Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (14:52): It is always a pleasure to make a contribution to debate following the member for Blue Mountains. The member said that she looks forward to the next stage; I remind her that I am a lot closer to it than she. With that in mind, I express my enthusiastic support for the Public Health Amendment (Natural Organic Reduction) Bill 2026. I am genuinely excited by the prospect that we are willing to look beyond traditional options for end-of-life body management, which is limited in New South Wales at the moment to burial and cremation. However, another viable option is available. As we heard from the member for Blue Mountains, natural organic reduction, or terramation, transforms a deceased body into compost by placing it into a temperature-controlled vessel that rapidly accelerates the natural process of decomposition. It does in 40 days what takes decades in a typical burial process.
As explained by the member for Sydney in his second reading speech, the bill would require the composted remains to be dealt with in accordance with the reasonable request of a deceased person or their family member, and the remains given to either the person's family or a landowner. The family of a deceased person might, for example, wish to plant a tree at the family home or another important location in memory of their loved one. A landowner might be the owner of land undergoing regeneration or a memorial park, or they might be the owner of a cemetery, who can organise for the remains to be placed in a place of remembrance and mourning. Compared to cremation and burial, terramation is far more environmentally sustainable. It avoids the use of chemicals that leach into groundwater, creates little to no greenhouse gas emissions and does not take up increasingly unavailable burial space across the State, particularly in metropolitan Sydney.
Demand for burial space is set to increase as our population grows. It will compete with the need to use well‑located land for homes, public infrastructure and green space. As acknowledged by the Government in debate on its Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2025, there is a limit to how much new land can be committed to cemeteries, and we need to find better ways to make use of the cemeteries we already have. I add that this should include, where respectful and safe, examining options to avoid using cemeteries for those who do not wish to be laid to rest there. Terramation is also more cost-effective than burial or cremation. In a society experiencing funeral poverty and a cost-of-living crisis, that is an important factor, which supports offering choice after death for both the individual and their loved ones.
I know that terramation will not be supported by some people. It is certainly not necessary for everybody to be drawn to it, but the bill would make terramation an option for the people who do not want to go the traditional way. There is a demand for it in Australia, just as there is overseas. Terramation is already available in some parts of the United States and Germany and has been proven safe for people and the environment. I therefore believe it is reasonable that we facilitate terramation as an option alongside burial and cremation after death. I support the bill with the proposed Government amendments, because it would facilitate this choice under a framework that prioritises dignity, safety, consumer protection and competence.
I am pleased to support the bill brought by my good friend the member for Sydney. I have been in this place for some time. It is wonderful that we can now advance some progressive legislation through the Parliament. I acknowledge the member for Summer Hill in the Chamber and am reminded of our early discussions on issues around decriminalising abortion in New South Wales and voluntary assisted dying. Now, with this issue, the member for Sydney and others advocate for statute changes that support us from cradle to grave, so to speak. It is important that we champion such progressive agendas that do no harm to any but can give some people the sense they are leaving even just a small additional legacy as they depart this mortal coil.
I have spoken to people in my electorate, particularly those who are of the older generation—I was speaking at a U3A event recently—where this particular matter was discussed. It was extraordinary how overwhelmingly pleased those people were—especially the ladies, I have to say—to hear that this bill was being progressed. I thank my friend the member for Sydney and all the members in this House who allow some good progressive statute changes to occur. I acknowledge those in the community who have advocated strongly for such changes. They should be pleased with the bill, because the change it brings often takes an awful lot longer than what has occurred here. As the member for Blue Mountains said, the member for Sydney has a particular way about him. He managed to work closely with the Government to facilitate the bill getting through. I acknowledge that work, and I commend the bill to the House.