SUMMARY OFFENCES (TATTOOING, BODY PIERCING AND BODY MODIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:40): Before the luncheon adjournment I was outlining the summary of the proposals for reform under the bill. I had been referring to body modification. There is a very substantial expansion of the definition. In addition to tattooing, a number of other types of body modification are defined, and I will not repeat them. One further aspect of the body modification was that under section 21E it is proposed that the bill will restrict the sale of body modification equipment to a minor. This is to attract a different penalty, and I will come to penalties shortly and the reference to what the current and new regime of penalties will be.

The consent components become important in this bill and have now essentially been rewritten. Where consent is required, it now has to have some pre-conditions or qualifications. Parental and guardian consent for non-intimate piercing of a person up to the age of 15 years can be given in person or in writing. Written consent must be provided on the prescribed form and accompanied by a statutory declaration. Records prescribed by regulation, which will include copies of proof of age and consent documentation, will be required to be kept for two years.

Then we have the provision under section 21D(2) which states that, in relation to a minor, it will be an offence to perform a body modification procedure or piercing if that person is intoxicated, and a person who is intoxicated also cannot provide consent, written or in person, for the minor. So there are two things: first, the person who is intoxicated cannot give the consent, whether they are in the room or purporting to sign the necessary forms; and, secondly, the person who is receiving the procedure is not allowed to be intoxicated, otherwise the person carrying out the procedure is liable to commit an offence.

It is a defence to the section 21B provision if the defendant proves that he or she believed on reasonable grounds the person was not intoxicated, which is an interesting reversal of what currently applies to questions of competence to give informed consent. The bill introduces requirements for body piercing (other than the ear lobe, which I have referred to) to have written consent explaining the nature of the procedure and including the prescribed information associated with the health risks of the procedure. A copy of the contract must also be provided for free to the customer.

The final area which has been significantly changed is the introduction of a whole new proposed section 21I. This will set out a new regime for police search powers, remembering that there are a number of new obligations that now fall on someone who is going to undertake a number of these procedures. There needs to be various record keeping and the obtaining and keeping of consent forms. They need to have undertaken certain processes, including associated statutory declarations. They need to, obviously, provide certain information and retain on their records certain information, including proof of age and the like. So there is a whole regulatory procedure that requires documentation to be kept to provide, essentially, the supportive evidence that the procedure has been carried out lawfully.

Because there are expanded areas of practice to which children cannot have access to the procedure at all, that is, it is prohibited, clearly, there needs to be a regime of enforcement that is commensurate with what is about to be imposed.

I think that, in general, there are a number of aspects of this record keeping and the like, which would attract the services of health officers of local government—or even of the Department of Health, if that was an appropriate authority, but usually these are matters which are under the supervision of a health officer from local government.

As members would know, health officers of local government under our Public and Environmental Health Act—which either is about to change or has changed (I think it is about to change under our new Public Health Act)—undertake these responsibilities and do the appropriate checks, and, where there appears to be a breach, for example, if there is a failure by someone to register a notifiable disease, then the health officer refers that to the relevant agency, and that may or may not be the police representative.

What this bill purports to do rather uniquely is to introduce a new regime about what the police search powers are to be for the purposes of enforcement of these offences which appear, on viewing the Summary Offences Act, to apply to no other offences under that act. I have had a look through it again, and I think that I am correct in saying that this new section 21I is a section within part 4 which relates only to body piercing and modifications and not to any other offences, and there are a lot of others, and I will refer to some of them in a moment in relation to penalties.

However, in relation to this aspect, the bill proposes that members of the South Australia Police will be able to enter premises providing the services of tattooing, piercing, modification, etc., to inspect, copy or retain copies of documents. A police officer would be also empowered to require a person who they reasonably believed to be a minor to give their name and address, proof of age and information about the procedure they are seeking.

The basis upon which the police would say that this may be necessary is, of course, if they were undertaking criminal investigations. A number of concerns have been raised about this, in particular the fact that no other service industry has laws that allow the inspection and removal of private client data without a justifiable cause. In fact, this new section 21I of the bill only requires that it be a reasonable time for an officer to inspect and retain documents prescribed by regulation, and only if the police propose to retain copies will it be necessary for them to suspect an offence.

Already significant powers exist for local government health officers (as I have referred to) in relation to health and public safety standards through the Public and Environmental Health Act; which, as I say, is about to be replaced by the Public Health Act and which, I think, went into deadlock in this house, from memory, yesterday. Nevertheless, assuming that it follows the usual course and ultimately there is some resolution, we will have a new Public Health Act.

In any event, we are going to continue to have a regime of legislative framework to facilitate the protection of health and public safety standards, and that provides a significant amount of protection and power to those officers to undertake their responsibility.

The question of recurring concern that has come to us from the public health experts is that overregulation will encourage consumers to access amateur providers or self administer; this is the backyard, underground, a mate, a friend, and certainly unqualified in any professional training. The other areas of concern relate to minors having difficulty providing proof of age for procedures, apart from the learner's licence. There are a few reasons why a 16 year old would require identification. This requirement may also encourage minors seeking piercing to choose amateur rather than professional services.

