. At the bill briefing the department clarified that under the existing wording of the act it is possible for a single holder of a right of interment to exercise that right unilaterally, even if the right is jointly held by one or more other persons. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the rights of interment with multiple right holders are exercised jointly except in certain cases as outlined in the bill. This aims to address family disputes that arise from family members unilaterally deciding key factors such as tombstones or memorials without obtaining consent from other right holders.

We undertook a broad consultation in relation to this piece of legislation before us today. We consulted the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association of Victoria, Ballarat General Cemeteries Trust, Remembrance Parks Central Victoria, Geelong Cemeteries Trust, Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, Boroondara Cemetery Trust and Broadford Cemetery Trust, so it was very broad ranging.

This amendment bill does go some way to address some of the gaps and lack of clarity in the existing legislation from 2003, and also of course some details which clearly show that we have failed to provide support to victims of family violence who have not had the respect they deserve, where their killer is responsible for the details on a headstone and also the structure of the burial plot, which may involve the killer being laid to rest next to their murder victim.

I would like to just reflect upon the barriers that have been put in place by Karen’s killer and just how obstructive he has been in regard to the entire murder and disrespect to Karen’s family throughout this process. I refer to an article from the Saturday Age from Saturday, 7 December 2019, by Tammy Mills, entitled ‘Wife killer’s silence spoke volumes’, and I quote:

“[Ristevski] did more than maintain his right to silence. He took active steps to avoid discovery of his crime and how the death was caused,” Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Simon Whelan said.

“To this day, the respondent has shown not one scintilla of remorse. He has subjected those affected by the death to the most awful state of the unknown.”

…

“Not merely has the respondent refused to reveal how he killed his wife, but he maintained the charade of a grieving husband whilst weaving a web of lies and deceit,” Justice Priest said.

The steps that Karen’s killer took to confuse police, to deliberately mislead investigators and mislead his family are absolutely disgraceful. He hid the body in an area that he knew would be difficult to find and therefore he tried to keep it significantly secret from everybody. He told so many lies to family and police and made a number of pleas which were broadcast on television around calling for either Karen to come home or for Karen’s killer to be found. He refused to disclose—to this day he has refused to disclose—how or why he murdered Karen.

This has led to an enormous amount of uncertainty for the family and an inability in so many ways to be able to close off mentally the horrors of this story. It is their mum, it is their sister, it is their niece, it is someone very close to them, and they absolutely have a right to understand why on earth this death occurred and what led to it. There is no remorse at all from this killer. He has left the family in an awful state of unknown, and yet he was still able, under current legislation, to finalise the wording of the headstone, which says that Karen was a ‘Devoted wife, mother and friend’, and I quote:

You touched our lives with your love, laughter, warmth and grace.

Your memory will be eternal.

Dearly loved, never forgotten and forever in our hearts.

I have no doubt that some of that message is applicable to Karen’s broader family, but it is so inflammatory to put ‘devoted wife’ from the person who murdered her. That must change.

Family violence across the state is increasing. It is almost five years since the Royal Commission into Family Violence handed down its findings and recommendations on family violence in the state of Victoria. This was an important royal commission, as every royal commission is, which put structures in place to make sure that the outcomes of reducing and eliminating family violence are achieved in Victoria. We still have far too many women and children being impacted, and quite significantly, by family violence, particularly in the home.

Today we saw the Crime Statistics Agency release current data around family violence, and horrifically we see family violence reports continue to rise under this government despite it being five years since the Royal Commission on Family Violence. Today we saw a 2.3 per cent increase in offences recorded for the year ending December 2020, particularly around family violence, where we had an increase of 9.4 per cent over the reporting period, or more than 21 additional family violence cases each and every day since the start of 2020. This follows reports of a 20 per cent spike in cases of child-to-parent family violence and comes as many households have faced increased difficulties in reporting or fleeing family violence.

And this simply is not a case of more people reporting family violence. We are also seeing the admission of women who have been victims of family violence increase, with presentations to emergency departments increasing by 16 per cent between 2018–19 and 2019–20. This is the highest number in the past five years. The number of male patients was also higher than at any time in the past five years, at 538 individuals. Also, we know that this is not just increased reporting. We have got increased harm being done. The number of Ambulance Victoria patients where family violence was identified totalled 1894 in 2019–20—the highest since Ambulance Victoria started keeping records of family violence incidents in 2016. That 2019–20 figure was a 15 per cent increase on the previous year—a 15 per cent increase in the number of ambulance patients where family violence had been identified. This is a terrible, terrible blight on the government, who claim to be making a real impact on family violence. But we are seeing higher and higher rates of criminal offences, of presentation to emergency departments and of ambulance-related cases. It is just not good enough.

It is always the outcomes that we must look at. It is not the flashy media releases. It is not the number of dollars that you throw or the number of recommendations that you implement. The only thing that matters is the people, and the people are the women and the children who are victims of family violence, who continue to be killed, who continue to be assaulted and who continue to be harmed in ways that are often irreparable—mental harm and sometimes physical harm as well. It is simply something we have to put an end to, and until we take this seriously and look beyond just the inputs but look towards the outputs and what harms are being done to their community and really try and make that change, then we are going to just continue to see these incidents increase.

Children are recorded as present at nearly 30 per cent of incidents of family violence in Victoria. Keeping in mind that the number of offences that were reported were well in excess of 65 000, we really need to wonder: what on earth are we doing to our next generation of adults? What are we setting as an example for them on how you behave in the home and for young girls what is acceptable in how you are treated by your partner? We must stop this. We can no longer hide behind comments, as we heard from the Attorney-General today, that this is merely a reflection of increased reporting. It is not more reporting when more women are dying. It is not more reporting when more women are turning up to an emergency department with injuries related to family violence. It is not just increased reporting when we have got Ambulance Victoria carrying more women and children who are victims of family violence. If we do not stop the excuses and the spin, and with Labor particularly, if we have got the Attorney-General trying to spin their way out of the harm that is being done in the community, we are never going to move forward under this government.

It is so, so difficult to be able to talk about this, because I have friends who have been incredibly harmed in family violence incidents. I would like to make special mention of someone who I deem a very close friend, and that is Simone O’Brien, who survived a horrific assault from a man who she had left, who then met her at her home after work and beat her with a baseball bat dozens of times, in front of her children, to the point where ambulance officers who attended the site firstly could not believe she was still alive but secondly told her that her injuries were so severe that it caused such significant swelling around her brain that it actually kept the bone fragments away from causing serious damage to her brain and may have saved her life. To be beaten so badly that it actually saved your life from permanent brain injury is horrific, absolutely horrific, and yet it took years for Simone to get justice for that crime—just too long. But can I just say, Simone has to be one of the bravest, most inspirational women that I have ever had the pleasure to know. She is one of the fiercest advocates for stopping family violence in our communities. She is an advocate and keynote speaker for so many different organisations working to eliminate family violence in our communities and various organisations, not just around Australia but even in New Zealand. I know she spoke to the police over there a couple of years ago. She has taken her pain, her grief and her horrific situation and turned them around so that she is a true champion, making a difference in the community in eliminating and stopping family violence. Simone, I absolutely respect everything that you do. You are an amazing woman, and thank you for being the voice that so many women have not got—the women who are in existing family violence situations; the women who are just too hurt still to be able to speak up and share their story; the women who just do not want to for whatever reason, who may just want to move on with their lives; and of course the women who are no longer with us, women like Karen who cannot speak for themselves any longer.

I do appreciate this bill. The coalition will support this bill. It was too long coming. It should have been an automatic adoption of the recommendation from the Victorian Law Reform Commission Funeral and Burial Instructions: Report, which was published five years ago. We need to ensure that women are respected at home, at work, down at their local footy or netball club, at the pub and when walking home, but also after their death, ensuring that they are appropriately laid to rest, that they are given respect for their funeral service, that families are given their right to grieve in an appropriate way and, most importantly, that that everlasting memorial of their tombstone, their plaque or whatever memorial it is reflects the intent of how that individual would have wanted to be remembered.

I know that Karen lived a full and wonderful life. She was a fantastic mother. She was a great family member. Her brother speaks of her so fondly. Her entire wider family remember how much she gave in life, how much she gave her community and she gave her family. She has the right to be remembered in an enduring way that reflects that. She should never, ever have to be remembered as a person who was murdered by another, because that caused a very untimely and early end to her great life but it should not define her. In no way should she ever, ever be forced to be laid to rest next to her murderer, because that is simply unacceptable in any civil society.

I hope that this legislation will allow the Ristevskis to move ahead, to remove the headstone and to ensure that there is an appropriate memorial put in place for them so that they are allowed to get the closure that they deserve and that Karen is allowed to be immortalised and memorialised in a way that is reflective of and appropriate for her wonderful nature, her great contribution and the love that she had for her family and for her community.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (14:34): I am really pleased to make a contribution on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. In particular I just want to pick up on a couple of points in the second-reading speech, which states:

This Bill was initiated in response to the high-profile conviction of a person found guilty of the unlawful killing of their spouse. This killer continues to have rights over the victim’s place of burial because they are the holder of the right of interment for this grave.

It is unacceptable—

of course, as the minister said in the second-reading speech—

that a killer has the right to make decisions about what type of memorial their victim should have, what words should be inscribed on the memorial, and even who can be buried with their victim.

The member for Lowan eloquently went to the detail of those matters, and I will not go over that ground further. What I will say, though, as was outlined by the minister, is that the bill enables the secretary in giving effect to these changes to direct the variation or surrender of a right of interment to protect affected persons from further harm, pain or suffering that may be caused because of the exercise of a right of interment where there is a causal link between the crime and the harm, pain or suffering. And then lastly, the bill will also apply retrospectively to convictions and coronial findings made and rights of interment purchased or transferred on or after 1 July 2005 up to the commencement of the legislation.

