STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

INQUIRY INTO THE TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF CEMETERY TO THE METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE TAKEN AT MONDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2003

FIRST SESSION

Members

Hon Barry House (Chairman Hon Ed Dermer (Deputy Chairman) Hon Murray Criddle Hon John Fischer (Substituted by Hon Simon O’Brien) Hon Dee Margetts Hon Ken Travers Hon Sue Ellery Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 1

Committee met at 9.40 am

FARDON, MR RALPH Consultant, examined:

Mr Fardon: Good morning again. Hon SUE ELLERY: Good morning again to you too. I have to say some formal words, so please bear with me while I do that. Welcome on behalf of the committee to the meeting today. You know that we are sitting as a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance. As a subcommittee, we are a much smaller unit than you would expect to see if you were appearing before the full committee. Could you please state the capacity in which you appear before the committee? Mr Fardon: I appear this morning in a personal capacity. I am a consultant, or perhaps more correctly a retired consultant. As a past member of the Fremantle Cemetery Board and a past chairman of the board, I have some close interest in the Fremantle area and the Fremantle Cemetery. Hon SUE ELLERY: You have signed a document entitled “Information for Witnesses”. Have you read and understood that document? Mr Fardon: I have indeed. Hon SUE ELLERY: These proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. A transcript of your evidence will be provided to you. To assist the committee and Hansard, please quote the full title of any document you refer to during the course of this hearing for the record. Please be aware of the microphones in front of you, try to talk into them and ensure that you do not cover them with any paper or make any noise near them. I remind you that your transcript will become a matter for the public record. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that evidence be taken in closed session and if the committee grants your request, any public or media in attention will be excluded from the hearing. Please also note that until such time as the transcript of your public evidence is finalised, it should not be made public. I advise you that premature publication or disclosure of public evidence may constitute a contempt of Parliament and may mean that material published or disclosed is not subject to parliamentary privilege. That is the formal bit. I met you outside the hearing room and I know that you know Simon O’Brien. Just so that you understand the arrangements, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance and my colleague Hon Simon O’Brien has been substituted into the committee for the purpose of this inquiry. We have received your submission, Mr Fardon. Would you like to make any opening remarks prior to taking questions from either Simon or me? Mr Fardon: Yes. I noted that I am permitted up to 10 minutes to make my remarks. I contemplated for some time whether I wanted to do that. I have copies with me of what I wish to say and I decided that I ought to do something about it yesterday afternoon, so I sat down and prepared a statement that I would like to present. I will read it, but I may seek to enlarge on it a fraction if I deem it necessary as I go along. Hon SUE ELLERY: Absolutely. Mr Fardon: If I enlarge, it quite obviously will not be included in the written document. May I commence? Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 2

