- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 20 June 2007
Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 43 of 49
| Next Item »
Page: 1432
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 7 June 2007.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [9.22 p.m.]: The Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007 provides an information standard for describing funeral products and services. It will ensure information standards so that consumers have clear information at the time of arranging funerals and that the terminology used will be standardised across the industry. The requirements of the bill present no problems for legitimate funeral directors. Indeed the industry has been deeply involved in determining those standards for the draft regulations. The Opposition will support the bill, but we do so in the knowledge that it is the weakest imaginable response by the Government to the all-party Legislative Council inquiry into the funeral industry.
I inform the House of the work of that inquiry over six months in 2005. The recommendations so strongly supported by the Opposition have been disregarded by the Government in the legislation before the House. That Legislative Council social issues committee inquiry, chaired by Labor's Jan Burnswoods, reported in December 2005 with 23 recommendations that had the unanimous support of the all-party committee. Importantly, the recommendations reflected the weight of community submissions to the inquiry and were also welcomed by the industry. In the report the chairman, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, wrote:
The Committee makes strong and positive recommendations aimed at addressing consumer and industry concerns about transparency of funeral costs, a clear complaints mechanism and enforcement of the public health regulations.
To better protect consumers the Committee recommends a comprehensive code of practice for the funeral industry. It is hoped this code of practice, developed with stakeholders and Government, will cover areas such as complaints handling, funeral bills and quotes, essential service funerals (basic funerals), professional and ethical practices, and be flexible enough to accommodate the funeral of people's choice ?
This strong report, with unanimous recommendations backed by the funeral industry and consumers, charted a way forward to improve service delivery and eliminate the small number of notorious rogue operators. The ball was in the Government's court to respond to this consensus report, but nothing happened?then nothing happened and nothing happened. The Minister for Fair Trading said in her agreement in principle speech:
Members may recall that in 2005 the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the funeral industry. The Government welcomed the inquiry and provided a whole-of-government response to the inquiry report, which supported many of the inquiry's recommendations.
This description of the Government's response to the report is, to put it politely, far from accurate. The truth about the Government's response is that it took seven months before Minister Beamer tabled a reply to Parliament. In the reply only four out of 23 recommendations were supported without qualification. These included recommendations such as "crematoriums be encouraged as a way for the community to reduce the cost of a funeral" and the Department of Fair Trading to be the primary contact point for complaints. These recommendations really require no effort by Government and no effort has been made to support the use of crematoriums, in spite of the Government's claim to support it. The other 19 recommendations contained the substance for reform and these were the ones that did not get the clean tick from Government. Five recommendations were responded to with the following statement:
The Government will consult publicly on this recommendation prior to determining its position on it.
A full year has elapsed, no consultations have been held and there has been no further response from Government—in other words, it has all been filed in the bin. Three recommendations were supported with qualifications; two received partial support. The meek and minor bill that is the subject of this debate appears to be the only follow through on these recommendations. In addition to squibbing and ignoring those 11 recommendations, a further eight of the 23 recommendations were rejected outright by Minister Beamer. This included the key recommendations 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which provided for licensing of funeral directors and a mandatory code of conduct. These recommendations were the most substantial and important, and they were all rejected outright. So when the current Minister for Fair Trading tells us, "The Government welcomed the inquiry and ? supported many of the inquiry's recommendations", we need to take those comments with a grain of salt.
The bill appears to be the inadequate and insipid result of the Government's response to the 151-page Legislative Council report. It seems to me to be an insult to the Legislative Council social issues committee and the fine work undertaken by its members, to the 61 detailed submissions provided by the industry and the community, and to the evidence given at six public hearings and two site visits. I would not presume to speak on behalf of members in another place—I will simply say that it will be interesting to note the reaction of members when this bill is debated in another place. To facilitate a full debate on the core issues of concern to the funeral industry, which is being so rudely disregarded by the Government, I foreshadow that in another place the Opposition will move amendments that seek to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of the social issues committee and the unanimous recommendations of the funeral directors to give real consumer protection to the bereaved at their time of greatest suffering.