So that is, in a nutshell, the amendments that we are dealing with today. I want to go back I suppose to lay a bit of the groundwork on some of the history that has got us to this point in relation to the legislation. I suppose, firstly, since we first marked time as the human race we have commemorated or reflected on those who have gone before us, and you can see that in the Pyramids or you can see it in local country towns in windswept fields in small cemeteries. You can see that up at the shrine on St Kilda Road. You can see right around the world the way in which in history we have chosen to commemorate those who have gone before us. So it is pretty critical stuff.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Health I am here with my co-conspirator, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the member for Melton. In our roles, dealing with health is about dealing with the living, and that is clearly the priority in communities, the priority for the Parliament and the priority for so many people who dedicate their working lives to keeping people well, to keeping people safe and to keeping people healthy. Fundamentally in a public health sense—and haven’t we seen through the worldwide pandemic public health come to the fore right across the world and certainly in the way in which it has kept us safe in our communities?—public health also has a responsibility around those who have died. That is significantly the work that is the responsibility of the Minister for Health and the Department of Health in relation to administration through the statutory authorities that are our cemetery trusts. Remember that we have got something like nearly 500 cemetery trusts across Victoria. The vast majority of those—take out a dozen or so—are largely run by volunteers. We salute them and we thank them for the work that they do in trying times to maintain these places right across Victoria, to show respect, to support families and to be the guardians of our history in communities. That is really significant work that they do.

I chair a Parliamentary working group of cemetery trusts—the terms of reference have been approved by the Minister for Health—that brings together the key cemetery trusts. They are remunerated boards. They are ministerial appointments; all cemetery trusts are ministerial appointments. But in particular in the role of those major cemetery trusts in regional Victoria and in metropolitan Melbourne they ultimately have multimillions of dollars that they are managing. They are massive landholders in our community. They are big employers. They are guardians of hundreds of millions of dollars of perpetual maintenance funding that goes towards the maintenance of those cemeteries of our history here in Victoria. It is very significant work that they do. The Cemeteries and Crematoria Association of Victoria is their stakeholder group. They are also engaged in that task force work that we do, and that is about looking at the big picture of the work that we need to do across the sector to make sure that we are relevant to the communities that we serve and that we continue to look at our pricing, the tendering and the opportunities to secure other land across Victoria to make sure that we are able to continue to provide the memorialisation opportunities that people expect and deserve.

A lot of that goes back to, I should say, a range of work. Firstly, you can go right back to 1996. There was a discussion paper on cemeteries and crematoria and what we were going to do. That was done of course under the Kennett government, and I refer to page 6 of that discussion paper from back in 1996. There was then a discussion paper released in 2001 by former Deputy Premier the Honourable John Thwaites, and it related to the issues that were raised in 1996. One of them was options for privatisation, and you would be pleased to know that when the Bracks government delivered its discussion paper in 2001 it noted very clearly that it would maintain all cemeteries and crematoria in public ownership.

Then we went further than that, and I know that back in 2005 the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 came into effect. At that time I was working with the then Minister for Health, Minister Pike, a former member for Melbourne. Our Parliamentary Secretary for Health was the now member for Mulgrave, and he led the work to reform the Cemeteries Act 1958 and bring about significant change in the way that cemeteries were governed in Victoria and the way in which we grouped and aligned these multimillion-dollar organisations in regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne. That led to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003, which came into effect in July 2005.

We also saw the Auditor-General’s Review of Major Public Cemeteries investigation report, which was tabled in July 2006. The government got out ahead, if you like, in relation to the reform that was needed in that sector. These statutory authorities need to be accountable. They are massive landholders in Victoria. These are very significant authorities and organisations. That Auditor-General’s review found that cemetery moneys were being spent on travel and accommodation and meals for partners and trust members, which was not considered to be an appropriate use of cemetery funds. We had cemetery trusts where they were not complying with government executive remuneration policies and not all employees had their salaries accounted for tax purposes. There was a range of issues, and the broom was put through the place. I was there at the time when we did that. It was really significant to restore confidence to communities and also to those employees, many of whom were Australian Workers Union members, such as the gravediggers, the gardeners, the people who maintain our cemeteries and the people who provide great services to them.

I do not dwell on that history, but I do make the point that it was a catalyst for much of the change that we benefit from today in the very professional organisations that provide critical supports in our communities, not just those volunteers at the nearly 500 cemetery trusts across the state but those key organisations that are the drivers of better public policy and outcomes in the cemetery sector today. I was really proud and pleased to be able to lead that work with them on what we need to do into the future and certainly through the COVID pandemic, to get on the phone with those CEOs and board chairs of those major public cemeteries and discuss how they would provide leadership to those volunteer organisations as well to make sure that we were prepared and we were organised and we were ready to support people in our communities who still needed to find ways to memorialise and to go and visit on significant occasions and anniversaries, let alone people who wanted to visit graves and show their respect. There were heartrending stories of people who went above and beyond to provide those opportunities in difficult circumstances and for people to be able to get together online. Many of us have had that opportunity now to be online at memorial services, which was a different way of thinking for so many of our cemetery trusts.

I will also mention that when I was a Banyule councillor I was a cemetery trust trustee at the Heidelberg, Warringal and Pioneer cemeteries, and I got an understanding of the work that is done, perhaps not so much for the burials, but the very significant work that is done to maintain those services in the community.

There is much we could say about the work that has been done here. I think we have outlined very clearly why this legislation is important. No-one likes to think much about death and dying and no-one wants to make plans for the future, but we do need to make sure that our Parliament is keeping the cemetery trust sector accountable by working hand in glove with them in the significant work they do as landholders and as the protectors and guardians of our history, and also to pay great respect and care and love to the people who at their most vulnerable times rely on their support and their commitment and their guidance.

This bill continues to build on the work of the Bracks government, the work of this Parliament under our Premier and the work that needs to be done to continue to keep people safe but to show great respect to the way in which the cemeteries and crematoria sector supports our community. I commend the amendments to the house.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (14:44): I rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. The purpose of this bill is to protect affected persons against further significant harm, pain or suffering that may be caused as a result of the exercise of a right of interment. The bill also makes miscellaneous amendments to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003, clarifying how rights of interment held by more than one person can be exercised jointly and severally. It provides provision for refunds in the case of voluntary surrender of rights of interment when held by more than one person, clarifies a tenure for cremated human remains and makes other minor amendments.

This bill effectively has come about as a result of a shocking case of the murder of a woman by her husband. A headstone was placed on her grave which had ‘In loving memory’ or words to the effect that her husband was respectful, and there was nothing further from the truth. It was upsetting for her children, her family, her brothers, her sisters. Obviously it was completely inappropriate. Not only that, but the man who murdered her, her husband, had the right to in time, when he died, lie beside her. So it makes complete and utter sense to change that for those who have been, like in this case, murdered, harmed, and in some cases it even applies to a victim of sexual assault, where a family member may be able to lie beside them. That is completely wrong, and this bill goes exactly to where that needs to be changed. This discussion actually happened before Karen’s death. In 2016 the Victorian Law Reform Commission made a recommendation. That was five years ago, so it is a real shame that it has taken the government this long to fully adopt—which is what we are doing here—those recommendations. It is simple, and it has been far too long coming.

This makes me think about what we are really doing to support women. Are we doing enough? Clearly we are not. Not when you see the figures that my colleague the member for Lowan just raised in her speech around the people who are victims of family violence. They are on the increase. Violent crime stats just out today demonstrate the increase in family violence, not decrease, of those cases that are being reported to police. It is just not okay. Women have the right to feel safe. They have the right to feel safe wherever they are, be it at work, be it on the street or be it at home. Are we doing enough? Clearly we are not. I was at the March 4 Justice just this week with my colleagues, and I back the fact that we as a group of community members, as females together—both sides of this house—must work together. Colleagues—be it my male colleagues, my female colleagues—we can all do so much more.

Mr Southwick interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: That I believe is certainly our intent, as is supported in that comment by the member for Caulfield. Our team can do more and want to do more and will do more.

There was a real white-hot anger at that rally, and I could feel the women just so intent on making a change. You can understand the anger, particularly from women who were present who have been abused. Sexual assault is a really serious crime, and we are not seeing the results in convictions that we see in other serious crimes like murder. Why is that? I am reminded of when I was at school in year 11 studying legal studies, and I remember learning about momentous change that was happening in the legal system where, for the first time—and I learned this I reckon in 1983—women, instead of being in the box facing their perpetrator, could actually do what was called a hand-up brief. The very fact that it was called a hand-up brief or is still called a hand-up brief—I know it is a fairly common legal term still; I am not sure if it is the right one anymore—is kind of bizarre in itself. What it means is that women, instead of facing their perpetrator, could write their report and hand it in as a written format rather than as a verbal format in front of the perpetrator—a great and momentous change. But it made me think: have we done enough? I know we have got the Royal Commission into Family Violence results and we have had 227 recommendations, 64 of which are still to be implemented, but have we really actually looked at what we can do?

I suggest we get the legal minds of this state and perhaps this country together—the brightest and best—and look at the meaningful reform we really need to have so that we get the convictions just like we get in other serious crimes. Because it makes no sense that we are not getting the same level of convictions. It is not that the women are making it up; it is not that it is not true. It is that we need to find ways to support them. There must be an opportunity for us to look around the Western world and see how other nations are perhaps doing it better. I am not saying we should undo the very important rules of law that we have in place, the foundation of our very democracy, but I am wondering: have we really put those minds together and formed a panel that can actually do that review? I think it is time we made a difference, and I believe that meaningful reform is absolutely possible.

I had in my office just a few weeks ago a woman who was terrified for her safety. The intervention order that she had out on her husband was coming to an end. I do not want to give any more details than that, but it struck me as strange that she was relying on that IVO. She was terrified for her life and she gave me lots of reasons and stories that made me also very concerned about her life. The very fact that she was being put into such a fearful place really sent a chill down my spine. I wrote to the minister that day with a sense of urgency, via email, which obviously is instant. I am actually still waiting to hear back, and it was three weeks ago. So we must be able to do better. I know we have got to support our women, and sexual abuse, murder and being treated like this woman was—with absolute fear—is no way for any human being to live.

I think the bill does do one thing that will help change what has happened to Karen, and I pay my respects to the family for the pain and suffering that they have gone through, which no family should have to go through. But it is time, well and truly past time in fact, to make these changes. I hope that we do more than make these changes in this legislation. We look at the figures today of 1800-plus people being treated by ambulance call-outs in the 2019–20 year that are victims of family violence, where 30 per cent of children are actually witnessing these events. We need to support women so they can call these situations out early, know that they will get help and not be like another woman who came to my office having left a marriage situation where there was a lot of emotional violence and withdrawing of ability to see friends and withdrawing of finances. Four years later she said to me, ‘I’m couch surfing, and I really did think, given all the support they talk about for women, that I would at least be supported with a home’. After 3½ years of couch surfing, for the last six months she has joined up with her friend, pooling their funds and living in motels. But she is on a national disability insurance scheme package. She cannot drive. She has to walk to services that do a great job, she said, supporting her. She cannot move out of the area because those support services are critical for her disability. But come May when we have the May races in Warrnambool, when the motels are full, she is out on the street.