Hon SUE ELLERY: Please do. Mr Fardon: This personal submission has been motivated by the invitation of the committee to make known concerns relative to the decision of the Western Australian Government to transfer the long-standing management of the Fremantle Cemetery to the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. In the decision, a monopoly management of cemetery facilities within the greater metropolitan area of Perth has been created. Such a situation has been deplored by the Government in other areas of community service, with wider community involvement in the conduct of local affairs at the regional level being championed first by the Premier, then by the Treasurer and the Minister for Community Development. This begs the question as to why this decision has been taken. I believe the reasons given are both inadequate and based on a false premise. It has been stated that by economy of scale a sum of $600 000 per annum will be saved and made available to ensure that cemetery fees are fairly distributed throughout the metropolitan area. Since several requests to the Treasurer and the Minister for Local Government for an itemisation of the projected savings have not met with any success, it must be assumed that the Government is not prepared to submit the task force report to a form of due diligence. I believe such a check to be essential since such savings of $600 000 are beyond my present acceptance. On an expenditure pattern of something like two and a half million dollars, the Fremantle Cemetery could not possibly, in my view, provide a $600 000 saving in any one year, when you think about the types of services that are rendered. By his own statement the Minister for Local Government in the Legislative Council - the submission should read “Council”, not “Legislative Assembly”, I beg your pardon - on 17 September 2003 described the savings as “not big bickies” and “tiny”. This is a classic case of the close relationship of the community with the Fremantle Cemetery Board over more than 100 years being abrogated in order to bring unsubstantiated savings to Big Brother, the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. It is another instance of biggest not being the best. If the cemetery fees payable within the metropolitan area are going to be lowered by the created monopoly, it would have happened years ago. Why has the Minister found it necessary to give an assurance in a media release that the fees at Fremantle will not be raised for a period of two years? The levels of cemetery fees in Western are generally lower than those in other States of the nation. A further reason given is to permit the better coordination and planning for future growth. The Fremantle Cemetery Board has not stifled this coordination in the past because since 1987 the MCB has had management of every cemetery in Perth except the Fremantle Cemetery Board. There is no evidence that the MCB has been restricted in its planning for growth, since the MCB domain has bypassed the Fremantle area by control at the Baldivis future cemetery and an arrangement with the City of Rockingham concerning the east Rockingham cemetery. There has been no obstruction by the Fremantle Cemetery Board to the planning process, only offers to be involved in shared services and support pleas that have been made by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board to the previous and current State Governments for additional free land at MCB facilities, the MCB having been informed that it will lose areas of a number of its cemeteries to the Bushplan and Bush Forever projects. If the Government is genuine about coordination and planning for cemeteries throughout the State, it would have endorsed the recommendation of the Fremantle Cemetery Board to establish two regional authorities having similar powers and the task of assisting other than metropolitan area cemeteries with advice and support, which assistance is sorely needed. The appropriate boundary for the two regional bodies is the Swan River; in other words, a northern region and a southern region. The potential to reduce debt levels at Fremantle Cemetery Board will be only to the detriment of interest payable to the State Treasury and interest to be derived by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board from the investment of surplus funds. [9.50 am] Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 3

The Fremantle Cemetery Board has shown its capacity to meet all due payments for loans to provide world-class facilities for the future, and its loan-to-income ratio will reduce as the number of funerals rises, as it is predicted to do. The ratio experienced by the Fremantle Cemetery Board - that is, loan indebtedness to income - is no larger than that of many smaller local governments throughout the State. I personally believe that cemeteries are more akin to a local government exercise than to a state agency. They have community and personal contact with the population and I see them more closely aligned to a local government body than a government agency or department. My submission endeavours to address the terms of reference set by the Legislative Council. I have not followed them in total sequence, but I believe that everything I have said in the submission has accurate relationship to the terms of reference of the committee. I trust that the standing committee has the opportunity to view the report of the machinery of government assessment, which was carried out some two and a half years ago, together with the Fremantle Cemetery Board’s submission to that assessment. It is noteworthy that at that time the Government elected not to wipe out the Fremantle Cemetery Board’s governance. Consultation with the Fremantle Cemetery Board and the adjacent local governments by the Functional Review Taskforce was completely overlooked. Not even a visitation was made to be fully aware of the Fremantle Cemetery Board’s position. There can be no doubt, certainly in my mind, that the taskforce was given strong instructions to bring about a result sought by the Government in its pre- election statements, and the taskforce provided just that on very flimsy warrants. Reports of both reviews have not been made known to either the Fremantle Cemetery Board or the community at large. The latest annual reports of both cemetery authorities have not yet been published, and this submission has been prepared without reference to those documents. I am aware that the privilege of freedom of expression applies to submissions provided to the committee; however, I have endeavoured to avoid criticism of individuals in my submission and this statement. The submission is tendered with utmost respect and I trust that the committee will recognise the unwarranted decision, which purports to fix something that is not broken and for no realistic gain to either the Government or, importantly, the public of . I have made reference to reasons the Government has made this decision, which were detailed in a letter sent to me by the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development and dated 31 July. In a page and a bit it details a number of reasons, but it did not give me any detail of how the $600 000 saving was made up. I was rude enough to reply to the minister and tell him that they were all motherhood statements that did not carry a lot of weight with me. I do not think any of the reasons he pointed out carry a lot of validity. Hon SUE ELLERY: Do you want to give us a copy of the document you have just referred to? Mr Fardon: I have copies prepared for you. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you. Mr Fardon: By way of explanation, in the first instance I sought this information from the Treasurer. He answered me. He acknowledged the letter, saying that he had passed it to the attention of the minister. The minister replied with the letter I have just referred to. I then told both the Treasurer and the minister that, as far as I was concerned, the savings were a matter of the taskforce inquiry, which was a part of Treasury. As the Treasurer was the minister responsible for the activities of the Treasury, I therefore felt it was fair and reasonable that he provide me with that data. I did not get a reply to that letter, so I have written again asking whether he intends to reply. I have not received a reply to that letter either. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not sure whether you cited the date of the letter, so I will do that. This is a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development; Heritage; the Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 4

Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne; Goldfields-Esperance, to Mr Ralph Fardon dated 31 July 2003. The heading is “Amalgamation of Metropolitan Cemeteries Board and Fremantle Cemetery Board”. Mr Fardon: I am sorry, Madam Chairman, I overlooked that. I apologise. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is all right. If you have completed your opening statement, I will invite some questions from my colleague. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr Fardon, I note that according to your submission you were a member of the Fremantle Cemetery Board from 5 April 1994 to 30 June 2002, and chairman of that board from 18 June 1995 to 30 June 2002. Is that correct? Mr Fardon: That is correct, sir. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What caused you to cease to be in that position at 30 June? Was it periodic retirement? Mr Fardon: I was not reappointed by the minister. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Did you seek reappointment, and would you have accepted it if you had? Mr Fardon: I was not asked whether I would or would not seek reappointment. I was just told that I was not being reappointed. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Who was your successor as chairman of the board? Mr Fardon: A lady who used to be a deputy mayor of the City of Fremantle, Jean Hobson. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Thank you. You also noted that you were a chief executive officer to six local governments over a period of 40 years from 1958 to 1998. You have indicated that one of those was the City of Melville from 1976 to 1986. What were the other local governments you headed? Mr Fardon: If I can quickly pass through my career, I started in December 1955 as Assistant Road Board Secretary at the then Northam Road Board. In March 1958 I advanced to be the Road Board Secretary, later the Shire Clerk and then, of course, the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of Narembeen. After seven and a half years there I migrated back to Perth and was the Town Clerk Engineer of the Town of Mosman Park for some two and a half years. I then transferred to the now City of Belmont where I was Town Clerk for seven and a half years. In January 1976 I moved down to the City of Melville and then in January 1986 I moved out to wider fields at the City of Stirling. Following five years at the City of Stirling I became Chief Executive Officer of the Mindarie Regional Council. That was a special purpose council for the treatment of waste. I was responsible for the construction and later the operation of the Tamala Park refuse and recycling facility. In 1998 I hung up my hat there and I am now virtually retired. It has taken me at least three years to get used to retirement. It might be of interest that I worked part-time at Mindarie and I was also able to act as a consultant. In that respect I acted for the Government of Western Australia in a matter with the late David Carr in the restructure of the City of Perth, which created the Towns of Cambridge, Vincent and Victoria Park. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I note that in your opening statement you referred to the machinery of government assessment, which included within its purview an examination of the Fremantle Cemetery Board. If my mathematics are correct, you were chairman of the board at that time. Mr Fardon: Correct. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Can you give us a brief outline of what actually happened at that time, from your point of view, without going into the fine detail? There was a report. How did the process go? [10.00 am] Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 5

