Mr. Rody O'Brien:

I am delighted to hear that Deputy Cairns sees the importance of acquiring the sites from the point of view of the common good and the hurt and pain caused to so many women and children in these institutions. I know this is only pre-legislative scrutiny, but it is the appropriate time to say that it is very discretionary with regard to the language that is used in the Bill. Senator Ruane asked me previously and I do not want to waste this committee's time by repeating what we said there but there is discretion. If the Minister is reasonably of the opinion that this is a manifestly inappropriate burial, an order will be made - referred to in head 3.

After that, there is reference in head 5 to the various different criteria. Again, we believe the language is not prescribed enough. A number of factors are set out in head 5 of the general scheme, particularly in head 5(2). It states that the Government shall consider two or more of these factors to be particularly significant. Head 5(2) refers to:

(a) human remains [that] are uncoffined; (b) the burials would not reasonably be considered to provide a dignified interment; (c) the human remains were not buried at the appropriate depth specified in the Rules and Regulations ... [and] (d) the human remains are buried collectively and in a manner or in a location that is repugnant to common decency and would reasonably have been so considered at the time the burials took place.

It does not prescribe that one of those factors are satisfied; the Government will consider two or more of those factors. This is just not prescribed enough with regard to intervention. The name of the Bill is certain institutional burials and interventions Bill. We need to be a little more clear on that.

There is also scope for the Minister to recommend exhumations where it is not manifestly inappropriate as was mentioned previously in the conversation with Senator Ruane. Section 5(b) of head 5 of the Bill refers to "expert technical reports in respect of the conditions, location and age of [the] relevant burials" and "Evidence in support of the factors [that we mentioned] ... shall include, but may not be limited to", followed by a number of points including the reference to expert reports. We believe that this should be a little more prescribed and detailed. Basically, clarity is needed about when interventions take place and when they do not and what is meant by manifestly inappropriate and what is not.An example of circumstances should be given in which the Government, Minister or me, can say that it is not manifestly inappropriate but we still are looking to exhume remains.

We can foresee many difficulties with survivors and their families regarding to last point, in particular, without some more prescribed language and clarity in the legislation. That was the issue with regard to that. I am happy to speak further on the CPO if there is a requirement to do so.