And that is just last week’s story. How many stories do we get in our offices where we are just not doing enough? She left her husband in that abusive situation—it was not physical abuse, it was emotional abuse but fairly significant—believing that she would be supported, because that is what we say to women these days. But it is not; it is just not happening enough, and that was why the rally occurred. We can do more, and my suggestion is we get the best legal minds in our nation together, particularly in the state of Victoria, and lead the way of finding better ways to support women. That hand-up brief, the example that I spoke about, was 35 years ago at least. So I think it is time for change, and there are ways to do that.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (14:54): I rise today to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. This is an important piece of reform from the Minister for Health to help address injustices caused to families and unwitting victims of violent crimes. Victoria’s legislation regarding cemeteries and crematoria provides very precise directions when it comes to burials and cremations. In particular under the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 any person who is interred in Victoria is interred in perpetuity. Therefore memorials placed on these interments to commemorate a loved one who has passed away can be permanent reminders for those that are left behind. The person who owns the right of interment on a plot is often the partner or another close family member of the deceased. The right of interment is purchased from the cemetery trusts. They have the legal right to choose the memorials on that plot within the guidelines and rules that the cemetery trust outlines.

Recently through a high-profile case that shocked the Victorian community it was discovered that the perpetrator of a murder held the right of interment over the victim’s burial place. Further, her murderer had the right of interment for himself next to her grave and shared a memorial. The family of this victim are obviously sickened that the evil perpetrator, her murderer, could still continue to cause further grief to her family and to her memory by holding the right to her interment. The ability to change this right of interment in these circumstances is not currently included in the act. This is obviously an unintended injustice to her and potentially other victims’ families. These amendments seek to right these wrongs and are another signal from this government that Victoria says no to domestic violence and perpetrators. The ability for families to grieve for their loved ones without the emotional violence continuing is a necessary step. The Victorian public clearly do not accept that anyone should have the right to make decisions about a grave or a memorial of the person they have killed.

Memorials on interments do not just contain the names of those who have passed, they also portray a message and tell a story. It is clearly not appropriate that someone who has caused someone’s death then has the right to control the words, stories and messages of the deceased. This just simply does not hold up to a community’s values. Surviving victims should not have to suffer any further injustices. These amendments are in line with the Andrews Labor government’s gender equality strategy. This strategy reinforces the notion that all Victorians should have access to equal power, resources and opportunity and be treated with dignity, respect and fairness.

A right-of-interment holder in most cases is the partner or next of kin. It is possible in some cases that the person who holds that right will organise the funeral or the burial or cremation and only long after this is it discovered that the right holder was the perpetrator of the deceased person’s death. Rights of interment can also be granted before death; this is common with family plots or in the planning of a will or in an end-of-life plan. It is also important in many cultural and religious communities.

Amending this bill will give new powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health to vary or remove a right of interment following application by someone who has been directly and adversely affected by an indictable offence and where the perpetrator has been convicted. An application can also be made by someone who has been directly affected by the death of a person when there has been a coronial finding that a person is responsible for the death and that responsible person is themselves deceased—for example, in the tragic circumstances of a murder-suicide. Currently the secretary does not have these powers, and I think we can agree that this is a power that the secretary should have. These changes will also apply to all convictions, coronial findings and rights of interment purchased or transferred from 1 July 2005. This will line up with the implementation of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003.

It is appropriate that indictable offences and coronial findings from other jurisdictions and not just Victoria should be considered to ensure an equal application of the new laws. This is of course reflecting that a person may have died in another state or even overseas but has been brought back to Victoria for interment for one of many reasons.

Losing a loved one is always a painful experience. For those who have lost someone in tragic circumstances where someone else has been responsible for that death, it is even more painful. Those suffering that grief should not have any more pain inflicted on them by the right of interment being controlled by the offender. By passing these amendments, the bill will give new powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health to direct the variation or removal of a right of interment held by a right holder. This can be done by written application from an affected person. The secretary will be required to assess the application based on a range of mandatory criteria. These include but are not limited to the nature, level and seriousness of the offence; the coroner’s findings about the circumstances of the death; and the nature of the responsible person’s responsibility for that death.

The opinions of the affected person or persons and those of the responsible persons or their associates will also be considered along with whether or not remains have already been interred. If the secretary determines that a variation or a removal is required, they are required to take the least restrictive approach. They are required to consider a variation over a forced surrender where a variation is sufficient to adequately prevent further significant harm, pain or suffering for the loved ones. The secretary’s decision will be subject to judicial review in the Victorian Supreme Court.

These amendments are important and a necessary step in protecting the rights and dignity of victims of family violence and their families. It is simply unacceptable that across Australia more than one woman per week loses her life at the hands of a partner or former partner. It is a national shame that family violence remains the leading cause of death, disability and illness for women between the ages of 15 and 44 in Australia.

The Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ending family violence is unwavering. This government five years ago embarked on the world-first Royal Commission into Family Violence. This is an issue that we have taken seriously, seeking to understand and bring to light some of the horror of family violence. We are committed to rebuilding a broken system, to better support victims as well as to assist perpetrators to change their behaviour, and to end family violence in our state for good. We are committed to the findings of the royal commission and have already acquitted more than two-thirds of the commission’s 227 recommendations, and all of those remaining are well underway. We have backed that up with over $3 billion in investment. We take this issue seriously. We have invested more than any other state and the commonwealth combined. We know that just one death to family violence is one death too many. It is our duty in this government and this Parliament that we all do whatever is necessary to stop the scourge of family violence and to prevent any further deaths.

These amendments try to prevent further hurt and pain to victims and their families. Family violence can be about control and attacks the dignity of those involved. This legislation goes a small way to return that dignity and respect and control to victims and their families. By perpetrating violence and causing a death, offenders lose any dignity and all rights to their victims. These amendments make sure that in a victim’s final place of rest their dignity and respect can be returned. It is my hope that the families who carry the ongoing pain and suffering of losing a loved one will no longer have to face the retraumatising process of negotiating with a perpetrator about the memorialisation of their loved one. There are also some minor technical amendments to the act which will make it easier for trusts to execute their duties to their communities, and I will touch briefly on just one of those.

This bill seeks to require that cemetery trusts offer both perpetual rights of interment for cremated remains and 25-year limited tenure to ensure certainty and choice for all persons. This, although minor, is a change that I welcome. As I have mentioned earlier, a right of interment is in perpetuity. This means that if you choose a burial or are interred in a mausoleum, then this is a permanent interment. However, the provisions are not currently the same for people who choose cremation. Our society is constantly changing. An ever-increasing number of people choose cremation. There are of course many cultural and religious communities where cremation is the preferred option for respecting the remains of a loved one. Giving people the choice of perpetual or limited tenure for a cremation is a good addition to this bill—to give an option to receive the same perpetual memorial if they so choose.

Finally, I would like to take a moment now to thank the courage and determination of Stephen Williams. Stephen has fought for many years to return some dignity to his sister Karen in correcting the injustice continued by his sister’s murderer holding the right of interment for her grave. Stephen has erased this injustice and has given dignity back to not just his sister and family but to many other families. I extend my thanks to him and his family for helping correct this injustice, and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:04): I rise to make some comments on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021, and I am pleased to say that the opposition are supporting this bill and what is a very, very important bill with some important changes when it comes to interment. We have seen a number of examples where victims unfortunately, again, have lost their rights at the ultimate period when they have lost their life. But then, in losing their life, the murderer of that victim has the ultimate ability to have that person interred and to take away the ability of any other family members to give them a proper resting place. I am pleased to see that finally change, and I will talk a little bit about that in a tick.

But I also just wanted to especially pay tribute to a couple of people in my electorate that run the Brighton Cemetorians. Lois Comeadow is the treasurer and Malcolm Gray is the president of the Brighton Cemetorians, which is a non-profit community group working actively with the Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust. It has been doing lots of really good work in honouring those people that have been buried in that cemetery. Some 70 000 people are buried in the Brighton cemetery, including some household names. Sir John Monash is buried in the Brighton cemetery. Thomas Bent, a former Premier of Victoria, is buried there, and Squizzy Taylor.

Ms Addison interjected.

Mr SOUTHWICK: Thank you, yes. There are some really interesting names, a lot of war veterans. Brighton Cemetorians run regular theme tours that give visitors the opportunity to discover history, which is really, really important. I commend their work and certainly we would always do whatever we can to ensure they are provided with whatever support is necessary for that work to continue.

This particular bill goes to the crux of supporting victims and their families. We talk a lot about this in this chamber and we talk a lot in many instances about victims that are still here but have lost loved ones. Often they are forgotten, their struggle is forgotten. Quite often it is the murderer that tends to get the limelight and unfortunately there is not enough in terms of being able to support victims. I think the Ristevski case, with particularly Karen and the struggle that that family had to put up with because her murderer—I will not mention his name, but her husband—wanted to not only choose what was put on the gravestone but have himself buried next to her.

I think this change is really, really important. I mentioned earlier the fact that these graves are historical graves. These graves are the opportunity for family—children, grandchildren, generations—to come and visit and to relive those memories. You cannot rewrite history and you cannot have those murderers choosing to erase the hurt that they have done, particularly when they have taken someone’s life. We speak about family violence because what we are talking about here, particularly in Karen’s case, is the ultimate example of a horrific family violence incident. That happens far too often. Particularly if you have a woman that has experienced a lifetime of family violence, then ultimately in Karen’s case it is the worst affront of all for the perpetrator to have the right to make the decision of where she is buried, how she is buried and what is on the headstone. It is important this is changed.

I know the member for Lowan and the member for South-West Coast made mention of the fact that the Victorian Law Reform Commission did some very, very important work in September 2016 and suggested this change but it has not been taken up until now. I am glad that it has finally been taken up. They suggested that the person with the right to control the funeral and burial arrangements of the deceased person should forfeit that right if they act in any other manner before or after the death of the deceased which the court considers makes it inappropriate for them to retain the right. That was clear back in 2016 that this should change.

It is interesting that we are talking about this bill today, because the crime statistics have come out. The horrific part of the crime statistics is the fact that family violence continues to rise here in this state. We are up, with over a 9 per cent increase in family violence in the last 12-month period and for this quarter. Certainly in the last period we have seen a 21 family violence incident increase each and every day. That is 21 additional family violence incidents that have been recorded as an increase. I know people will say that it is great that people are reporting it, but what we have got to do is tackle it so that these family violence incidents do not happen in the first place. There needs to be more done. We had the Royal Commission into Family Violence back in 2016, and there are still a significant number of those recommendations from that royal commission that have not been taken up. It is really important for more of that work to be done.

