<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2009-07-16" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3565" />
  <endPage num="3644" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Summary Offences (Piercing and Scarification) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000064">
        <heading>SUMMARY OFFENCES (PIERCING AND SCARIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000065">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000066">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000067">(Continued from 5 March 2009. Page 1868.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="1805" kind="speech">
          <name>Mr GOLDSWORTHY</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Kavel</electorate>
          <startTime time="2009-07-16T11:08:00" />
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000068">
            <timeStamp time="2009-07-16T11:08:00" />
            <by role="member" id="1805">Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:08):</by>  I sought leave to continue my remarks on 5 March, and my comments this morning are a continuation of that contribution. I was talking about the report of the Select Committee on the Tattooing and Body Piercing Industries, tabled in the parliament. I want to speak to the house about the report, which was comprehensive; it comprised 50-odd pages and made 15 recommendations. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs relevant to this bill regarding body piercing. Under the heading of Body Piercing, the report states:</text>
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000069">
            <inserted>The problem of regulating body piercing is more complex than regulating tattooing because of the enormous range of piercing available and the lack of skills and qualifications held by those operators performing these procedures.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000070">
            <inserted>The only relatively simple aspect of this subject is traditional ear piercing. This is so entrenched in sections of our society, and with some small risk of complication, that it should continue to be permitted to be performed on any minor with parental consent, provided that the equipment, the person performing the procedure and technique are approved by the licensing authorities.</inserted>
          </text>
          <page num="3571" />
          <text continued="true" id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000071">It seems clear that the comments about regulation and licensing, in the context of tattooing, should have similar application to body piercing establishments. Under the heading 'Summary of Evidence as it relates to the Terms of Reference' it reads:</text>
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000072">
            <inserted>(c)&amp;#x9;the effectiveness of enforcement under the Summary Offences Act 1953 and other legislation;</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000073">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>Currently there is no provision under the Summary Offences Act 1953 for prohibiting body piercing in minors. Given the lack of powers accorded to the police to investigate suspected incidents of underage tattooing, and the inability of the fine to function as an adequate deterrent, it is clear that penalties and the police powers should be reviewed.</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000074">I think that is important information in the context of debating this legislation, in terms of the fact that it has been difficult to monitor and police these activities. However, as I said, the report tabled by the select committee contained 15 recommendations and very interesting information. The opposition supports the bill.</text>
          <text id="20090716ecf7dbbd6b3143e790000075">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>