As I have said, the bill is insipid. It simply provides for a dictionary of billing terms and the publication of a pamphlet that explains what those terms mean. While this is something the funeral industry and the Opposition support, it is well short of the high expectations of industry reform and improvement that were raised by the 2005 Legislative Council report. The Opposition has consulted industry and there is, as the Minister for Fair Trading has indicated, no opposition to the bill. The comment that keeps coming back, though, is one of disappointment that the Government continues to permit an environment in which standards can be variable and rogue operators can thrive. There is no requirement in New South Wales for funeral operators to be licensed—indeed, there is no licensing system at all. Consumers are usually shocked to learn the total deregulation of the industry means anybody can put up a shingle claiming to be a funeral director, carry off a body in the back of a ute and store it in a garage. This situation is permitted by the State Government.
I am not giving hypothetical examples. These abuses have occurred, not in other States but here in New South Wales. It is only after offences have been committed against health regulations that New South Wales authorities will intervene. Then, after the offence has been proven, the rogue operator can go back to work again, with a new business name, claiming to be a funeral director. No mechanism is in place by which the industry or Government can rid themselves of these criminals. Consumers are defenceless. Worst of all, they do not know it. Research shows the community overwhelmingly assumes that a system is in place that maintains professional standards and ensures operators have proper equipment, including appropriate vehicles and a mortuary. In fact, nobody in this State can make such assumptions. The Department of Fair Trading says, "Buyer beware". How appropriate is that advice when newly bereaved clients are suffering significant grief and are at their most vulnerable?
The funeral industry in New South Wales is very reputable. Last year 45,000 funerals were conducted and I am advised only 25 complaints were made to the Department of Fair Trading. Of those 25 complaints, half related to prepaid funeral funds. In terms of service, there are as few as one dozen complaints per year to the Department of Fair Trading. That is a very commendable record for any industry. These ethical and committed businesses value their reputations and want to get rid of the rogues. The Coalition has sought comments from the two main industry associations about the bill. Ken Chapman, Executive Secretary of the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, writes:
The Association does not oppose the proposed legislation but regards it as being useless in rectifying the operations of backyard operators in the industry ?
The Association wants to see the general public become aware of the presence of legitimate operators and be able to identify the backyard so-called funeral directors. A mandatory Code of Conduct would be the best way to achieve this objective and would be the best measure of protection for the Public.
The Australian Funeral Directors Association has forwarded research undertaken in Victoria that shows 81 that per cent of consumers believe licensing should be mandatory. A majority of consumers would be willing to pay a levy to meet the costs of regulation. I understand the levy amount put to respondents was $50 per funeral. That shows an extraordinary strength of feeling on the part of the community that the industry ought to be licensed and regulated. In practice, Mr Ken Chapman advises a suitable scheme in New South Wales could operate for as little as $2 per funeral. That is minimal cost to consumers and no cost to Government. The Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial on the subject dated 1 March 2007 stated:
To expect market forces to keep it [the funeral industry] in check as the New South Wales Government does, is ludicrous. Bereaved relatives do not have the ability to "shop around" for quality and service, and in country areas there is often no choice. What the public deserves is reassurance that every funeral director is required to meet professional standards. A mandatory code of conduct, backed by meaningful penalties will go a long way to protecting the dignity of our dead.
Why is the Government so intransient in its opposition to allowing greater consumer protection in the funeral industry? Ms Mary Reid of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association advises that her organisation supports the bill, but would like some issues clarified. I hope the Minister will address these issues. I will provide the Minister with a copy of the questions. The association writes:
What is the scope of "Funeral Goods and Services"—does it include services and goods offered by cemeteries, cremations authorities and monument masons? We are aware of incidents where consumers have experienced problems under Part 5 which covers undue harassment and coercion in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer or the payment for goods or services by a consumer for the supply of memorials and monuments before the need for a funeral and following the funeral.
Part 5F would also apply as at this time the families are grieving and vulnerable and are easily coerced into agreeing to purchase goods and services without an itemized quotation or contract for supply. In a lot of cases they only have a business card from the Monumental Mason with a price written on it. This commits them to paying for these goods then finding later that the monumental mason does not supply certain items or goods or has failed to inform the family of changes to the goods including the quality of the workmanship of the structure or even fails to supply the goods or services at all. There have been recent complaints documented by the Dept. of Fair Trading to support this information.