We know that during the lockdown one of the huge problems was that many of those most vulnerable of families were locked down with perpetrators of family violence, and these numbers today absolutely show that. They absolutely show that if you are in a home when you are locked down with a perpetrator of family violence and you cannot escape, it is very hard. I do not know how somebody would escape or flee that particular situation. I actually think that the numbers reported today are under-reported. I think there would be a lot of people that have not reported a situation because of the difficult predicament they were in during the lockdown. I do make the point—and hopefully Victoria will never have to go through another outbreak again—that COVID has not passed; we still live with it.

I would say to the government going forward that these are things that need to be considered to ensure that if we do end up with another outbreak, we do not have another statewide lockdown, we have a targeted approach like New South Wales and other states have done, because there are consequences. Mental ill health is one of those consequences and family violence is another. So those figures today are very, very important. When we are talking about family violence, it is important to be honest with ourselves and to be able to say, ‘How can we ensure that people can be safe? How can they be safe in their homes? How can they be safe on the streets? How can they be safe on public transport? How can they be safe in their lives?’.

So today we honour Karen Ristevski, who made the ultimate sacrifice and who should be able to be buried in peace. Up until today that was not the case, and up until today her murderer had the ultimate ability to say where she would be buried and what would be on the gravestone. I just think that is appalling, and that is why we are supporting this bill—for every other Karen that exists out there. To every other Karen that has to deal with this out there, we should say to them that they should have the comfort to be able to go about their lives without that kind of abuse. We should do whatever we can to curb that. We should never have to deal, ultimately, with burying a woman, somebody elderly or a child that experiences some kind of harassment or violence against them.

This is a power situation, ultimately, where one person exerts power over another, regardless of who that individual is. It needs to stop, and we need to do everything we can to support those victims. So today it is about victims. It is about supporting victims, and we should always do everything in this chamber to support victims and their families to make sure they have a voice.

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (15:14): I rise today to speak in support of amending the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003. That will ensure that Victorian families are protected from harm and distress after the death of a loved one from a violent crime. Our government believes that an offender who has been convicted of killing a person should not have the right to make decisions about the grave or memorial of the person they have killed. This bill will deny killers that right, instead giving the final say to the families left behind.

These changes are not designed to further punish perpetrators of serious crime or associates of perpetrators; they are designed to protect and prevent people affected by that crime from enduring further pain, hurt and suffering. The changes proposed in this bill will enshrine in Victorian law that Victorian families will have the right to make decisions over their loved one’s grave or memorial after their death in cases of murder-suicide and indictable offences.

I genuinely wish to thank the Minister for Health, the staff of the ministerial office and the department for the work that they have done to bring this bill to the house and for the stakeholder consultation that has occurred. It is very important to undertake stakeholder consultation, and the department have sought feedback from the cemetery trusts and the sector and will continue to consult with them as the bill is implemented. Impacted families, including the family of Karen Williams, have also been consulted about the proposed changes and have welcomed the move to protect the rights of victims and families.

I am very pleased to speak following the contributions of our two excellent parliamentary secretaries for health, the member for Ivanhoe and the member from Melton, and I thank them for their contribution. In listening to the member for Melton’s contribution, his empathy and compassion just shine through. He is such an outstanding member of this Parliament and brings such depth and empathy to us, so I am so pleased to be able to follow the member for Melton.

As the member for Ivanhoe stated, he actually chairs the parliamentary group of cemetery trusts, and I was pleased to welcome him my electorate of Wendouree in December 2019 to meet with the Ballarat Cemeteries Trust CEO, Annie De Jong, and the then chair, Judy Verlin, AM, to discuss a range of issues and have a tour of the Ballarat cemetery. The Ballarat cemetery trust provides a great service to my community and offers comfort and support to families of all interred there. Our Ballarat cemetery offers much choice for burial, including a carefully maintained lawn section; the baby’s garden and tree of memories; a contemplation garden; the terraces; the conifer garden; and the Dreamtime, a special place of belonging for those to be buried within their ancestral homeland of Wadawurrung country. It also offers a variety of memorialisation options for cremated remains. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the trust board chair, now Gayle Boschert, and board members for the good work that they do, as well as Ballarat cemetery staff operations manager Charlie Stebbing, chief financial officer John Noone and all the workforce there. As mentioned earlier, the cemetery trusts were consulted, and this bill will have no major impacts on the current governance arrangements of cemetery trusts and the important work that they do.

The purpose of this bill and this important legislation is to provide respect for the victims and their families and friends by denying rights to the perpetrators who are responsible for the victim’s death. This bill proposes to protect people against significant harm, pain and suffering by making changes to the rights of interment by or in favour of certain persons and makes various other amendments to the act in relation to rights of interment and for other purposes. The bill also makes a number of minor technical and other amendments to clarify ambiguity and address inconsistencies, which will improve the administration and the sector’s understanding of the act, which is very important.

So we are going to talk a lot during this debate about the right of interment. A right of interment refers to a specific place of interment within a public cemetery. It could be a plot, a grave, a crypt or a cremation niche. It is important to clarify a common misconception that the purchaser of a right of interment actually buys the land associated with a cemetery plot, grave, crypt or cremation niche when the right of interment is purchased. This assumption is not correct. It is important to clarify this, as all public cemeteries in Victoria are situated on Crown land. So let me be really clear: what is actually purchased is the right to determine who can be interred in that grave or other type of place of interment and the type of memorialisation, if any, to be established at the place of the interment. That is very important because at the heart of this legislation we are addressing this issue of the right of interment.

The right-of-interment holders are usually next of kin or family members, but they can also be held by multiple parties. So what this legislation is seeking to do is to amend the power that the Secretary of the Department of Health has, and I will read directly what we are going to do. The bill will provide the Secretary of the Department of Health with the power to:

… direct the surrender or variation of a right of interment and ensure that the rights of all victims and other persons directly and adversely affected by serious crimes are given appropriate respect and a say in what happens to the remains and resting place of their loved ones.

Therefore the changes being introduced in this bill will prevent a convicted killer from having the right to make decisions about what type of memorial the victim should have and will prevent them from determining what words should be inscribed on the memorial, and they will have no rights over who can be buried with the victim. Importantly, this bill has Australia-wide application and considers indictable offences from all Australian jurisdictions to ensure an equitable application of the scheme. Once passed, a ‘relevant offender’ is a person convicted on or after 1 July 2005 of an indictable offence, and whose appeal period for the conviction has expired, or whose appeal has been finally determined. Safeguards are in place to ensure appropriate consideration is given to the views of affected people.

This bill is being introduced following the high-profile conviction of a person found guilty of unlawfully killing their spouse and the campaign undertaken by her family to bring about change. I wish to acknowledge the family of Karen Williams and offer them my deepest sympathies for the pain and suffering they have experienced following the murder of Karen by her husband in 2016. I also want to recognise Karen’s brother, Stephen Williams, and other family members for their strong advocacy to bring about this important change, not just for their family but for many other Victorian families now and, sadly, into the future. This case identified a gap in current legislation and a circumstance that is out of step with community expectations and values. The Williams family deserve to have the right to make decisions about how Karen is remembered, including where she is laid to rest. This bill will act retrospectively and will mean that Karen’s killer will be denied rights over Karen’s place of burial and will no longer be the holder of the right of interment for her grave.

This bill is consistent with our government’s approach to gender equality. The Andrews Labor government’s gender equality strategy reinforces that all Victorians are to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness and that everybody should have equal access to power, resources and opportunities. With this bill today we are saying dignity and respect will apply not just in life but also in death. The amendments put forward by this bill have been carefully considered with relevance to family violence, and I am pleased that this bill has been drafted to enable persons affected by the death of a victim of murder-suicide to make an application to the secretary under the scheme. I will briefly respond to the member for Caulfield’s comments regarding our response to family violence. Victoria has invested more than $3 billion to make Victoria a safer place for families and address the scourge of family violence. We have agreed to implement the 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and we are doing all we can to stop preventable deaths. So at the heart of these proposed amendments is dignity and respect for the dead and the living. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (15:24): I too rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. This bill is really about strengthening Victoria’s interment rights. But from listening to the contributions in the house this afternoon this bill goes far beyond that. It is about something much more important that needed addressing urgently about the actions and the domestic violence that are going on behind closed doors and in the homes of families across this state. Most certainly it is another very, very important step forward in our government’s fight against the scourge of family violence.

Now, my colleagues here this afternoon have talked about the extraordinary tragic circumstances that have brought about this change, and I too pay tribute to Karen Williams and her family and absolutely condemn the way in which this woman died at the hands of her partner. It is a very unfortunate reminder of the scourge that family violence has wrought right across our local community and indeed our nation. It causes us to reflect on the damning statistic that one woman every single week is killed in this country as a result of family violence, and it certainly does remain the leading cause of death for women aged between 15 and 44 in this country. For all of us here today and those listening, I am sure we can agree that one death per week is far, far too many. These women are more than statistics. They are women in our community, they are friends, they are family. Karen was someone’s daughter, someone’s sister and a mother. These are people we are talking about. They are no different from you and I, and Karen’s death was entirely preventable, which adds to just why the death of Karen was just so unbelievably tragic.

Our government believes in giving all Victorians access to power, to resources and to opportunities and supports the idea that everyone in this state should be treated with dignity and should be treated with respect. That is essentially what this bill does. We know that our government takes family violence incredibly seriously. The member for Wendouree in the last part of her contribution—the last 60 seconds—talked very much about the Royal Commission into Family Violence, a very important royal commission here in the state that shone bright light on the deeply devastating impacts that family violence continues to wreak on families here in Victoria and Australia as a whole. Almost two-thirds of those 227 recommendations that came out of that royal commission are already being implemented. The other third are on their way. As the member for Wendouree pointed out, this has been more than $3 billion worth of investment. That is more than any other government in this country has ever spent on preventing family violence in this country. In fact it is more than any other government across the states combined has ever spent. The amendments in this bill might seem a little bit small, but this is a significant change that will make a huge difference in the lives of families left behind and to the family of Karen Williams, who are grieving her death. This is most certainly a positive step in the right direction.

