A Naracoorte Lucindale councillor has voiced strong criticism over the council’s decision to keep $8,600 in its budget for post-meeting “meals and drinks” but reject a proposal to waive burial fees for children under the age of 10.

Speaking to The Naracoorte News, councillor Craig McGuire expressed disappointment following the council’s recent May meeting, where his motion to waive all cemetery charges for children up to 10 years old—excluding plaque expenses—was voted down.

During the meeting, council CEO Kelly Westell tabled a letter received from Olivia Savvas, the member for Newland, representing the Select Committee on Stillbirth in South Australia.

The committee received evidence in relation to unexpected fees grieving families faced when farewelling their babies.

Ms Westell said, through the letter, the committee encouraged the council to waive fees for babies and children.

“The waiving of these fees would have little cost impact on the council but would provide some compassion and support for grieving families at a most difficult time,” Ms Westell said in her written report.

She said earlier this year, the Berri Barmera Council resolved to waive the grave-digging fees for babies and children up to the age of 10.

“Robe District Council has just resolved in a similar vein. It is recommended council waive all fees with the exception of the costs of the plaque,” Ms Westell said in the report.

Cr McGuire moved the motion, saying he had spoken to a midwife at the Naracoorte Hospital and that this was a good step forward for the community.

Cr Monique Crossling seconded the motion.

“I just wanted to support this motion as well. I think this is a step in the right direction for those families who, in a time of awful loss, don’t have to pick up the tab for those cemetery fees,” Cr Crossling said.

Cr Cameron Grundy did not support the motion, saying it should be on a hardship basis or means-tested.

“While we all are disappointed and saddened by any loss, I think the problem with this idea is that it seeks to send out that there is a different kind of grief—your grief is somehow worse than my grief,” Cr Grundy said.

Further to that, he said the motion “sets out to put a price on that grief”.

“…it also sets out to put a price on that grief, that is, your grief is obviously more deserving than mine, so we’ll go ahead and waive the fees.

“So, from that perspective, I think it’s problematic philosophically, and it’s inconsistent.

“I am sure there is a policy that deals with this, and really, I think the test should be hardship, and that’s the end of the matter.

“If we are going to go this path, it should be a hardship test for everybody, and I am sure our policy covers this situation in many ways.”

Cr Grundy said if anyone came to the council with a problem, the council would be sympathetic.

“…so, essentially, if we are going to go down this path, it should be means-tested or on a hardship basis.

“Secondly, it really needs to be for everybody or not at all.”

For the benefit of the members, mayor Patrick Ross said that there was dispensation already in place within the council’s fee structure for stillborn babies and children up to two years—$625. The standard fee is in excess of $1200.

Speaking on the motion, Cr Andrew Downward said he had spoken to a number of people in the community, with some who had experienced the tragedy themselves not being supportive of the fee waiver.

“While I say that every tragedy is a tragedy no matter at what stage it occurs, and all of those I have spoken to are against this waiving of the fee,” Cr Downward said.

“One of them put to me that if you are going to waive the fee, what about the long-term ratepayers, those who have paid rates for 60 odd years—would you look at them and give them a pass?

He said while the council had price reductions for “the young ones,” the fee should not be waived.

“This (request) has come from the state government. It’s another thing that the state government is bringing to councils, offering nothing in return.

“I’d be very against it,” Cr Downward said.

Cr Abigail Goodman said her position had been “backwards and forwards” on this topic.

“I have been backwards and forwards on my position on this, and I think it’s a challenging thought about how we can support those families going through this sort of grief,” Cr Goodman said.

However, she said this was not the council’s responsibility.

“I think I’d be very happy that I support the intention, but I think it is something that the council could look towards working with the state government on implementing.

“I know it’s only small dollars that we are talking about, but I also subscribe to the idea of a death by a thousand cuts.”

Cr Goodman said the council was currently looking at a budget deficit.

“We are currently looking at a budget that will be in deficit, but we are also continuously being asked to provide more.

“Also, in terms of what this kind of money looks like, we are currently proposing a minimum rate for a property of $550; we are talking around $600 for these kinds (burial fee waiver) of things, so that is a full rate fee for some ratepayers.”

She said the amount was not insignificant.

“So, I will be looking to see if there are other ways of supporting these families and working with the state government.”

In his right of reply, Cr McGuire apologised to those who watched the council’s livestream of the May meeting and had experienced the grief of losing their children.

“I apologise to the people that are watching and have experienced this.

“We are using words such as ‘cost-shifting’ and ‘apply for hardship,’ and I find the chamber isn’t very compassionate about this,” he said.

Cr McGuire said this had nothing to do with the state government or cost-shifting.

“…and I am probably disappointed that a few of you have looked at this this way.

“I think there were two to three stillborn in Naracoorte this year, so the cost is minimal.

“Some people might not even take the council up on the offer, but it is something that we can provide to the grieving family.

“I think we have all had friends and families that have experienced something like this.

“I look at the inconsistency in this chamber, I see certain rates being picked up and tried to be adjusted in the road hierarchy, and yet there are similar roads that we could do the same for.

“So, when you talk about consistency, I just find some of your (councillors) comments insulting.”

Talking to this newspaper after the meeting and calling it his personal views, he said sometimes the council had the ability to do “those little things” that are positive and had an impact to help others within the community.

“After all, that is who we are representing.

“I thought this motion was just that, and I believed it would pass through without discussion.

“I found the discussion amongst councillors harsh. Including comments made that it should be hardship-based and comparing a burial to a rate payment.”

He said he took the first statement (Cr Grundy’s) as people could apply to have the fees waived if they could not afford them.

“That is something that the council already has in place for everybody.

“The idea of this motion was to take that part of the process away from families who are grieving for the loss of a young child and for it to automatically happen.

“Comments like why people who have paid rates for 60 odd years or more—do you look at them and give them a free pass? —or comparing costs of stillborn children with other councils while being livestreamed for all to hear.

“This has upset some people, including myself, but I am sure there are some who would agree with these statements.

“To those people, I believe you have missed the point, and remember, this is my view only.”

He further added that the motion was not about “money” or the principle of having to offer a policy that was equal for every ratepayer.

“It is about compassion and empathy towards friends and family in the community that will have to bury a child.

“This is not a state government cost shift, but a group of politicians from both sides, including the Liberal and the Labour parties, working together to encourage councils to offer this to parents in this heartbreaking situation.”

Providing some statistics, Cr McGuire claimed that there have been seven children in the district since 2010 that would fit into the policy.

“That works out to approximately $350 a year. That isn’t much, is it?

“I apologise to families that are reading this that have a connection to these children.

“The part I find difficult to understand is 20 minutes after the decision was made (at the council meeting) and the arguments put forward around costings, most elected members went out for dinner.

“It happens after all monthly council meetings.

“I would estimate the bill for Tuesday’s dinner would be approximately $600 paid for by the ratepayers.

“In fact, we have an $8600 budget for meals and drinks after council meetings,” he said.

Crs McGuire, Crossling, and Damien Ross voted in favour of the motion.

Crs Grundy, Downward, Goodman, Peter Ireland, Trevor Rayner, and Tom Dennis voted against the motion. Cr Darren Turner was absent.

The motion was lost.

Following the vote, Cr Crossling called for a division.

Crs Crossling, Ross, and McGuire voted in the affirmative.

Members who voted in the negative were Crs Grundy, Dennis, Rayner, Downward, Ireland, and Goodman.

This article appeared in The Naracoorte News, 4 June 2025.
Related story: Community voices concern