How, if at all, will it affect those members already operating under other acts and regulations, for example the "Crown Lands Act" and "The Local Government Act"?
I ask the Minister to address these questions in her speech in reply. The Opposition thanks the funeral industry for its assistance in framing our response to this bill. We also thank it for the wonderful work it does assisting families and friends of deceased at a time of great sensitivity and vulnerability. The record shows our funeral industry has much to be proud of. A tiny number of rogue operators cause anxiety and distress and the industry is right in its desire to close the door on these disgraceful shonks. The Opposition supports the bill. We have no problem with what is contained in the bill. However, we have a major problem with what has been omitted. That omission will be the subject of greater debate in another place.
Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [9.34 p.m.]: I support the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007. Unlike some of the reservations that have been put forward by the member for Bega, I believe the bill ensures that the rights and obligations of consumers are protected against rogue operators within the industry. The issue of information a person needs when organising a funeral is difficult, as most people do not want to appear unduly concerned about getting a good deal for the funeral of a loved one. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that people organising a funeral are able to make an informed choice on the price and components of the funeral service they want. This bill, which seeks to amend the Fair Trading Act to provide for the introduction of an information standard for funeral products and services, will go a long way to ensuring that consumers have all the necessary information to make a decision on the type of funeral they want. It will also ensure that consumers know how much they will have to pay and the services they are paying for.
Organising a funeral is a painful and difficult experience. We all want to get it right. It is very stressful and the stress is compounded by the time pressure inherent in the process of organising a funeral. Having consistent and transparent information, including the price of each component of the funeral, will not completely remove the stress. But it will assist consumers at this very difficult and painful time. All the funeral directors I have come in contact with, both privately and professionally, have appeared to me to be caring professionals who are committed to providing people with a service that celebrates the life of their friend or loved one. However, I am aware that when it comes to providing information to consumers certain sectors of the industry could do better. I have heard that some funeral directors do not always tell consumers about all the costs and components of the funeral at the beginning of the process. This can mean that consumers receive a final invoice that is much larger than they originally expected.
I understand that, while the bill allows for the development of an information standard for funerals, the detail of the information standard is to be provided by regulation. I have been informed that the regulation will make it necessary for funeral directors to provide a written quote to consumers outlining the costs and definitions of the products and services at the first meeting of the consumer and the funeral director. This is an excellent proposal, as it will ensure that consumers know what they are paying for and how much it will cost. I also understand that it is proposed that the regulation will provide definitions of the various components of the funeral products and services, including the funeral director's professional fee. This is to be commended, as it will provide consumers with a clear understanding of what items they are to receive and will allow them to make an informed choice.
The bill provides that the serious penalties and remedies that currently exist for other breaches of the Fair Trading Act will also apply to the information standard. Whilst I am of the firm belief that most funeral directors will comply with the information standard, because it is consistent with their current practice, it is reassuring that action can be taken against the funeral directors who do not do the right thing. I have been told that the funeral industry and the consumer groups support this bill and have worked with the Office of Fair Trading to develop the information standard. This is clearly an example of stakeholders working with government to produce a very positive outcome. Therefore, I am pleased to lend the bill my full support. It will assist the people of New South Wales to make informed choices about the purchase of funeral goods and services at a most difficult time.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [9.42 p.m.]: The Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill amends the Fair Trading Act to enable the regulations to prescribe an information standard to require the provision of information to consumers about funeral goods and services by providers of those goods and services. It is amazing what we learn when members speak, whether it be in a debate about legislation that is the subject of a conscience vote, in a debate on a particular piece of legislation, making a private member's statement about a member's life or speaking to a condolence motion. I believe that I can talk with some authority on this bill. When I first went to live in Griffith to begin my apprenticeship as a mechanic and then graduated to retail I lived at a funeral director's residence. I lived with the Trennery family from 1976 to 1981. The business was J. H. Trennery and Sons. It was established by J. H. Trennery and was operated by Bill and Wal for many years. It is now operated by Carol Collier—formerly Carol Trennery—and Greg Collier. The business has been in the safe hands of three generations of the Trennery family.