Mr Fardon: The board received information that the Government had decided to run an inquiry into government agencies and whether they were needed. That was called the machinery of government review or the “MOG assessment”. The terms of reference with respect to cemeteries - I believe the gentleman concerned also conducted an assessment at the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board - included the questions of amalgamation, which you will notice is not the word I use - I use the word “subsumation” - and the possibility of a cemetery authority being run out of a government department. To some extent, that clouded the submission lodged by the Fremantle Cemetery Board in response to the invitation of the machinery of government review. The review in Fremantle was conducted by a single person, who I believe was seconded from one government department into the Department of Local Government. His examination occurred a little later, supplemented by an examination by a qualified accounting person. About that time I was not reappointed to the board, so I cannot add any more other than what I have been told of the outcome of the machinery of government to the effect that the minister attended the first meeting of the new board. At that meeting he stated that it was the determination of Cabinet that Fremantle cemetery would remain with its own identity. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: You were closely involved with the Fremantle Cemetery Board at the time the MOG review commenced but you departed by the time the minister had visited. Mr Fardon: It was by the time the news came out. In fact, I was so involved that the board actually engaged a consultant to assist it in the preparation of the submission. Closer towards the time of lodgment, I re-read the submission several times and decided it was not gutsy enough so I rewrote it over the weekend. With the approval of the board, my addition was lodged as the submission. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That was the January 2002 submission, I think. Mr Fardon: I think that was right. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: At which time you were still the chairman. Mr Fardon: I was still the chairman at that time. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: You referred also to the subsequent functional review task force examination. What is the basis of your knowledge of the functional review task force? Mr Fardon: I am a person who keeps my ear fairly close to the ground. I still have good relationships with people who were on the board and the CEO. Although I will not name names, because the CEO was bound by an agreement with the Government to not publicly criticise the Government as part of the pay-out of his contract of service, I was advised by several people of the outcomes of the task force review. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: You refer in your opening remarks to the fact that there was not even a visitation to be fully aware of the FCB position. Do I take that to mean that the functional review task force did not visit the place? Mr Fardon: I was not there, but I understand that a task force did not visit the Fremantle Cemetery Board for either discussions or inspection. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you very much for your detailed submission. I noted in your submission your remarks about the history of the Fremantle Cemetery Board that you did not refer to the process in 1987, I think it is from memory - this is after 1986 when the State Government had decided to review the Cemeteries Act and proposed a new Act, and I understand a task force or working party was established to make recommendations. One of the recommendations was that a single board be established to manage all of the cemeteries. Mr Fardon: That is correct. Hon SUE ELLERY: Do you have any comments about that? Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 6

Mr Fardon: That recommendation aroused a good deal of interest and objection from some of the local governments in and about the Fremantle Cemetery; that is, those areas that utilised the cemetery. They led to a form of deputation to the then minister, Hon Geoff Carr, MLA. After consideration of the material put before him, I understand that he excluded Fremantle from the amalgamation situation. Incidentally, I was the Town Clerk of Melville City Council at that time. Hon SUE ELLERY: Do you have your submission in front of you? Mr Fardon: Yes, I do. Hon SUE ELLERY: In the third last paragraph on the second page of the opening statement you made this morning and the document you tabled for us - I may well have misunderstood you - it says that reports of both reviews have not been made either to the Fremantle Cemetery Board or the community at large. I take it you are referring to both the machinery of government report and the functional review task force. Mr Fardon: That is correct. The previous 1986-87 assessment was well known. It was a public document. The Fremantle cemetery was well and truly aware of it. Hon SUE ELLERY: To be clear about what we are referring to, the machinery of government report is a public document. Mr Fardon: I have not had the advantage of seeing it. Perhaps I can rephrase my remarks. Hon SUE ELLERY: Are you also aware that the machinery of government report reviewed all statutory authorities and, as a result of its recommendations, the number of statutory authorities has been significantly reduced? Mr Fardon: Yes, I am aware of that. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer again to your submission. On page 3, you refer to the respective financial positions of each authority, towards the bottom of the page, in the third last paragraph, and you refer to the reduction of debt by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. You go on to say, “Any changes in its financial structure . . . ” Mr Fardon: “ . . . have no impact on government operations”. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is exactly the sentence. I think it was even referred to in that letter you gave us from the minister. Mr Fardon: Yes. I tendered that document to explain it. Hon SUE ELLERY: The proposition has been put that the debt equity ratio of the Fremantle cemetery is about 31 per cent and the ratio of the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board is about 0.03 per cent. The minister put to us in his submission that - Mr Fardon: That it is an untenable situation. Hon SUE ELLERY: No. Please bear with me. He is saying that the statutory authorities’ debt equity ratios impact on the whole of the Government’s capacity to borrow. Do you accept that as a proposition? Mr Fardon: I accept it as a proposition on the basis that government agencies are involved in the total state budget. [10.10 am] However, in this instance, and certainly in the case of local governments, there is no impact on the State’s capacity to repay those loans, because the loans are being repaid with interest by the respective agencies and local governments. I cannot think that the amount of borrowing that the Fremantle Cemetery Board carried out to construct the new crematorium complex - I am sure Mr O’Brien has seen that complex - which was in the order of $6 million, will impact on the State’s ability to raise money, or, for that matter, affect the State’s credit rating. Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 7