Under our current laws when someone dies, the right of interment—the right to determine how and when someone is buried—goes to the next of kin, and that essentially is always the spouse. I think we can all agree here that it is a grave injustice that someone who kills their partner retains the right to determine how and where that person is buried. That is why this change was specifically recommended by our government’s gender equality strategy.

I note that changes to the right of interment are essentially a tricky thing. In 2016 the Victorian Law Reform Commission completed a review of Victoria’s burial laws. They examined the right of interment and whether a deceased person should be able to leave binding instructions for their burial, such as through their will. Because the reality is the deceased has no right to determine their own burial and no actual guarantee that their wishes will in fact be respected.

When I think of Karen and what has happened to her and what has brought about this change we are all talking about today I am also reminded that this issue is not just confined to a single woman and a single family. This is an issue that does not just affect women in our state. It affects people from different faith backgrounds, it affects people from the LGBTIQ community and so, so many others who are at risk of having their wishes disrespected when they are deceased. That is why I know that the changes that this bill makes are a step in the right direction.

Now, what specifically is changed by the bill is that the Secretary of the Department of Health will be empowered to change or to remove a right of interment from someone who has committed an indictable offence. This application can be made by someone who is directly and adversely affected by that offence or when a coronial finding is made that the person responsible for causing a death is themselves deceased—and we see that very tragically where there is a murder-suicide. What this does is not intended to punish people any more than they have been, but it gives protection to the victims of that crime from further pain and further grief as a result of the offender exercising a right to interment. Because here we have a high-profile case of Miss Williams, where a man has murdered his wife and now has the audacity to decide that she should be buried next to him. The current laws allow him to do this. He has the right of interment. There currently exists no power that the Victorian government has to address this matter or indeed similar situations, and right now the family of the victim, Karen’s family, are being forced to negotiate with her murderer—their loved one’s murderer—about how she is to be buried. Now, that is completely unconscionable, and I for one cannot begin to understand the trauma and true devastation that Karen’s family is currently going through. I say to Karen’s family: my heart and my thoughts and my prayers go out to you all.

In a lot of cases, we know there are no convictions, and that means a lot of families who lose people they care about to family violence suffer in silence. I do really hope that one day we will reach a day when the number of women who are killed by their partner each week is indeed zero, but we are most certainly not there yet. We may never be able to reach that goal, but that most certainly does not mean we should not be trying.

The other key area that this bill makes some changes to is its operation of our cemetery trusts that administer our local cemeteries, and I would like to acknowledge the work of the Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust in administering and managing our local cemeteries in and around Melbourne, including my community’s local cemetery in Werribee. This bill is going to help trusts by clarifying their powers both in a general sense and when it comes to a delegation of powers. The bill is also going to remove the requirement for outstanding burial costs to be passed on to friends and associates of a deceased should the deceased or their estate be unable to afford them. Now, this is both unenforceable and absolutely insensitive, which is why I am sure that no-one in this house will entirely miss this provision under the act.

This bill makes a small number of changes, but they are ones that I think will deliver just outcomes—just outcomes for the families of victims of violent crimes. Our government is absolutely steadfast in its commitment to eliminating family violence in this state, and this bill makes it abundantly clear that perpetrators of homicidal offences should not be able to hold the right of interment of their victims. Their families deserve much better than that, and it is for this very reason that I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (15:34): I rise today to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021 before us. The bill primarily provides the Secretary of the Department of Health with the power to direct the surrender or variation of a right of interment and ensures that the rights of all victims and other persons directly and adversely affected by serious crimes are given appropriate respect and a say in what happens to the remains and resting places of their loved ones. The bill also makes a number of other minor and technical amendments.

I was listening to the member for Lowan, and she outlined the Ristevski case in quite some detail, and so I do not intend to go into that again. But I would say that my heart also goes out to the family who had to go through and endure such horrendous circumstances for such a long time. There was a great deal of media coverage of the crime, and we all recall it well. There were some extraordinary facts involved in that case, but ultimately what I can say is that it was clear that there was a tragic loss of life of Karen. She was a woman in her own right who did not belong to anyone. She may have been a wife and a mother and a sister, but she was an individual who should not have had her life taken from her.

The statistics for family violence are stark, and we regularly revisit them, but I think we just have to. We have to keep on repeating them until something changes, until they start going down, and hopefully one day they will have disappeared. Approximately one-quarter of women in Australia have experienced at least one incident of violence by an intimate partner. On average one woman a week in Australia is killed by her intimate partner. Most victim-survivors of intimate partner violence are women. Approximately one in five Australian women—18 per cent, or 1.7 million—has experienced sexual violence. Partner violence often occurs when women are pregnant. Intimate partner violence is the greatest health risk factor—greater than smoking, alcohol and obesity—for women in their reproductive years. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience high rates of violence, with significant health impacts. An estimated three in five Indigenous women have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. Over one-third of women with disabilities experience some form of intimate partner violence. Children often see the violence between their families. Family violence is a factor in so many of the child protection cases that we see.

Many women do not seek help about their experience of violence. Of women who have experienced violence by a current partner, just over 54 per cent had sought advice or support about the violence they had experienced. They say that 82 per cent never even contact the police. As someone who spent 35 years in legal practice as a family lawyer before I came into this place, I can say that representing women and children in these violent situations always left me shocked and distressed when I heard their stories. As a matter of course with every woman that came in I would ask her whether she had been hit, whether she had been the victim of finally violence. In the early days I used to be surprised when someone would say, ‘Oh, not really. Just a smack or a bit of a hit’ or, ‘Pushed me up against the wall’ or did this—like that was not family violence.

There is such an expectation among so many women that they just seem to accept so much of this. It is not acceptable, and often it takes a great deal of time for women to get to the point where they feel empowered enough to do it. There is no doubt that the additional services, all the things that have been put in place in providing resources for women, do make a difference, but when you see these numbers, they are so great. It is like you feel like you may never be able to provide the level of service that is truly needed.

In Shepparton in my early years in family law practice Sergeant Ken O’Connor was the only policeman who dealt with family violence. There was probably a notion that it did not happen very much anyway and only one policeman might be required, and it was only part of his job. Today we have a family violence unit with I think at least six men and women operating in it, and they are busy all the time. And of course the reporting rate has gone up, so there are many more cases. Our local Magistrates Court has family violence days now where that is basically all the cases that are being heard for the morning or the afternoon, just depending on how many are listed.

There is no doubt that there has been a real shift in the way people think over all those years, that there is much more of an intolerance and that the police have become more involved. I remember the days when you would ring up the police and say, ‘There’s something going on next door’ or, ‘There’s a fight going on down the street’, and they would say, ‘Is it just a domestic?’. That was just a classic statement that so many people used to report. Even on attendance at a house sometimes in the old days that was the sort of response the police had.

A lot of things have changed, and they have been really welcome changes. There is no doubt that the Royal Commission into Family Violence has highlighted the issues surrounding it. I was here in the Parliament when Rosie Batty addressed us during the last term of Parliament, and the work that she has done has been truly outstanding to raise the profile and get a better understanding of what family violence is, because it is not just being hit or killed or thrashed in some way, it is also all of that controlling behaviour that so often exists in relationships and that can in itself be just incredibly damaging to women.

During the course of last year there was much talk about the likely increase in family violence as a result of the lockdowns and people being at home and the very significantly changed circumstances as a result of the pandemic. There was a recent Monash University paper that affirmed that indeed the figures had gone up and that the complexity and level of violence was greater in so many cases. This legislation has just highlighted a case of terrible family violence where a woman’s life has been taken. It is making provision for some justice for families, those left behind, the loved ones, to be able to deal with the remains of their family member in a way that is respectful and appropriate and at a time when people are just so distressed and vulnerable in themselves. So I certainly welcome this change.

I think probably many people did not even realise that the law was as it was, and there would be very few who would disagree that this is appropriate. The March 4 Justice that we saw earlier this week is something that is, I think, a response to so many things that are happening in our society at the moment, including workplace harassment. We have seen the Brittany Higgins exposure, telling her story alleging that she was raped in federal Parliament. We are seeing how federal Parliament is dealing with, or in some cases not dealing with, the issues. We have heard Grace Tame speak very eloquently not only at the National Press Club but in the speech at the March 4 Justice in Hobart on Monday. These are outstanding young women who are now coming forward, and many of them will become leaders as people like me stop being leaders, in a sense. It is very heartening to see that there is a real passion and desire in the next generation of young women to do something about this.

I have a daughter. So many of us do. We do not want this sort of life for our children. We want our daughters to be safe in their relationships and to know that they can stay well and enjoy good health and a good relationship. Until we address these issues that are just around us every day, that have been exposed continually in recent weeks at various levels, we will not achieve much. But we are talking about them. I have been around since the women’s movement of the 1970s and have seen a great deal of change in what has happened with the women’s movement. I feel quite strongly that we are at a point now where we are not going to go back. This is just another monumental step that means we are demanding that things change, that violence against women must stop and that women will no longer tolerate this sort of treatment that they have been subjected to for so long.

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (15:44): I too rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. Before I proceed, I would just like to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Shepparton and in particular to thank her for her work in supporting victim-survivors in her previous role. It is very important. We rely on people like the member for Shepparton in the workforce to protect women in our community.

When I looked at this bill and looked at how I would speak to it, I was really quite moved, and I must say I belong in the category of people that were not aware that this was the case and was really shocked to read it. This bill is important on several levels. It is around that respect that we owe people into eternity. It is interesting, I recently visited the Smythesdale Cemetery, which is a small cemetery in my electorate. They had received a $5000 grant from this government to put up plaques about the achievements of women on the goldfields. All of the plaques exist about the men of the goldfields and none about the women. It was really moving to walk through that cemetery and talk about the women that played such a vital role. Of course when I think about that, what it reminds me is that those headstones stand for, if not eternity, a long, long time. It is not just in the moment but for many, many years to come that those words will be reflected, and so it is incredibly important that we ensure that families and indeed victims are acknowledged in the way they would like to be.

This government is taking action to ensure the Victorian families who become the unwitting victims of violent crimes are protected from further harm or distress after losing loved ones. In reading about this case that this was based on, I could only imagine the horror that the family must have felt in realising that they do not have control over this situation, so I am very, very glad that this government has responded and reacted to this to ensure that no other families need to go through that sort of distress. No-one should have the right to make a decision about the grave or memorial of a person that they have killed.