During that time, when I was a young fellow, I was often asked to help out with various duties. They included meeting the mortuary ambulance, taking phone calls from bereaved loved ones, going with Wally to meet the ambulance at Yass and to transfer loved ones, participating in funeral services and driving the hearse. I did what needed to be done. My experience there would be reflected throughout the industry, because funeral directors are very caring people. This legislation relates to a very small percentage of people who exist in every industry, who are known as rogues and who set out to deceive or to have their way. The industry includes many family organisations, but it has been influenced more recently by global companies. However, there is general agreement that legislation should be enacted to tighten up the industry and to encourage everyone in it to comply with guidelines.
I will recount to the House the story of a recent bereavement and correspondence I have received in relation to it. I will not name the funeral director concerned because that would be unfair. I am recounting this story to point out the need for an amendment to this bill to ensure that a code of conduct is enshrined in legislation. Under the current legislation, members of the Australian Funeral Directors Association are compelled to comply with association guidelines should there be a difficulty. Participants in all industries must comply with guidelines and regulations or they end up before the Department of Fair Trading. I ask the Minister to consider carefully amendments that will be moved in the other place. The vast majority of operators in the funeral industry would welcome those amendments and would encourage compliance. I telephoned the author of this correspondence and expressed my condolences. I told her that I would like to raise this issue in Parliament so that she has some closure and that her grief and pain will lead to changes to avoid anyone else suffering as she has suffered. The correspondence to the Australian Funeral Directors Association states:
I would like to make a formal complaint against this Funeral Home and I am directing my complaint to your Association. My complaint relates to the Funeral Home's failure to adhere to your Association's Code of Ethics.
Following the tragic and unexpected death of my husband on 5 February 2007 my three adult children and I made all the difficult but informed decisions concerning the funeral arrangements. Such decisions involved holding the church service in Wagga Wagga with the interment in the Berrima Cemetery. The decision was also made to have a permanent head stone erected in the immediate future and therefore we did not request nor organise a marker cross. Mr Daniel Woods from Alan Harris McDonald & Co , Wagga Wagga was our nominated Funeral Director and supported us during this emotional time. He was also fully aware of the decisions and arrangements made by my children and myself.
Some weeks after the funeral my daughter and I returned to the Berrima cemetery and were distressed to see that a marker cross had been placed on my husband's grave. Clarification with Alan Harris McDonald & Co regarding the protocols around the erection of a marker cross confirmed that the local council did not require such a cross to be erected. Alan Harris McDonald & Co also confirmed that their personnel had not been contacted by anyone else to organise the cross. Mr Woods was in fact unaware that the cross had been placed on my husband's grave even though under local council protocols it was his responsibility to organise the cross if requested to do so by our family. We clearly had not made such a request.
An extended family member eventually informed me that my late husband's nephew had approached a ? Funeral Home ? and requested a marker cross. [The funeral home] had, without our permission, consultation or correspondence with either myself, my family nor Alan Harris McDonald & Co, organised the cross.
My three children and I were extremely upset and confused. As a close-knit family unit we had made difficult and emotional decisions and we had not delegated authority to anyone outside our family unit to make decisions on our behalf. The four of us jointly delivered the eulogy for my husband, chose specific music, songs and hymns and selected and prepared a photo story that was shown during the service. The four of us were also pallbearers for my husband. Neither my late husband's nephew nor other members of his extended family had participated in these family discussions or decisions. They would not have been aware of our wishes for my husband/father and would certainly not have been representing my family.
As I had Right of Burial as well as legal authority (legal spouse and the sole executor of my late husband's will) I contacted Mr Woods in April to determine on what/whose authority [the other funeral director] had made decisions concerning my husband's grave. I am advised that Mr Woods spoke to [the other funeral director] to clarify both this particular issue and the professional protocols that would normally be implemented in such situations. During this conversation Mr Woods also advised [the other funeral director] that my family were greatly distressed and had felt totally disempowered and angry regarding the incident.
The actual erection of the marker cross is not in itself the major issue and had [the other funeral director] originally referred the request back to either myself or to my nominated Funeral Director, Mr Woods, there would have been a positive resolution regarding the cross.
