Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill

The Hon. H.J. GUMBYS (16:32): I also rise to speak in support of the Burial and Cremation (Interment Rights) Amendment Bill 2026, and I thank the Hon. Mira El Dannawi for her thorough outline of the bill. Rather than retread that ground, I want to turn to why this reform matters so profoundly and to the cases that have made its necessity unmistakable.

The bill exists because until now the law has permitted something that most South Australians would find deeply concerning and wrong: the person convicted of killing their partner, their child or their victim may retain, under the current act, full legal control over that person's burial site. They can decide what goes on that headstone, they can determine who else might be interred there and they can even arrange to be buried alongside the person they killed, while the family of the deceased has no legal avenue to stop them.

The cases that exposed this gap most starkly came from Victoria. In 2016, Karen Ristevski was killed by her husband, Borce, who then disposed of her body in bushland on Mount Macedon, where hikers found her remains eight months later. He spent years lying to her family, to their daughter and to the police, before eventually pleading guilty to manslaughter in 2019.

Throughout that time and throughout his imprisonment, he retained legal control over Karen's grave at Williamstown Cemetery. He determined all decisions relating to her headstone. He held the right to the adjoining plot. Karen's family spent years trying to stop him from being buried next to her and trying to change the headstone he had chosen. It was that fight, and the complete absence of any legal mechanism to help them, that prompted the government of Victoria to act.

When Victoria's legislators debated those reforms in 2021, members noted that the killer continued to have rights over the victim's place of burial simply because he was the holder of the right of interment. The principle they articulated then is the same principle behind the bill before us today: no-one should have the right to make decisions about the grave or memorial of the person they have killed.

Victoria's laws were put to use for the first time in January 2024. Robert Farquharson, convicted of deliberately driving his car into a dam on Father's Day in 2005, killing his three sons Jai, Tyler and Bailey, owned his sons' gravesite. His name appeared on their headstone alongside that of their mother, Cindy Gambino-Moules, and he held the right to a neighbouring burial plot.

Following an application by an affected family member, the Victorian Department of Health secretary ordered Farquharson to relinquish his interment rights. His name was removed from the boys' headstone and he was prevented from being buried beside them. The Victorian government said families had achieved something important: reforms that enabled them to continue a process of grieving and closure. That is what this bill brings to South Australia—not a complex new regime; a practical remedy for a straightforward injustice.

The Births, Deaths and Marriages registrar will have the power, on application from an affected person, to vary or force the surrender of an interment right held by a convicted offender or their associate. The registrar must weigh whether the exercise of that right would cause significant emotional harm to an affected person and whether it is appropriate to intervene.

Cultural and religious considerations must be taken into account. Appeal rights exist through SACAT. The safeguards are sound. It is worth noting that South Australia is not simply following Victoria's lead without scrutiny. A six-week consultation process was undertaken with cemetery authorities, legal representatives, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and the Births, Deaths and Marriages registrar.

The bill was broadly supported, with amendments made in response to stakeholder feedback. This reform has been developed with care and consideration. The pain of grief in such circumstances is hard enough without the law as it stands compounding it. The families in these cases endure not only the loss of a loved one but also the burden of fighting without any legal recourse to prevent the person responsible for that loss from continuing to exercise authority over their loved one's final resting place. This bill ends that. I am pleased to support it and I commend the bill to the council.