The changes outlined in this bill will ensure that all Victorian families affected by indictable offences or by death due to murder-suicide have the right to make decisions about their loved ones’ graves and memorials after their deaths. It is absolutely unacceptable that a killer has the right to make decisions about what type of memorial the victim should have and what words should be inscribed on the memorial, or even who should be buried with the victim. It really is fabulous that we have acknowledged this gap. I often think being in this place is really about trying to find the gaps, trying to find the things that need improving. Without question, in the legislation as it stands now there is a horrendous gap, and I am very, very glad that this bill seeks to change that.

This bill will give new powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health to vary or remove a right of interment following an application by someone who has been directly or adversely affected by an indictable offence where the perpetrator has been convicted. A right-of-interment holder is the person who can authorise a burial or interment of cremated remains as well as the establishment of a memorial such as a headstone or plaque. Right-of-interment holders are usually the next of kin or family members. The right can also be jointly held by multiple parties. These changes will apply to all convictions, coronial findings and rights of interment from 1 July 2005. An application can also be made by someone who has been directly affected by the death of a person when there has been a coronial finding that a person is responsible for that death. This bill was initiated in response to a very high-profile conviction of a man—I will not use his name—that was found guilty of the unlawful killing of his wife. In this circumstance I choose not to acknowledge him but rather to acknowledge his victim in this.

Of course this was a terrible, terrible case of family violence. I think that one of the truly extraordinary things about this Andrews government—or I should say the previous Andrews government in the 58th Parliament—is that it held a world-first royal commission into family violence; no-one had done that. I think that it shows the absolute commitment this government has to gender equality, to protecting women. I noticed in the contribution from the member for South-West Coast that she suggested that perhaps we were not doing enough. There is always more that we can do, but I was a little distressed to hear the suggestion that perhaps the royal commission had not got it right and that a collective of lawyers might be better placed. I, for one, absolutely applaud the work that the royal commissioners did, and the recommendations they have come up with are extraordinary. This government is implementing absolutely every one of them. Very sadly, Ballarat, my home town, has higher than average family violence statistics, and they are very distressing. I met with our new superintendent recently and we talked about what sorts of issues face police in Ballarat, and very, very sadly, this is one of the main call-outs that they are involved in. So for me, you know, on a very localised level, the work that this government and the royal commission put in first to identify how we can try and really change this is very close to home and very fundamental.

There has been a lot done across the state around family violence, but in Ballarat, for me, one of the really, really fabulous moments was seeing the Orange Door network open in October last year. That was a $6 million investment from this government. It is really quite an extraordinary model, the Orange Door. Meeting all of the service providers that work within it, I saw their commitment to women and families, to providing a safe space and to providing all of those wraparound services—because we know domestic violence does not just stand alone. A woman trying to leave with her family in those circumstances is faced with a whole array of different issues that need resolving, be it housing or be it support in funding or medical—all of those things—and the Orange Door model, which brings those together and really wraps around someone in those situations, is really crucial support in our area and a very significant outcome of the royal commission. So I am very glad that the Orange Door network is going to be rolled out across 17 regions by 2022. And I would say to all of my colleagues that it makes a real difference having one in your area; you will be very delighted to see it come.

So of course we are really getting back to the substantive nature of this bill. In some way I hope it honours Karen Williams. She was subjected to the worst form of domestic violence, and the thought that in some way her family have to continue to live in pain with the notion that they did not have the right of interment and the thought that perhaps her killer might rest beside her or indeed have any say over what is on the tombstone is just unfathomable. And so I am very, very glad that this bill has come into being, and I am very glad that all sides of the house support this bill. I think, as the member for Shepparton said, most of us probably were not aware that this gap existed, and I struggle to imagine that anyone would in any way object to this gap being closed. I know that the family were very thankful for this. If I may quote the brother, Stephen Williams:

I’d like to thank the Victorian government and in particular the … health department who I first approached two years ago.

…

No longer will perpetrators get to have the final say, as that belongs to the families of the victims who are left behind.

Future unnecessary pain and suffering can now be avoided.

This is for those families, for all of those families, that have suffered so much already. This bill is really for them, and I commend it to the house.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (15:54): I rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021. I suppose someone of my own advanced years does not like talking about cemeteries and crematoria as a normal discussion point. However, I was certainly moved in the preparation by what this is about, and I particularly also join with the member for Buninyong in thanking the member for Shepparton. I think, just as an aside, the house often benefits from people who have got experience in these fields, and this is a good example here in regard to family law—just as in regard to medicine I am always interested to hear what the member for Brunswick has to say.

So, you know, when I am looking at any particular bill—I am into mantras—I adopt a sort of a mantra that says, ‘Experience; what is the experience? Reflect on that experience. What is the reflection on it?’. And then you take action to remediate, to expand, to develop and so on. And then you conduct an evaluation. And then time passes and you start it all over again. Well, this is a good example of something that does not really bear much reflection, or actually it is almost a sort of a statement of the obvious. But it is also very easy I think sometimes, when you move into the statement of the obvious, to think, ‘Oh, well, this’ll solve that one’ et cetera. This is just such a tiny, small part of the issue of family violence. It is a no-brainer, I suppose.

The bill will make Victoria a fairer place to live by amending the act. It is another step taken by the Andrews Labor government to ensure all Victorians have equal access to power, resources and opportunity and are treated with dignity, respect and fairness. The bill will give the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to direct the surrender or variation of a right of interment. This amendment is really what you might call a no-brainer, as I just said. I am sure that no-one in this house would argue that a convicted killer’s reach and influence should continue to haunt their victim in their final resting place. There they deserve to be appropriately memorialised and left in peace. The bill will guarantee that this is the case.

The case of Karen Williams has dominated the discussions, and rightly so. Having been murdered by her spouse, she faced the prospect of eventually being buried in the same grave as him. Thanks to Ms Williams’s family, this travesty never came to pass. The government was notified, and that is why we are here today, to fix this loophole in the state legislation so that no victim’s family ever have to suffer the indignity of enduring further harm and distress after losing a loved one. No killer deserves the right to decide how their victim should be memorialised.

The spectre of family violence has a long, sad history in this country. The amendments in this bill come in the wake of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, a world first. While this bill does not explicitly address one of the recommendations, it nonetheless adds to the government’s response to the royal commission’s findings. This bill provides further protection for women, children and families who have been victims of family violence.

It is a sombre fact that we still live in a society where more than one woman loses their life every week at the hand of a partner or former partner. Family violence is still the leading cause of death, disability and illness for women aged 15 to 44 in Australia. We recognise these shocking facts, knowing that the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ending family violence is unwavering and that bills such as the one we are debating this afternoon need to be passed to make a difference.

This government has already acquitted two-thirds of the 227 recommendations that came out of the royal commission, and progress on the remaining recommendations is well underway. This will amount to an investment of $3 billion to address family violence, a commitment unmatched by the other states and the commonwealth combined. We are taking family violence seriously. One death in a family context is quite simply one too many—and quite unacceptable in any shape or form.

So what will this bill do? To grant victims the respect in death they deserve, the proposed amendments will include discretionary powers for the Secretary of the Department of Health to direct the modification or surrender of a right of interment. These powers will only be activated in the event that coronial findings, indictable offences or situations of murder-suicide can be proven.

Unfortunately many victims never see the justice they deserve manifest in a conviction. By adding coronial findings as an alternative trigger for these powers, affected families will be able to exercise their entitlements in the absence of an indictable offence. No-one should suffer in silence. Once this bill has passed, a victim’s family will be able to lodge a written application to change or remove the right of interment that applies to the victim if the current holder of the right is in fact responsible for their demise. The secretary of the department will assess the application based on a range of criteria, and these include the circumstances of the indictable offence or the coroner’s findings about the death and the nature of the guilty person’s responsibility for the death, the opinions of the affected person or persons, the opinions of the responsible persons or their associates, whether or not remains have already been interred, along with consideration of the person’s human rights in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. If the secretary determines that a variation or removal is required, they will be required to take the least restrictive approach. If a variation of the right of interment is sufficient to adequately prevent further significant harm, pain or suffering for the loved ones, then it will be the preferred option over a forced surrender. The secretary’s decision will also be subject to judicial review in the Victorian Supreme Court.

If passed, these powers will apply retrospectively to all convictions following 1 July 2005. This is to acknowledge that the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 came into force at that time. The department will monitor the function of this legislation during the initial stages of implementation and should a significant amount of applications come through for offences prior to 2005, this retrospective provision may be extended. So we are back to what I started with, that mantra of experience, reflection, action and evaluation, and hopefully that is what it should be with all legislation, including this bill.

In conclusion, in summary this bill is desperately needed to address a gaping hole in our legal framework. It will remove a killer’s undeserved power to determine the nature of their victim’s burial and memorialisation. Instead these powers will rightly be reassigned to the victims themselves and their families.

This work is not only necessary to correct isolated injustices but forms part of the Andrews Labor government’s broader initiative started by the Royal Commission into Family Violence to achieve greater gender equity in the state of Victoria. This bill will put provisions in place to better protect women, children and families. Of course we recognise that it is never sufficient just to have a whole string of individual, small amendments like this that might only apply to a very small number of people. We have to be all the time seeing this as part of a bigger picture of doing everything we can to limit the amount of violence. Violence will never be stopped like that, but to keep limiting it and keep reducing it, and this is a step in the right direction. I therefore commend this bill to the house.

Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (16:04): It is a privilege to be speaking in this chamber this afternoon on this bill following a number of fine contributions, just then from the member for Hawthorn and from others in this chamber this afternoon. This is yet another bill that shows the Andrews Labor government is taking action to support Victorian families who become unwitting victims of violent crimes so that they are protected from further harm or distress after losing loved ones. It is a bill that comes to the floor of the house in an important week, when women were marching in the streets just days ago to protest against all forms of violence.

At present the law technically provides for a situation, as a number of my colleagues have noted, that any reasonable observer would see to be unacceptable: that a perpetrator of family violence could have the right to make decisions about what type of memorial their victim should have, what words should be inscribed on their memorial and even who buries the victim of their crimes. It is horrifying to contemplate the trauma that could cause to victims and their families, and it is clearly unacceptable. That is why the changes outlined in this important bill to ensure that all Victorian families affected by indictable offences or by a death due to murder-suicide have the right to make decisions over their loved one’s grave and memorial after their death are so, so important. In line with the Victorian government’s gender equality strategy this is a bill informed by a principle that we must reinforce: that all Victorians should have access to equal power, resources and opportunities and be treated with dignity, respect and fairness. The fundamentals and the justifications for it are clear and simple, but I will cover some of the details of the changes outlined right now.