Our distress and anger were caused by the lack of consultation or any acknowledgement of our rights and wishes. [The funeral home] acted independently on a request made by persons who had neither legal nor delegated responsibility. I am particularly concerned that even though [the funeral home] have not followed basic professional protocols, and have been advised of the distress they caused to both my family and myself, I have yet to be contacted by either letter or telephone from this company with an apology.
A phone call last night to the writer of this correspondence indicated to me that there have been two telephone calls from the funeral home, but that both calls were terminated because of the distress caused to the writer of the letter and the approach of the funeral director. The letter continued:
This has therefore prompted me to question [the funeral home's] adherence to your Association's Code of Ethics, in particular the following points:
• To maintain in all matters the highest standards of business, professional and personal conduct ?
• To retain in all circumstances the confidentiality and trust placed in us by our clients ?
• To respect the personal choice of clients and have regard for their diversity of beliefs in religious practices ?
• To be thoroughly conversant with the laws of the land as they apply to the funeral service and allied industries and professions.
As part of the resolution of this complaint I would like a personal apology for Mr Woods and Alan Harris McDonald & Co, my family and myself.
I would also like to see [the funeral home] review and formalise their protocols and procedures to ensure their standards are indicative of the best practice that is stipulated within your Code of Ethics so that such an incident does not occur again. This would also maintain the integrity of this particular funeral home as it has always prided itself on strong traditional values, values that were evident at the funerals that [the funeral home] conducted a number of years ago for my father, grandparents and great grandparents as well as many of my extended family.
To date the writer has not received a written apology from the funeral home. Further letters I received indicate that the relevant funeral director, whom I have deliberately not named, no longer belongs to the Australian Funeral Directors Association and, therefore, is not bound by the industry's code of ethics. So this person's complaint really has nowhere to go. No organisation or peak body, whether it be the Office of Fair Trading or another organisation, can regulate the industry and ensure that the code is complied with.
My contribution to this debate has been longer than I had anticipated, but it is a sensitive issue and it is important that I place on record my concerns and that the issue be addressed. As members have said during the debate, the loss of a loved one is a very distressing time. We have all experienced it. I hope that presenting this person's story will in some way persuade the Minister to carefully consider the amendments to be moved in the other place, and to adhere to the wishes of the industry. As the member for Bega said in his contribution, the industry is more than willing to comply with the code of ethics and maintain the highest possible standards.
This legislation is important. I understand the necessity to set out the costs and so on, given that it is a very distressing time. In my earlier years before I was a member of Parliament I saw families come into funeral homes distressed. Sometimes people can make decisions without being well informed. Of course, when they receive the account for services rendered there is often more upset and pain, which no-one wants. Indeed, funeral directors often sent the account some time after the funeral because they feel that the distress occasioned to the family in receiving the account for the services rendered can be distressing in itself. In many cases quite a deal of debt is carried by funeral directors who are compassionate in that regard. Indeed, on several occasions when my family has buried a loved one, the funeral director has held off sending the account and pursuing the debt incurred. I ask members to carefully consider the amendments to be moved in the other place. I hope that between us we can assist the industry help itself.
Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [9.57 p.m.]: I echo the comments expressed by the member for Wagga Wagga. My office has had a similar experience, which is the reason I wish to contribute to this debate. I am pleased to speak in support of the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007, which addresses the need for funeral directors to provide consistent and transparent information to consumers when they are required to organise a funeral, which is most likely to be for a friend or a loved one. The death of a friend or a loved one is a very stressful time. That stress is increased greatly for the person who has to organise the funeral. Luckily most people do not need to organise very many funerals in their lifetime. Unfortunately, this lack of experience means that when the time comes to organise a funeral most people have little or no idea of what is involved and what it will cost.
When people are distressed or feeling vulnerable, clear, consistent information on the costs and components of a funeral is very helpful in the decision-making process. The bill allows for an information standard for funeral products and services which will require funeral directors to provide information to consumers in a consistent and transparent manner. It will greatly assist consumers make an informed choice at this most difficult time.