Hon SUE ELLERY: Sure, but if we add up the debt-equity ratios of all the statutory authorities, they do have an impact on the State’s capacity. Mr Fardon: I have to admit that; that is logical and understandable. However, I have a close interest here; and we all look after our own close interests. I cannot accept at this time that the borrowings of the Fremantle Cemetery Board - they were only for that one project; it had no other loan liability at that time - would impact seriously on the State’s position. I find that argument unacceptable. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will go down a slightly different track. If families or funeral agencies made complaints about the service that they received from Fremantle Cemetery, what process was in place to deal with those complaints when you were involved with the cemetery? Mr Fardon: A great deal of weight was placed on the receipt of complaints. The complaints would have been in written form, directed to the chief executive officer. There was an expectation, of course, that any complaints that could not be satisfied by the management would be referred to the board; and they would certainly be referred by way of some form of appeal if the complainants believed that they had not been dealt with effectively by the management. As chairman, I was present at the cemetery several times during the week, and I had a close relationship with the last CEO, so I was well and truly aware of any complaints that might have been received. In my opinion, there was no great level of complaints. Many of the complaints that we received related to misapprehensions and family matters. That happens frequently at cemetery functions. You will have heard about how problems in a family generally come about with a death and with the splitting of the estate. I can tell you that they come about pretty much with the conduct of the funeral and who is responsible for the grave and who will pay for the memorial. A large number of the complaints were about matters of that nature and not about the operation of the cemetery. In my time, not one complaint was received about the operation of the crematorium. I have already said that it is world-class. Its emission levels are well and truly within the world standards; and I might tell you the world standards are pretty high. The German standards lead the way. Fremantle Cemetery has state-of-the-art equipment. There were no complaints in that area in my seven years, and there would have been no more than three references to the state Ombudsman. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The land occupied by Fremantle Cemetery includes the portion that currently and for many years has been used for interments and also some other land that is not. Mr Fardon: Eastwards of the established site? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes. How far does the land extend eastwards of the obvious cemetery site? Mr Fardon: Can I use what I believe is your local knowledge to describe it by reference to the streets? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Please do. Both of us are members of South Metropolitan Region, so we are fairly familiar with that area. Mr Fardon: The cemetery land extends along Carrington Street between Leach Highway and Sainsbury Street to the south, except for a portion at the intersection of Stock Road and Leach Highway where the D’Orsogna property and the post office are. That is not part of the cemetery. If you go further south you get to the vinyl pipe people, Vinidex, and the bus depot. That land is owned by the cemetery and is leased to Vinidex and the Metropolitan Transport Trust - Transperth, or whatever it is. It extends almost to Stock Road from its current developed area. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What about the businesses south of the bus depot along Sainsbury Street? Are they privately owned? Mr Fardon: Yes. Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 8