The right-of-interment holder is the person who can authorise the burial or interment of cremated remains as well as the establishment of a memorial, such as a headstone or plaque, as has been covered earlier. They are usually the next of kin or family members, and the right can also be jointly held by multiple parties. At present the role is rigidly set and difficult to legally change, but this bill will give new powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health, as the member for Hawthorn just noted, to vary or remove a right of interment following an application by someone who is being directly or adversely affected by an indictable offence and where the perpetrator has been convicted. Under the system outlined an application can also be made by someone who has been directly affected by the death of a person where there has been a coronial finding that a person is responsible for that death and that responsible person is themselves deceased—for example, in the tragic circumstances of a murder-suicide.

These changes will apply to all convictions, coronial findings and rights of interment purchased or transferred from 1 July 2005 to line up with the implementation of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003. Indictable offences and coronial findings or the equivalent from all jurisdictions will be considered to ensure an equal application of the new laws. This bill is not about further punishment for the perpetrator or the associates of perpetrators following the commission of a serious crime. Rather, it is about protecting and preventing people affected by that crime from enduring further pain, hurt and suffering. Losing a loved one in these tragic circumstances is hard enough without having to be further subjected to pain by the exercise of a right of interment by or in favour of an offender.

This bill was initiated in response to the high-profile conviction of a person found guilty of the killing of their spouse, as has been documented in this chamber this afternoon. That killer continues to have a right over the victim’s place of burial because they are the holder of that right of interment for this grave. There is currently no power in the act to address this matter or similar situations. The family of Karen Williams deserve the right to make decisions about how she is remembered, including where she is laid to rest.

This bill does go further than just this one case, however. And because of the courage of Karen’s brother, Stephen, and her family, this gap in the legislative framework will be closed to stop killers and convicted offenders from wielding power and control over a victim’s place of rest. These amendments are a critical step in protecting the rights and dignity of victims of family violence and their families. In Australia more than a woman a week loses her life at the hands of a partner or former partner. Family violence remains the leading cause of death, disability and illness for women aged between 15 and 44 in Australia. Family violence is endemic across our country, a pandemic that riddled our community long before COVID-19 arrived.

The Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ending family violence is unwavering. Five years ago this government embarked upon a world-first Royal Commission into Family Violence. We took a bright light to our state’s and this country’s darkest secret and committed to rebuilding a broken system to better support victims, to assisting perpetrators to change their behaviour and to ending family violence in our state for good. We have acquitted more than two-thirds of the commission’s 227 recommendations, as has been noted, and all of the remaining recommendations are well underway, with over $3 billion of investment, more than any other state and the commonwealth combined, an indication of the seriousness to which this state treats this issue. One death in a family violence context is one too many, and we are doing everything we can to stop these entirely preventable deaths. In the meantime, we will do everything we can to ensure that victims of family violence are granted the dignity, control and respect in death that they deserve.

There is absolutely one thing for sure: no perpetrator should have the right to make any decisions about their victim’s grave or memorialisation, and under the amendments in this bill they will not. The families who carry the ongoing pain and suffering of losing a loved one will no longer have to face the retraumatising process of negotiating with the perpetrator about the memorialisation of their loved one, and that includes families who do not have an indictable offence conviction. The proposed amendments, to include a discretionary power for the Secretary of the Department of Health to direct the modification or surrender of the rights of interment on the basis of coronial findings alongside indictable offences and situations of murder-suicide, are an important step in acknowledging the rights and dignity of victims of family violence. Coronial findings as an alternative threshold trigger will allow affected family members of victim-survivors of family violence to exercise their right-of-interment entitlements in the absence of an indictable offence conviction. Indictable offences vary between jurisdictions, which will result in varied results for similar cases.

But more importantly we know that too many victims of family violence suffer in silence. Many victims never see that justice they deserve manifest in a conviction. Hopefully one day provisions in law just like this one are not necessary, because we hope one day we do not lose a single person—another person—to family violence. So I commend this bill to the house and thank the minister for the work in preparing it for this chamber.

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (16:14): I also rise today to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021, following a long line of speakers, including obviously the member for Ringwood just then, the member for Hawthorn before and of course the member for Shepparton a bit earlier. The Andrews government has been a consistent supporter of addressing systemic unfairness in society, and this bill is no exception. All Victorians should feel they are treated with dignity, respect and fairness, and it is through actions such as this legislation that we will move closer to the goal of equality, regardless of gender, sexuality or identity.

This legislation has been initiated in response to a high-profile conviction which highlighted a gap in the existing legislative arrangement regarding the rights of victims. Under the existing framework a person convicted of the unlawful killing of their spouse retains control over the right of interment for this grave. This means that a killer has the right to make decisions around the memorial service, where the victim is buried and what words should be inscribed on the memorial. This legislation therefore will provide the Secretary of the Department of Health with the power to direct the surrender or variation of a right of interment. This change will ensure that the rights of all victims and other persons directly and adversely affected by serious crimes are given appropriate respect and a say in what happens to the remains and resting place of their loved ones.

The result of this reform is that the holder of a right of interment who has been convicted of an indictable offence or who has been identified by the coroner as a responsible person can have their right of interment forcibly surrendered or varied in order to prevent further harm and suffering for those affected. Under the new regulatory framework an affected person can make a written application to the Secretary of the Department of Health for the variation or forced surrender of the right of interment. An affected person is defined as being someone who has been directly and adversely affected by an indictable offence or by the death of a person where there is a coronial finding that a person is responsible for that death and that responsible person themselves is deceased.

The new legislative framework will further require the Secretary of the Department of Health to consider a range of matters to inform the decision. These matters may include the nature and seriousness of the indictable offence and the coroner’s findings about the circumstances of the death and the nature of the responsible person’s responsibility for that death. In addition, the secretary must also take into consideration the impact that this decision has on human rights in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

If it is determined by the secretary that there are grounds for the right of interment to be varied or surrendered, the bill requires the secretary to take the approach which is least restrictive. This is enforced in the legislation by limiting the power of the secretary to forcibly surrender the right of interment to only be exercised in the event that variation would not prevent further significant harm, pain or suffering to an affected person. A crucial component of these reforms is that the powers outlined in this bill can be applied retrospectively to coronial findings and convictions on or after 1 July 2005, ensuring that historic cases where harm has occurred can be corrected.

This change might be small, but it is a crucial step towards achieving the goal of equality in Victoria, which this government has made a cornerstone of its agenda. This reform, like so many which have been pursued since this government took office, is about giving power back to victims. It is about ensuring that perpetrators of violence no longer have power over their victims, even after they have passed away. It is about giving back agency to the loved ones of victims of family violence, so that they can choose what is written on a grave and where the funeral is conducted.

This reform also comes from the same vein as the massive overhaul of the way that the government approaches the issue of family violence. The Andrews government has made a clear commitment to implementing all 227 recommendations of the landmark Royal Commission into Family Violence, which shone light on the countless failures of the system to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The sad reality which was highlighted by the royal commission is that family violence is widespread and fundamentally gendered. The majority of victims of family violence—75 per cent—are women, and this is a key driving factor behind gender inequality in Victorian society.

The Andrews government has shown a clear commitment to implementing all of the findings of the Royal Commission into Family Violence through the rollout of Victoria’s gender equality strategy. This legislation to address the legislative gap which allows convicted killers to retain the rights of interment of victims is firmly in line with the gender equality strategy, which seeks to correct the systemic issues. Other key reforms which have been outlined in this strategy to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence include strategies to increase the accountability of perpetrators and shift the burden away from victim-survivors. This is particularly relevant to the legislation in front of the house today, because the case which acted as the trigger for the reforms to this legislative framework was in fact a tragic case of family violence.

Some of the other actions being taken to stamp out family violence include the rollout of 31 family violence investigation units across the state to improve the safety of victim-survivors through police responses, as well as the opening of five specialist family violence courts which will provide a safe and secure environment for victim-survivors and families. Additionally, the Andrews government has rolled out a 10-year industry plan which seeks to expand support for victims in the workplace. The fact is that there are thousands of people working across various industries, from the community sector, health, education and training, and the justice system, who have contact with people experiencing the effects of family violence. As such, it is absolutely essential that all workers in these areas feel they are equipped with the skills to fulfil their role to prevent, identify and respond to family violence.

This government is also taking steps to stamp out the risk of family violence before it can occur so that tragedies such as that which occurred to prompt this legislation with Karen Williams can be avoided. To achieve this the Victorian government has established Respect Victoria, an independent statutory authority which has been established for the purpose of providing education to the community in order to change cultural attitudes and social norms which allow for violence and abuse to occur.

To this end, Respect Victoria has launched the Respect Women: Call it Out campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to raise awareness of the irreversible damage which can occur as a result of sexual harassment, sexual assault and of course domestic violence. This entails educating Victorians on the signs to look for and what to do in the event that they witness an incident occurring, in recognition that the community as a whole has a responsibility to end the normalisation of domestic violence and sexual assault. The campaign also highlights the fact that violence is fundamentally caused by a power imbalance, which is usually driven by gender inequality, discrimination and marginalisation.

This campaign has been particularly important as we have navigated our way through the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen widespread disruption to society over the past 12 months. One of the tragic consequences of COVID-19 has been a rise in domestic violence caused by the stresses of stay-at-home directives and the financial toll of the disruptions to the economy. The Respect Women: Call it Out campaign therefore seeks to educate the public on the importance of looking for signs that domestic violence may be occurring and highlighting that as a community it is our responsibility to be active bystanders and act in an appropriate manner to minimise harm to all parties.

Nowhere has the issue of gender equality been highlighted in recent times more prevalently than through the March 4 Justice around Australia, which saw 100 000 people in cities all around the country march in protest of sexual assault and harassment, which women continue to face. Additionally, a significant March 4 Justice was held in Rosebud, with a tremendous turnout of close to 400 people, including mayor Despi O’Connor, deputy mayor Sarah Race and Cr Kerri McCafferty taking the stage to address everyone.