The funeral directors I have met have always struck me as people who have entered the industry to provide a caring and supportive service to people in their time of need. I think we have all experienced that. I know that funeral directors have to work long hours and that it can sometimes be a thankless job—which they nevertheless perform with the utmost professionalism. However, I am also aware that there may be a small group within the industry who do not do the right thing when it comes to providing information about the costs and services of the funeral in a transparent manner. We have all heard these stories but hard evidence is scant.
The information standard provided for in the bill will ensure that consumers receive the information they need. It will also ensure that consumers receive information in a way that allows them, if they so choose, to shop around and compare the prices of products and services provided by different funeral directors. This may be particularly useful, for example, in a situation where a person is terminally ill and his or her family has some time to plan for the funeral.
I am pleased that the bill and its related proposed regulation will make it necessary for all funeral directors to provide information on the make-up and price of a funeral service in a consistent, transparent manner. The information standard will also require funeral directors to tell consumers about a basic funeral if they provide such a service. This is a very important and sound proposal. I believe that a significant number of people in New South Wales, especially some elderly people on fixed incomes, want to provide their loved ones with a dignified and respectful funeral that does not cause them financial hardship.
The information standard will ensure that there is a consistent definition of a basic funeral. I understand that the information standard will not make it compulsory for funeral directors to provide a basic funeral. That is how it should be. The Government does not want to overregulate the industry or overload it with red tape. However, the information standard will make it easier for consumers to find out about a basic funeral if that is what they require. Overall, the bill is to be commended, as the information standard for funeral goods and services will ensure that New South Wales consumers receive clear and easy-to-compare information when they have to organise a funeral. It will assist consumers during a time when they are most vulnerable and have to make difficult decisions. I encourage members to fully support the bill.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [9.59 p.m.]: The object of the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007 is to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 to enable the regulations to prescribe an information standard to require the provision of information to consumers about funeral goods and services by providers of those goods and services. The bill will ensure the provision of information to consumers in the following manner. The regulations may prescribe an information standard for funeral goods and services. The information standard may make provision for, or with respect to, requiring information to be provided to a consumer by a supplier of funeral goods and services in connection with the supply in trade or commerce of funeral goods or services to the consumer. The information standard may include requirements with respect to the form and manner in which information is to be provided to a consumer. In relation to compliance the bill states:
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply to a consumer of funeral goods or services fail to comply with an information standard prescribed under section 60Z.
(2) If a person contravenes subsection (1) in connection with the supply of funeral goods or services by the person and another person suffers loss or damage as a result of the contravention, the person who suffers the loss or damage is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have suffered it by the supplying of the goods or services.
I have only ever been closely related to the organisation of one funeral, that of my father. It is a very distressing time, a time of great grief and enormous change, but families are required to make decisions and often have to confer with complete strangers in relation to a personal and painful matter. These decisions have to be made in a very short period of time to enable the funeral to take place. At this vulnerable time clients and consumers of funeral services need to be given the utmost protection. I have only known funeral directors to operate with a high level of dedication, respect and professional behaviour. There are a number of funeral directors in my electorate and those I have met have been exemplary in their dealings with the general public and with those who are bereaved and seeking their assistance to arrange a funeral. There is only a small number of rogue operators, but that would be enough to require certain restraints on their ability to take advantage of people at a vulnerable time in their lives.
Some interesting facts to note are that there are 45,000 funerals in New South Wales each year, there are 200 funeral directors, and about 60 per cent of funerals are organised by InvoCare, which is owned by Macquarie Bank. The Department of Fair Trading receives about 25 complaints per annum, and half of those relate to funeral funds and prepaid funerals. This legislation will go some way towards assisting family and friends who are organising a funeral to feel they can trust the funeral director they consult to organise the funeral and that the funeral director will not take advantage of them.
In 2005 the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the funeral industry and, despite a number of recommendations, the bill appears to be the result of the only recommendation that has been acted upon. The bill will provide a great deal more transparency about costs. It will lead to improved consumer information about costs and avoid distressing confusion about them. There is quite a strong feeling that there should be a code of conduct in relation to funeral directors. All the funeral directors I have spoken to agree there is a need to increase requirements. They are pleased about the bill but they feel the industry could be tightened up. I refer to an article published in March this year in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Assuring dignity in death". It stated:
In 2005 the NSW Fair Trading Minister, Diane Beamer, conceded the public might be surprised to learn funeral directors were not licensed. What should be more surprising is that they are still not licensed, nor subject to a mandatory code of conduct, despite a string of distressing complaints to a State Parliamentary inquiry.
