Copyright © Government of South Australia 2002
All legislation herein is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Copyright. The Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth) permits certain reproduction and publication of South Australian legislation. In particular s. 182A of the Act enables a complete copy to be made by or on behalf of a particular person. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Act, permission should be sought in writing from the South Australian Attorney-General's Department. Requests in the first instance should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

SUMMARY OFFENCES (TATTOOING AND PIERCING) AMENDMENT BILL\TOC\2\SUMMARY OFFENCES (TATTOOING AND PIERCING) AMENDMENT BILL

\IND\Speech:nn:Mr RAU Mr RAU (Enfield) obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 1953. Read a first time.

Mr RAU: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading I would like to explain briefly what the bill is about, because I know that many members, particularly those opposite, do not have any idea what it is about. The bill seeks to do two things: first, to make it more difficult for people to be tattooed without having a think about it, by providing for a cooling-off period for tattooing; and, secondly, to take up a matter that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, took up in the last parliament, I believe, the matter of body piercing, and to seek to somewhat regulate that activity.

As members would probably be aware, both of these activities that are the subject of this proposed legislation are already to some degree supervised by the law of South Australia. I will talk first about the situation in relation to body piercing. It is important for the parliament to bear in mind that section 33 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act as it presently stands deals with the issue of female genital mutilation. It is important to note that, for the purposes of that legislation, a child is deemed to be a person of under 18 years. Female genital mutilation, amongst other things, includes `any other mutilation of the female genital organs'.

I point out to those members present and perhaps those listening that in extreme cases the practice of body piercing does get to that point. It is interesting to note that under section 33A of the current Criminal Law Consolidation Act the penalty for female genital mutilation is seven years imprisonment, and it is not possible for anybody to consent to it, whether a minor or not. I realise that it is at the extreme end of the spectrum of possible activity of this type, but that is the extent to which that sort of activity is currently regulated by the law of South Australia.

On my research, that appears to be the end of it. Between that and the relatively simple act of having an ear lobe pierced for the purpose of having a ring put in there is a vast array of possibilities. This legislation seeks to exclude the person who wants to have their ear pierced and to require that, in the case of a minor, that minor has to have parental consent for any other form of piercing. Dealing with the other piece of legislation that is currently on the statute books, I would like to refer members to section 21A of the Summary Offences Act, which already deals with the issue of tattooing and provides that, where a person tattoos a minor—and again a minor here is a person under 18 years of age—for reasons other than those associated with a medical procedure, they are guilty of an offence.

The penalty provided for here is $1 250 or three months imprisonment. It seems to me that we have two activities that involve, on the one hand, the tattooing of people and, on the other hand, mutilation or decoration, depending on your perspective, partly regulated already by acts of the South Australian parliament. What I am seeking to do is fill in some of the grey areas in what is clearly material that should not be of concern (such as for example having an ear pierced) and try to regulate the activity in the middle so that minors are not in a position where they have these procedures done without some sort of parental consent.

Of course, it has to be remembered that the piercing activity is, at least, not permanent, in most cases, although medical advice I have had—and I think the member for Morphett might be better placed on this subject—indicates that there can be some neurological damage if these things are not done properly, and the member for Adelaide (the Minister for Tourism) has told me that severe infection issues can arise from some of these activities. So, it is not as if it is a com­pletely benign activity.

As far as the tattooing side of things is concerned, members would all be aware that tattoos are very much in vogue these days, and what this seeks to do is not to stop people having tattoos but, rather, to say that if you are going to have one—the impulse tattoo where you and a few friends have gone out and perhaps been to one of the hotels in a street not too far from here, had too much to drink and decided to wander down the street and have a skull and crossbones, or something, emblazoned on you—you have to think about it. That is all it says. It does not say that you cannot do it: it just says that, as an adult person, you have to think about it because, let's face it, once it is there, it is there, and it is going to cost the medical system (or you, more likely) in terms of elective surgery a lot of money to get rid of it. That is broadly the background to the bill, if I could take you to the specifics of it.

First, section 21A, the current section of the Summary Offences Act dealing with tattoos, is to be amended by increasing the financial penalty for tattooing a minor from $1 250 or three months imprisonment to $2 500 or three months imprisonment. In the circumstances, that is a reasonable proposal. Secondly, what is proposed is that, in relation to the defence currently provided for in the Summary Offences Act (that is, a defence to a charge that you have tattooed a minor), that offence be stiffened up.

I will not take members of the house through the details of the current defence, but the current defence is sloppier than the one proposed. The one proposed requires that a person must seek evidence of age before performing a tattoo and, if they do not seek evidence of age and then go ahead and perform the tattoo, they will have real trouble proving that they had an honest belief that the person was of age. It is really stiffening up the defence, to make sure that children are not going to be tattooed by mistake or because someone is too lazy to check properly whether they are an adult.

The next section of the bill deals with piercing of minors. As I said in my opening remarks, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your contribution to this. I know you promoted this matter in the previous parliament and, for one reason or another, it did not become a matter of law. But let us have another go and see what happens. The proposal simply says that it is illegal to pierce a minor, and I should point out for members opposite that piercing does not include, as you would see in the definitions, ear lobes.

We are not talking about the teenager who wants to have an earring put in: we are talking about any other sorts of piercing. We are saying that minors who want piercing other than of ear lobes need to have consent from a parent or guardian. That is the purpose of that provision. It also requires, consistent with your previous legislation, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there be a record kept of the part to be affected. Also, it leaves room for medical procedures and so on, as you would see in subsections (4) and (5). It provides the same sort of defence as we have talked about in relation to tattooing of minors, namely, that you can defend a charge of piercing a minor if you have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person is not a minor. If you have satisfied yourself reason­ably that they are not and go ahead and do it, obviously you are not to be prosecuted. Obviously there is no prohibition on piercing of adults: that is not the object of the exercise.

#24 The next point is the one I was particularly pleased to see included in this bill, namely, new section 21C to be inserted in the Summary Offences Act, which requires a cooling off period. This means effectively that the customer who is to have a tattoo identifies what they want, identifies the part of the body, and must wait three days before they get the job done. The object of this exercise is to prevent the impulse tattoo, and hopefully the person involved has time to reflect on whether or not they want it. If they do want it, well and good, they can go ahead and have it. If they do not, the time has passed and hopefully the headache has been and gone and they miss out on a problem they might have regretted later in life. If they are still of a mind that they want to have the tattoo, well and good, they can go ahead and do it.

New subsections (2) and (3) of section 21C as proposed are designed to prevent the coercion of people. By that, I mean that, if we were simply to require a cooling off period but to provide for people to part with a deposit on the initial occasion when they signed up for the tattoo, there might be some sort of leverage on the part of the tattoo parlour that the person goes through with it, because they have already paid for it. New subsections (2) and (3) provide that the person who is to perform the tattoo cannot demand a payment or deposit or any other form of security to ensure that the person will return in three days and go ahead with the job. The purpose is to make it clear to an individual that there is no obligation on them, there is no coercion, and they cannot be required to pay a deposit or make any other form of payment which might have the effect of inducing them to go ahead and do it if their inclination was not to.

It is my hope that this is the sort of legislation which will be acknowledged by members opposite as being sensible legislation. I would encourage members opposite to give it some thought and hopefully get back to us as soon as possible with any views they have on it. It is the sort of thing that is directed towards making sure that people who might be in a vulnerable position, either because of age or infirmity or because it is self-inflicted perhaps by a visit to a hotel, do not end up harming themselves or placing themselves in a position they do not need to be in. I urge the house to favourably consider the bill.

One White

Mr MEIER (Goyder) secured the adjournment of the debate.