This bill is important. Families of the deceased deserve the right to make decisions about how they are remembered and where they are laid to rest. No longer should killers have the right to wield power and control over their victim’s place of rest. The Victorian government has taken a leading stance on delivering reforms which address the systemic issues which continue to drive inequality, and this bill follows that pattern. I commend it to the house.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (16:24): I too rise to speak on the Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021, and I would like to start my contribution by thanking the Minister for Health for bringing this important bill to the house and also members who have briefly contributed before me, the member for Ringwood and the member for Nepean. This bill puts in place necessary measures so that Victorian families who become the unwitting victims of violent crimes are protected from further harm or distress after losing a loved one. Anyone who has lost a loved one before can understand it is a time of deep grief, stress and sadness to make decisions about the grave or memorial of the person, let alone having the person who caused their death make that decision. I am so proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government—a government that listens and a government that takes action. More importantly, we listen to those who need us most, and in the case of this legislation it is the grieving and heartbroken families of victims.

I think it is really interesting that the debate for this bill has come up in this week. Particularly we saw the huge number of people who turned out for the March 4 Justice on Monday right across the country to demand an end to gender-based violence, particularly in the workplace but right across the spectrum. I think it is interesting in the context of this bill that we are in a situation here in 2021 that we even need to consider this. We still need to see how the impact of gendered violence, particularly in terms of when it causes death, goes beyond the actual incident of the death itself and continues in perpetuity in the context of a tombstone and a gravesite where control continues to be exerted by the perpetrator. If there is any week we are considering what this means and how important this change is, it is this week.

The bill itself will provide the Secretary of the Department of Health with the power to direct the surrender or variation of a right of interment and ensure that the rights of all victims and other persons directly and adversely affected by serious crimes are given appropriate respect and a say in what happens to the remains and resting place of their loved ones. The bill also makes minor technical and other amendments to clarify ambiguity and address inconsistencies, improving the administration and the sector’s understanding of the act, and these amendments are a critical step in protecting the rights and dignity of victims of family violence and their families.

In Australia at least one woman dies per week at the hands of a partner or a former partner, and that is why this government is taking every possible step to end family violence. Five years ago this government embarked on the world-first Royal Commission into Family Violence. We took a bright light to our state’s and this country’s darkest secret and committed to rebuilding a broken system, better supporting victims, assisting perpetrators in changing their behaviour and ending family violence in our state. We have acquitted more than two-thirds of the commission’s 227 recommendations, and all those remaining are well underway, with over $3 billion of investment—more than any other state and the commonwealth combined. The establishment of the royal commission was an acknowledgement of the seriousness with which the Victorian community has come to regard family violence and its consequences for individuals and families. It reflects our growing awareness of its scale, a recognition that existing policy responses have been insufficient to reduce the prevalence and severity of the violence, and the priority the community is prepared to accord it to address the problem.

We have committed to the rollout of the Orange Door network in an additional five areas of the state, including in my electorate of Box Hill. Orange Door is about providing every family with the specialist support they need, regardless of where they live, from workers across family and child services, Aboriginal and men’s services, along with emergency and crisis services. Since the Orange Door opened in 2018 over 100 000 Victorians have been referred to it or have directly sought help from it with family violence. The government has invested, as I said previously, more than $3 billion to prevent family violence and to implement each of the royal commission’s recommendations. Unfortunately to this day family violence remains the leading cause of death, disability and illness for women aged 15 to 44 in Australia, and any one death in a family violence context is one death too many.

I want to take a moment to recognise the work of some of the incredibly hardworking family violence service providers and agencies in my electorate of Box Hill: Eastern Health’s Strengthening Hospital Responses to Family Violence initiative; the Migrant Information Centre in Box Hill; the Eastern Community Legal Centre; the Eastern Domestic Violence Service, EDVOS, which although based in Ringwood services all of the eastern catchment; Victoria Police’s domestic and family violence investigations team; EACH, in Box Hill; Carrington Health; and of course Women’s Health East. I have met with each of them, all since being in this house, and they all do incredible work. They change the life of each individual that approaches them, and I thank them for that.

The proposed amendments in this bill include a discretionary power for the Secretary of the Department of Health to direct the modification or surrender of a right of interment based on coronial findings alongside indictable offences and situations of murder-suicide, and this is an essential step in acknowledging the rights and dignity of victims of family violence.

Now, in relation to the case that has been documented by previous speakers, the case of Karen Williams, the newspaper reports talk about this as being bizarre not only in terms of the perpetrator having control over the siting of the burial and providing for the plot next to the victim but also in terms of what was actually written on the tombstone. It was as if they were two completely separate beings and entities, actually, from the perpetrator to the victim, with not even a recognition of other members of the family. I really want to call out and thank Stephen Williams and the members of the Williams family for what they have done and for bringing this to the attention of the minister and to the government, making sure that laws such as these can be changed to better reflect the needs and wishes of victims and victims’ families rather than retaining the power of the perpetrators.

For the families who carry the ongoing pain and suffering of losing a loved one, under this legislation they will no longer have to face the retraumatising process of negotiating with the perpetrator about the memorialisation of their loved one. That includes families who do not have an indictable offence conviction. Today marks an important day. This bill marks a day where we cut the perpetrator of family violence and their control and their manipulation—a day where perpetrators get no control of how a victim is memorialised and remembered and where it is given to the victim’s loved ones, where it belongs. Victims of family violence deserve dignity, they deserve control and they deserve respect when laid to rest. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (16:34): This is a very important bill that we are concluding the week on, particularly in a week where much discussion has been had about misogyny and gendered violence and a range of very, very serious matters. I said in my members statement earlier today that I consider that we are in the middle of a great social reckoning, and that is a very good thing. I am pleased that in a week when there have been a lot of other things happening this bill is being supported right across the house, particularly because it is a bill that has been drafted essentially in response to a particular set of domestic violence circumstances.

We often in this place cite statistics in support of an argument. One of those statistics that I think is often cited and still registers in me horror every time I hear it is that every week in Australia a woman dies at the hands of her intimate partner, a man—every week. That to me is just a horrifying statistic, a statistic that speaks to the absolute truth of how much work there is to do in this space, because until we can say that that does not happen there is just so, so much work to be done. This bill was introduced in response to a particular circumstance—I am not going to name the perpetrator; his name does not bear being brought into this place—a particular murder that saw the perpetrator holding a set of essentially property rights regarding interment and some additional rights, kind of post-mortem rights, if you like, that are wildly inappropriate for the perpetrator of family violence to hold, most particularly when those rights are held in relation to the victim of that family violence.

This bill seeks to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 to ensure that the secretary of the relevant department, the Department of Health, can make any necessary change to ensure that victims of serious crimes are given appropriate respect, and that they have a say in what happens to the remains and resting places of loved ones. So the families of those victims will have a say in that and we will avoid the horrific potential set of circumstances where a perpetrator from prison can theoretically—and might have, but for the passage of this bill—dictate a whole range of arrangements relating to their victim.

As the law currently stands, the person who holds any right of interment can exercise it in a way that is harmful to other people or creates further suffering. By curtailing that right, yes, we impinge, arguably, on a property right, we impinge on a particular freedom held by people. But if ever there were a set of mitigating circumstances, if ever there were a set of extenuating and justifying circumstances, they are the circumstances that sit behind the drafting of this bill.

We do not pretend for a moment that this is a big step, that it is a measure that is going to transform the thinking in this space, that it is going to do wonders in relation to redress for victims and their families. But it does take that critical piece, that ability for people to effectively either profit from their offending or to continue to terrorise family members of their victim well after their victim has died. To the extent that we shut down that albeit fairly narrow potential set of circumstances, I think it is entirely appropriate to take this action and to take this response.

My electorate is one of a number of electorates that contain a cemetery. I think a number of my constituents perhaps do not have it front of mind but are certainly conscious of the role that cemeteries play. There are of course some technical amendments that are before us here in this bill as well. One of the ones that I was horrified to find on the statute books was a provision—happily not enforced—that has allowed for funeral expenses to be recouped from associates of the deceased if the estate could not meet those funeral expenses. Now, the notion that some sort of government official would knock on the front door a week after you have buried your mate or your son and say, ‘Oh, by the way you owe us 1200 bucks’—I am pleased that the section was not enforced, but clearly the section ought never have been on the statute books. I regret I cannot enlighten the house about when that section made it onto the statute books or at whose behest, but it was clearly not the Parliament’s proudest moment, I would have thought. If a person dies penniless or with so little in the way of assets that they cannot meet their own funeral or cremation expenses, well, one can hardly expect the state to start knocking on the doors of their family and friends seeking to recover those expenses.

There is another technical amendment regarding the perpetual rights of interment for cremated remains rather than 25-year rights. It is not a problem that is unique to our jurisdiction. All over the world there is pressure, frankly, on the space required for interments. Quite obviously for bodily interment you need perpetual rights, or in the ordinary course of business you would expect that to be the case. With cremated interments you can potentially hold an option where people might say that after 25 years they will notify everyone they have got on the contact list and determine what happens to them. That is potentially a cost reduction to the bereaved family that I am sure will be welcomed in some quarters.

The Burwood Cemetery has been around for a very long time. It was in 1858 that it first operated and it went through until the early 1980s. There are still some openings, I am told, for cremations, but there are not any new sites being sold. This is one of those cemeteries that has hit its capacity constraints. But I note with interest that Sir Charles Powers, who was a member for Burrum in Queensland, is buried there. He put forward in the Queensland Parliament in 1894 a bill for women’s suffrage. The bill failed of course because, one, it was Queensland and, two, it was 1894. But in the context of the debate we have been having about gender this week I was pleased to discover that one of the early proponents of the women’s suffrage movement is in fact buried in the cemetery that is in my electorate. We did try to determine which party he was from. I am going to hazard a guess—Queensland at the turn of two centuries ago—that he was not necessarily part of the progressive left—

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr FOWLES: I do not know. Actually he was a member of the opposition party so maybe he was.

But this has been a week where we have grappled in many ways with a whole range of issues relating to gender, relating to the rights of women and relating to misogyny. It has been a week I hope that has given many people reason to pause—it has certainly given me reason to pause—to reflect upon conduct that continues to perpetuate a whole range of really, really challenging and awful behaviours by not all but certainly some men in our society. Whilst this bill addresses, as I think I said at the start of my contribution, a very narrow set of circumstances, nonetheless it speaks to some of the horrors that are perpetuated by those who seek to exercise positions of power over women in the very, very worst of ways.

The case that sits at the heart of this bill is but one example of that. But, sadly, when one woman dies every week at the hands of her intimate male partner, we know that there are all too many examples of people behaving in this way. I hope that over the course of the break, after we rise tonight, everyone in this place has an opportunity to reflect on that and think about how we can and must do better. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing) (16:44): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.