But what of the rogue operators storing bodies in unsanitary conditions, abusing corpses, mixing up body bags or stuffing carefully chosen funeral suits into closed coffins, instead of dressing the dead? Distraught relatives are caught between at least four government departments which might, or might not, have appropriate jurisdiction to hear them out.
Bereaved relatives do not have the will to "shop around" for quality and service, and in country areas there is often no choice. What the public deserves is the reassurance that every funeral director is required to meet professional standards. A mandatory code of conduct, backed by meaningful penalties, would go a long way to protecting the dignity of our dead.
This is a real problem for the funeral industry, but it is an even greater problem for those who are at a sad and vulnerable time in their lives and want the funeral industry to assist with the ceremony associated with the death of their loved ones. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. It has been mooted that the legislation may need to be amended in another place, and I certainly support amendments that will tighten up the funeral industry.
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [10.05 p.m.]: I want to make a short contribution to the debate on the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007. I represent the views of Darren Eddy, a funeral director and owner of Lester and Son, Funeral Directors, of Albury. Lester and Son has operated and owned this particular funeral directorship in the community for 100 years and Darren Eddy is presently the New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory President of the Australian Funeral Directors Association [AFDA] and a sitting member of the Australian Funeral Directors Association Council.
Darren Eddy tells me that as an accredited member of the Australian Funeral Directors Association he adheres to a code of ethics and standards as prescribed by the association in regard to premises, equipment and vehicles, but he told me that there are funeral directors operating who have substandard or even no facilities, in particular mortuary facilities. Those operators, conducting themselves in the manner reported in the media recently, abuse consumer trust and tarnish the professional reputation of those funeral companies that strive for excellence. Their unacceptable practices, substandard premises and lack of education should not be permitted to continue without sanction or penalty.
Darren Eddy says the Australian Funeral Directors Association believes that the public would expect some form of action to be taken to prevent a funeral director from operating in such a manner. He tells me that the association continues to pursue this important issue of consumer protection through regulations of the funeral industry. At an absolute minimum the association requires a mandatory code of practice, including standards of premises, equipment and education, for all funeral directors and he says that that definitely should be introduced. The association is dismayed at the response from the New South Wales Government and the lack of interest in ensuring that funeral directors operate with a minimum adherence to a mandatory code of practice. The association is particularly concerned with the Government's response to recommendation 18 of the Standing Committee in Social Issues, which reads:
That the funeral industry develops a mandatory, industry-wide code of practice based on the Australian Consumer Complaints Commission guidelines, in conjunction with appropriate stakeholders and government agencies, ensuring that the code is consistent with current consumer and public health regulations.
In his letter to me Darren Eddy told me that the New South Wales Government's response stated:
The development of a mandatory code of practice is not supported. It has not been demonstrated that there has been widespread market failure in the funeral industry.
The position of the Australian Funeral Directors Association is that a low number of complaints should not be a deterrent to requiring funeral directors to be licensed, to provide minimum standards and to have appropriate facilities and education. Alleged incidents and actions of some funeral directors are often quite disturbing, particularly, of course, for the distressed clients.
The long-held position of the Australian Funeral Directors Association is that, at a minimum, funeral directors should adhere to a mandatory industry code of practice and provide appropriate facilities and mortuaries for the following reasons: to protect and affirm consumer expectations that funeral directors subscribe to minimum standards; to provide consumer confidence that funeral directors have been appropriately trained; to reassure consumers when seeking funeral directors that the management of the deceased and codes of conduct are already prescribed, and that the only choice and decision they need to make is based upon price, service, product options and personal values; and so consumers can be confident that when expectations are not met and/or arrangements and practices have failed, they have a professional and regulatory mechanism for assistance and restitution. As a member of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, Darren states that he supports the above views. He states that funeral directors must provide appropriate facilities, be suitably educated and abide by standards to ensure that clients are protected at this distressing time in their lives.