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Obviously the properties that are currently occupied by Vinidex and further east by the bus depot are within the permitted uses of the City of Melville? Mr Fardon: As I understand it, yes. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Are they long-term leases? Mr Fardon: I think the Vinidex lease is in the order of five years and is renewable, and the bus depot lease is a bit longer than that - perhaps 10 years. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Does the Fremantle Cemetery Board derive revenue from those tenants? Mr Fardon: Yes. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: This is a difficult question to answer precisely, but when would the cemetery have had to displace those tenants to use the land for graves into the future, or was that never the intention? Mr Fardon: That is the intention. It is reserved land. In terms of the local geography, the area on the other side, to the north of Leach Highway, was held by the Fremantle Cemetery Board for many years before World War II and was vacant. At about the time of World War II, the Government - presumably the federal Government - built a number of large buildings on the site for the storage of equipment. After the war those buildings were taken over by the Australian Wool Corporation. It was then decided that that land should be used for housing. However, the Fremantle Cemetery Board dug in its heels and said it did not want money but it wanted replacement land. That replacement land was to the east towards Stock Road, as we have been talking about. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Is that the Vinidex-bus depot land? Mr Fardon: Yes. That was the replacement land for the land on the north side of Leach Highway. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is very interesting. I was aware, of course, of the wool stores being there for many years. Mr Fardon: I was going to suggest, sir, with respect, that you are not that old! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I certainly remember the wool stores. I was not aware that that was cemetery land and that that land has now been replaced by what is now tenanted by Vinidex and the bus depot. Mr Fardon: I want to reinforce the point, though, that the Fremantle Cemetery Board at that time rejected the thought of being paid out in cash and insisted that it be given replacement land because it would need it for extension in due time. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: When would it become necessary to use that land for graves? Mr Fardon: I need to add an explanation. The rate of cremation services at Fremantle Cemetery is quite high, up to 60 or 70 per cent compared with burials, consequently the number of new graves that will be required is more limited than it was some time ago. [10.20 am] I believe from the point of view of gravesites, there has to be at least 30 to 35 years of available land still there. As a matter of fact, the former CEO of the cemeteries board who was there for 12 and a half years when the amalgamation business was being discussed in the past said that Karrakatta has insufficient room for new graves. We can accommodate Karrakatta demand down here at Fremantle for a good number of years, certainly until 2012 when the impact of the limited tenure on burial sites comes into play. I am sure you are aware that since 1987, as a result of the new Act, all grants for a right of burial ended up with a 25-year term, even though they may have been for Kathleen mavourneen, 100 years or anything before that. In the year 2012 all the then existing rights to grant a burial in 1987 have to be renewed or they can be reused. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What happens in 2012 with a grave that is 25 years old? Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 9

Mr Fardon: The board is obliged under the Act to make it known to the holder of the grant of right of burial that the term has expired. The records for that big project are somewhat suspect. The board must offer that party a renewal right for a further 25 years - upon which there will be another fee paid, of course. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If it is a relative’s grave, they can elect to pay a fee and retain the grave. If they do not do that, what happens? Mr Fardon: The board has the opportunity to consider reusing that site. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: How does the board reuse it? Does it exhume the existing remains? Mr Fardon: One of the current practices in South Australia is what they call lift and deepen. They exhume the remains, re-box them - to use a word - and put them down deeper into the gravesite and then carry out further burials on top. There is then the question of introducing “foreigners” into the gravesite. In South Australia I think they are still trying to deal with other members of the family, but the future portends that they could end up with other families and other people within that gravesite because it is perhaps a sad fact that as the generations pass on from an original burial, the grandchildren do not place as much import on the grandfather’s or grandmother’s remains as does their mother and father. I guess a couple more generations down the track may not even know there is a burial there, let alone have some feeling of respect or regard for it. Eventually the graves become disowned, in other words. Hon SUE ELLERY: On the theme of the need for more space, can you briefly describe for me - I say briefly because we have another witness at 10.30 - the proposed mausoleum project? I understand that it was to have space for about 600. Mr Fardon: Up to 600, probably by stages, yes. Hon SUE ELLERY: Some of the evidence put before us by the department in its submission is that it has been redesigned. Mr Fardon: That is correct, as I understand it, because I am not there. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is to accommodate up to 1 500 crypt spaces. Do you have any comment on that? Mr Fardon: Only to say that my understanding is that the redesign is a different style of mausoleum. The one proposed by the board that I chaired could have been extended to literally any number given the need. The 600 was a starting position. The design was really quite resplendent, it being believed that that was what the purchasers of these leases wanted. In the words of one of my board members, it was designed to be absolutely dripping with marble. I have seen the mausoleum and the crypts at Karrakatta. My understanding is that what is being proposed is more akin to what is at Karrakatta than what my board - I use that “board” terminology without any ego - had in mind; in fact, the designs have all been drawn. As far as I know, they have been put aside for this revamp. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: You have speculated on page 8 of your written submission on possible motives for the Government to subsume the Fremantle Cemetery Board into the Karrakatta board. One of the possible reasons you cite is that the Government may be looking for a solution to traffic problems if there is an upgrade of Stock Road to accommodate changes resulting from the Fremantle eastern bypass. What is your basis for speculating on that? Mr Fardon: My basis for speculation there is that I have been told by a prominent businessman of Fremantle that he had seen a plan of such a proposal. I canvassed this at the cemetery board on several occasions so that the board was at least acquainted with some of the suggestions that were floating around and could be prepared for that eventuality. In fact, one or two of my board members indicated that they had some knowledge of such a plan, notably one member of the board who is a member of Melville City Council. Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 10

