eMAILED
SCROLL DOWN TO SEE RESPONSES
8.1.9. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Disposal of Human Remains - 9 June 2025
FILE NO: SF 6381
AUTHOR: Taylor Murphy (Administration Officer - Governance Support) ... APPROVER: Sam Johnson OAM (Chief Executive Officer)
QUESTION 1:
FOREWORD:
I put the questions following on my own cognisance after I have advised a network of clients, one over several years. These matters have personal significance!
As Council is all too aware the space available for the traditional means to respectfully disposal of human remains on public land is diminishing. Additionally, the cultural sensitivities and sensibilities that currently prevail in places, and communities, such as those found in Local Govt. jurisdictions such as those within the Launceston Municipality have undergone dynamic changes.
For instance, it is no longer the case that families and communities can be assumed to be dominated by adherents to the Christian faith or those who defer by default to Eurocentric quasi Christian cultural norms that once prevailed within Anglocentric colonially settled communities. That is communities replete with cultural practices and belief systems that originated elsewhere. It is important to note that in Tasmania, indeed in Launceston, there is wide and broad spectrum of cultural realities and sensibilities in play.
Thinking about the respectful disposal of the mortal remains of our loved ones, and indeed our own remains, culturally determined sentitives and sensibilities come into play – and unavoidably. Here it is often the case that ‘lore’ and ‘law’ collide in ways that impact quite heavily on a diversity of cultural realities.
While specific licensing or registration is NOT mandated for funeral directors as service providers, formal training is seen as significantly enhancing skills and career prospects of people wishing respectfully dispose of human remains as a business. While NOT essential, a Vocational Education and Training (VET) course in funeral services or related areas is seen beneficial in 'the industry' and its clients. Moreover, in Tasmania, becoming a funeral director DOSE NOT require a specific license or registration.
Yet largely bureaucratically determined protocols impact upon the respectful, and culturally appropriate means via which community members are permitted to dispose of the mortal remains of their deceased, their 'loved one', and those with whom they identify.
A mortuary is a place where the moral remains of humans are prepared for their respectful disposal and a Tasmanian mortuary, according to the National Construction Code (NCC) and relevant regulations, requires specific design and operational features:
These include physical separation from public areas; and
- A dedicated body preparation rooms;nand
- A screened vehicle access; and
- An airlocks for toilet and shower access; and
- A place with temperature controls; an
- A place with storage protocols; and
- A place where communication with bereaved families can be facilitated; and
- A place that conforms to the regulations set out here – REGULATIONS LINK
A cemetery is a place that has been:
approved, under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, for the burial of human remains; and
- Lawfully used for the burial of or placement of human remains; or
- A place that is, or was, lawfully used for the burial or placement of human remains; or
- A place, land or structure, or a class of places, land or structures, prescribed as a cemetery …. For example there are some churches that are cemeteries because there are human remains buried or placed in the church.
Burials on private land, in keeping with section 29 of the Act, are not cemeteries. Private Burials, which requires input from the:
Director of Public Health; OR
- Local Councils; and
- A person cannot conduct a burial on private land without the written permission of
- Assert ’traditional cultural values' that no longer always pertain widely in a diverse and diversifying community; and
- Prescribe ’Christian cultural values' that are by-and-large not the values adhered to widely in communities such Launceston; and
- Underwrite the virtual monopoly operated by, and enjoyed by, operators in a business sense, Tasmania’s ‘Funeral Industry’; and
- All this in contravention of, or at odds with, the cultural sensibilities and sensitivities of significant portion of the community who adhere to different cultural imperatives that in some instances are antithetic to the assumed/default Anglocentric quasi Christian value systems.
- Expect that Local Govt and the State Govt. to put strategies in place that are enabling; and rather than prohibitive and punitive; and
- Expect that Local Govt and the State Govt. work together to reflect a diversity of cultural sensibilities, and do so without prejudice or discrimination.
This circumstance backgrounds the Councils need to explain in detail to its constituency as to just what is:
The purposefulness in positioning Council to mitigate against diversity and cultural inclusiveness in the respectful disposal of human remains; and
- The incentive to underwrite funeral directors’ privileged and monopoly like position in servicing community members in the respectful disposal of the mortal remains of their constituency's ‘loved ones’.
MORAL RIGHTS STATEMENT: For the question I am submitting to Council here, I assert my moral rights as an author under Australian copyright law. Consequently, should Council decide to either edit, paraphrase, or otherwise alter my question it will cease to be my question and therefore it must not be attributed to me under any circumstance. Likewise, the question is directed to the city’s governance and not to the city’s management team given that they do not have the delegated authority to answer on Councillors’ behalf.