I conclude with an observation on the object of the bill, which is to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 to enable the regulations to prescribe an information standard to require the provision of information to consumers about funeral goods and services by the providers of those goods and services. A member of the Albury City Council, which operates a crematorium and cemetery in the area, brought to my attention that monuments or other large edifices constructed at cemeteries bring with them long-term maintenance issues. This is of concern to councils and trusts throughout New South Wales, because currently there is no regulation to ensure a standard of construction and maintenance provision for their long-term future. That is ancillary to the bill but it should be considered in the scope of funeral goods and services. With those observations, I conclude my remarks on the bill.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [10.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Bega, the member for Swansea, the member for Wagga Wagga, the member for Coogee, the member for Hornsby and the member for Albury for their contributions to the debate. Given the late hour I shall be brief. Honourable members have made the point that this is an important bill that reforms the funeral industry in New South Wales. I shall address a number of issues raised by members, particularly the member for Bega.
First, the Government is of the view that widespread market failure in the funeral industry has not been demonstrated by either the inquiry into the funeral industry undertaken by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Government's own research. As a result, heavy-handed legislative prescription such as a mandatory code of practice is unnecessary. Second, the Government receives few complaints. There are approximately 45,000 funerals held in New South Wales each year, yet the Office of Fair Trading receives only about 25 complaints. Funerals are difficult times and, indeed, the member for Wagga Wagga recounted the experience of one of his constituents. The Government considers that, on the whole, the funeral industry is run by professional people who are committed to providing a caring service. Of the 25 complaints received, about 12 relate to funeral funds that are regulated in New South Wales under the Funeral Funds Act.
Third, in 2005 the Office of Fair Trading ran a telephone hotline, an online survey, to allow consumers to provide the Government with information regarding their satisfaction or otherwise with the funeral industry, and 60 per cent of all respondents stated that they were happy with the service they received from funeral directors. In the main those who were not satisfied were concerned with pricing and billing matters. The proposed code deals with the way in which billing will be itemised, especially the professional fee, and will be addressed by the proposed information standard.
The member for Bega made a number of contradictory statements. He said that there are shonks in the industry but then he praised the industry for its low level of complaints. Few members would not have been involved in organising a funeral and they well understand how difficult a time its can be. The Government did not support a mandatory code, for very good reasons. One is the low level of complaints. In addition, having a mandatory code would increase the cost of funerals, which are already expensive. We want to avoid unnecessary regulation that would push up the price of funerals. It is not logical to add cumbersome regulation to an industry that receives so few complaints. I am happy for one of my staff to talk to the member for Wagga Wagga about the constituent he mentioned. The Australian Funeral Directors Association would normally seek to resolve disputes between parties. If that has not happened, I am sure that the Office of Fair Trading will be happy to work through the issues.
The bill provides for the development of a mandatory information standard for funeral goods and services through regulation. Once the draft regulation has been developed a regulatory impact statement will be released for further consultation and comment. The input of everyone, including the funeral industry and consumer groups with an interest in these matters, will be most welcome following the regulatory impact statement, so the consultation period is not finished in relation to the regulatory code that will follow. The amendments in the bill will ensure that consumers have enough information to make an informed choice at a very difficult time without burdening the industry with additional compliance and red tape. I made the point during the agreement in principle speech, and I reiterate, that sections 62, 65, 66, 67 and 69 of the Fair Trading Act clearly set out penalties that will apply if there is non-compliance. The penalties range from $550 to more than $100,000.
Mr Daryl Maguire: How will the process be enforced?
Ms LINDA BURNEY: I am happy to take that on board. Compliance is extremely important and has not been overlooked in the drafting of the bill. As I said, there will be further opportunity for consultation and discussion through the regulatory impact statement. Of course, discussing issues around funerals and so forth brings up personal experiences, and that is very important, because that is what makes us worthy people to represent our constituents. I assure members that very deep consideration has been given to the drafting of the bill, and further deep consideration will be given to the regulatory impact statement, which will apply to the regulations. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:46:52 : Update this page