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Changes have been mooted for Stock Road, and for that matter Leach Highway, in the corner of the land that we are talking about. How would those Main Roads changes impact on the cemetery, because the cemetery itself does not intrude into that south western corner of the Leach Highway-Stock Road intersection? Mr Fardon: That is correct. I only know of plans that I have read of in the Press. I have not seen this speculation in the Press. It is a question of how far down the Leach Highway hill towards the intersection with Stock Road they would start to put a curve into the right or to the south in order to avoid what one could only say is the dangerous intersection at Stock Road with heavy trucks coming down Leach Highway and turning right into Stock Road. They come down a hill and often cannot stop super quickly. Then having turned south into Stock Road, they then have to climb a hill to get out of that little low pocket. It sometimes floods, it is so low. It is the catchment point for stormwater for the valley. If I were trying to make things better for the heavy haulage people, I think I would be going back towards Fremantle or westwards along Leach Highway to commence my curve around to hit the peak of the hill in Stock Road south, somewhere around about where that Caltex service station is. That is where I would be headed for if I were looking for the ultimate, but of course it involves a lot of resumption of land, some of which could be the tail end of the cemetery land. Certainly it has been speculated - to use your word - that that is a possibility to improve the situation for traffic going southwards. [10.30 am] Hon SUE ELLERY: I will just interrupt for a moment. Although it may be speculation, there is a proposition that there is some kind of ulterior motive in the decision to amalgamate the boards. It is a serious allegation. I offer you the opportunity to put any evidence you may have of such an ulterior motive before the committee. Mr Fardon: I cannot present any further statement other than just answering Mr O’Brien’s question. I was told about the plan from a very reliable source, who is a senior businessman in Fremantle and involved in the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce and the city, and who has traffic problems in respect of his own premises. Hon SUE ELLERY: You have no direct evidence? Mr Fardon: I have no direct evidence, but in preparing this submission I had to scratch my head as to why the Fremantle Cemetery Board should be wiped out. I came up with these possible motivations. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you. We have no further questions for you. Would you like to make a final statement to us? Is there something you may not have covered? Mr Fardon: No, I believe I have been given a very fair hearing on my views. I repeat that it is my personal submission. I am using information that I was aware of from my experience of the Fremantle Cemetery Board. I am using information that was in the submission to the machinery of government assessment and other material that has come to my attention. If you wish me to name where it comes from, I will have to ask for some level of confidence because it would not be fair to the other people who might have informed me. In fact, most, if not all, of the understanding I have derived came well and truly ahead of the demand that a certain individual sign a document in order to protect his payout of his contract. Hon SUE ELLERY: Just so it is clear for the record, at the outset I indicated that, if you wanted to go into private session, you could do so. Mr Fardon: I do not think that has been necessary to this point; it has not been necessary for me to name names. If you want to apply circumstances to your own position: if the cap fits, you wear it. I have no wish whatsoever to denigrate anyone associated with the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. I think I have made reference to some loss of face or disappointment by certain members of the former Metropolitan Cemeteries Board that the 1987 recommendations were not fully carried Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 11 through. Certainly, the Fremantle Cemetery Board has lived with that sort of cloud in the air. We have always been quite afraid of what might be proposed for amalgamation. That is all I wish to say. I thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I saw the advertisement in The West Australian and decided it was my personal duty to do something about it. I find myself today with you and I thank you for the hearing. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you for your attendance; we appreciate it. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I offer my thanks as well. Your submission and knowledge of the history of matters at the Fremantle Cemetery Board has been extremely valuable to this inquiry. The efforts you have made to bring them to our attention are very much appreciated. Thank you. Mr Fardon: Thank you for that expression. The Fremantle Cemetery Board is pretty dear to me. My late wife’s memorial is there. There are many others. Yes, I can get emotional about this, although I have tried not to be too emotional in this case. It is emotion that drives us on to all sorts of actions in our life. Thank you.