QUESTION:
Will the City of Launceston’s CEO in accordance with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and the Local Govt Act 1993 and the requirements of the Director of Public Health to facilitate the respectful disposal of the mortal remains of deceased persons in the City of Launceston please provide ratepayers and residents with a position paper setting out:
The inhibitions preventing the respectful disposal of human remains other than via the established funeral industry;
- The inhibitions preventing relatives et al respectfully and safely transporting the remains of a ‘loved one’ to mortuary, gravesite, crematorium or some other place for the purpose of then legally and culturally appropriately disposal of human remains; and
- The opportunities available to Council to provide information and documentation to assist grieving Launcestonians find ways and means by which they may respectfully dispose of their deceased ‘loved ones' unaided by a commercial funeral director; and
- The cost to ratepayers et al of Council facilitating natural burials on private land, above ground burials on private land, burials at sea other alternatives like cryogenics; and
- The likely and anticipatable costs involved in recovering any of costs to the community when and where Local Govt is in practice providing facilitating services; and
- The inhibitions preventing community members working cooperatively and collaboratively in respect to the appropriate and respectful disposal of human remains in the Launceston municipality/city ?
QUESTION 2:
CONTEXT NOTE:
Given the cultural sensibilities and sensitivities involve it seems that the cost of transporting a deceased person from their place of death to an appropriate mortuary via the agencies of funeral directors located in Launceston and the kanamalukaTAMAR/ESK region at times places extraordinary financial pressures on the city’s bereaved people, sometimes it causes almost unbearable financial stress.
There are reports of such services being $3,000 and without community support this has the potential to generate ongoing stresses with no relief in sight. There is real need in Launceston for people to be able garner trustworthy information from appropriate ‘independent’ experts who can assist them to:
Navigate the applicable rules and regulations they are required to do at the time of the death of a member of their community or family ; and
- Independently take charge of the arrangements that need to be made at the time of the death of a member of their community or family; and
- Make affordable decisions about services and protocols that need to be made at the time of a member of their community or family.
Elsewhere community groups, sometimes cooperatives, exist to provide community support for such people. Below there is a selection of references.
MORAL RIGHTS STATEMENT: For the question I am submitting to Council here, I assert my moral rights as an author under Australian copyright law. Consequently, should Council decide to either edit, paraphrase, or otherwise alter my question it will cease to be my question and therefore it must not be attributed to me under any circumstance. Likewise, the question is directed to the city’s governance and not to the city’s management team given that they do not have the delegated authority to answer on Councillors’ behalf.
QUESTION: 2
Given the authority Councillors has apparently delegated to the CEO who in turn has apparently delegated the authority to staff member or an independent service provider, will Council now request the CEO to establish an appropriately qualified network of networkers to advise Council officers in the first instance and ultimately the elected representatives on:
The most expedient, reliable and appropriately informed mechanism for providing citizens with the sets of advice they need at the time of the death of a member of their community or family; and
- How to best provide the information people need at such times in an accessible and affordable manner
QUESTION 3:
CONTEXT NOTE:
The tensions to be found against the background of community members acting in accord with personal beliefs and imperatives plus cultural sensitivities and sensitivities undertakes to take control of the respectful disposal of a member of their community or family member are disturbing. Being confronted by bureaucrats deeming that the vehicle people propose to use to transport the deceased somehow fails some criteria or other can be absurd.
The need to resolve this matter is clear. Moreover, given the stress such confrontations cause and the possibility that the functionary is exceeding her/his authority, time is of the essence. Additionally, its an issue that should not arise in the first place.
Clearly there is an increasing need to move the deceased from one place to another and oftentimes on several occasions. As it once was the case such ‘vechiles’ were enlisted from community members that satisfied vernacular protocols and were deemed to be fit-for-purpose. For a myriad of reasons this is no longer that simple albeit that an affordable fit-for-purpose may made available affordably and ‘owned’ in common by the community.
The possibilities are many and the only thing standing in the way of putting any one of them in place is the lack of someone to take ownership of the issue.
MORAL RIGHTS STATEMENT: For the question I am submitting to Council here, I assert my moral rights as an author under Australian copyright law. Consequently, should Council decide to either edit, paraphrase, or otherwise alter my question it will cease to be my question and therefore it must not be attributed to me under any circumstance. Likewise, the question is directed to the city’s governance and not to the city’s management team given that they do not have the delegated authority to answer on Councillors’ behalf.
QUESTION: 3
Will Council now consider being proactive in doing the following:
Canvasing community groups and community service organisations to enlist a coalition of the willing to design and build a community vehicle to transport deceased people; and
- Facilitate there being an interest group coming together and workshopping the options and opportunities relative to providing such a vehicle; and
- Provide accessible storage facilities to enable approved and accredited personnel to use such a vehicle or any community vehicle/s for its/their intended purpose?
No comments:
Post a Comment