They are the sort of extent of changes. As I said in opening, a number of the aspirational purposes of this by the Attorney, disclosed in his second reading, we would agree with, but herein lies a number of areas of concern. One is as I referred to, namely the consultation that was invited by the government, and where some 40 submissions, on his information, were provided on the draft bill, some of which I have acknowledged, but we have not seen all of these submissions. The government at least listened to some of these issues and have removed them from their proposed draft and, accordingly, the bill that is before us.

There were two things in principle that we asked the government to share with us in relation to this bill. One was that we would like to have a look at the submissions on the bill. I attended a briefing yesterday provided by the Attorney-General's office and representatives of the Attorney-General's office (I think the department), and there were also representatives from his ministerial office present. I conveyed my inquiry as to whether the submissions would be available.

The response was that the submissions were subject to a freedom of information application by the Hon. Stephen Wade and that that was a matter in progress, and, quite appropriately, that that was a matter in which the representatives present at the meeting should not interfere with—no issue about that. It was denied that there was a request for submissions to be provided, in any event. I understand there had been a request, at a previous briefing, to the Hon. Stephen Wade. So I inquired of him after this meeting, and he informed me that he had made that request.

It is puzzling to me, given that on the face of it the government has gone to such an effort to call for submissions (he even invited me to make a submission), and on the material provided to me there was nothing in it that I received, which I assumed was a standard letter, that had gone to all those invited to submit, to suggest that the material provided in the submission would be confidential. There was not even any tick a box, which is sometimes the case on invitations for submissions, to ask that the information be kept confidential.

But, if there was or there had been a corresponding request by the person making the submission that it be kept confidential, then one would have expected that from the minister's office surely we would have received some indication that that would be the case and that therefore a certain number of the parties submitting may have been seeking that their submission not be made public to anyone, or even to us. In any event, that response had not come at all.

So I do express my concern that, for something that is of importance to the government, for which on the face of it they have undertaken a comprehensive public consultation, we as the representatives here in the parliament cannot see what is in those submissions. An alternative procedure could have been that this bill not be progressed until the completion of the FOI application, which for reasons unknown to me it is taking some time—remember, this bill came in in early April and here we are in early May. It seems that, in those preceding weeks, none of the submissions at this point under that FOI process have been produced.

I do not really mind which way it goes, but it seems to me that the government needs to show good faith by either not insisting on the progress of this bill until those submissions are provided or, in the alternative, if they want to rely on the FOI process—and there are some legitimate reasons for nondisclosure, and sometimes that is the case; I accede to that—then we could receive what is lawfully able to be provided. However, to advance this bill in the absence of either of those processes would be quite unacceptable, and I express my disquiet on that.

The second thing that we asked of the government was that it provide us with some information about the history of prosecutions under the current legislation. As members will recall, the current section 4 of the Summary Offences Act prohibits tattooing on minors (anyone under 18). That information was forthcoming. At my briefing yesterday, it appeared that the briefing officer had the information but had not yet diagnosed or assessed it. However, she indicated that she would make it available and, duly, early last evening, I received copies of the information sought.

I think the answers to the questions asked about prosecutions were quite interesting and illuminating. Members will recall that, when I commenced my contribution on this matter—which is now some time ago—I outlined the importance of any legislation identifying whether a legislative framework, regulation or prosecution process is warranted or justified. This is why it is important to look at what has happened historically. It is one thing to expand a definition of what we are covering here; it is another thing to introduce a whole raft of other regulatory requirements.

It is interesting to note here that, on the information provided between 1992 and 2009—that is 17 years—there were 21 convictions; that is, prosecutions of someone who had apparently committed tattooing on a minor. Since 2000, there have been six. What is interesting about that is that it appears that the number is on the way down. That is the first thing. But here is where the information gets interesting. In relation to these charges and convictions, we asked whether the offender in these cases was either an amateur or a professional. The information provided to us was this:

There are no actual statistics on whether the offender was an amateur or professional. However, in some cases the apprehension report data lists the occupation of the offender. For those offences where the data was recorded, most were listed as unemployed, which may mean that the offenders were amateurs for the most part, but this cannot be known for sure.

The second aspect that was inquired about was: how many people receiving the service were intoxicated? The answer to that was:

There is no data available re whether an intoxicated person was tattooed, as it is not an offence at present to tattoo an intoxicated person.

This relates to 18 year olds, I am assuming, because she does not qualify that response. Here is what is interesting. Tattooing offences appear to average about one a year. It appears to be, on that information, going down to less than one a year.

I know, as I am sure the Attorney knows, that statistics do not always tell us the whole story. Sometimes it can mean that people are getting smarter at not being detected, and people are avoiding prosecution or detection. The situation may also be that, because there are now different types of body art, adornment and procedures, they are moving to those things which currently are not illegal rather than being tattooed. I do not know the answer to that because I am not the expert on body art and what is fashionable and what is not. I have to say that, at least as a distant observer of these things, it seems to me that tattooing is still very much in vogue, and it is quite common for the mentors of our young, including those people who dance wildly on video clips, that tattooing is very much an in-thing, and it is very popular.

Over the course of preparing for this debate I have consulted, but nowhere near as widely as the Hon. Stephen Wade, who has attended some of the premises that provide some of these services and has done comprehensive inquiring and investigation of these issues. I consulted important people like Paul Armanas in my office, who is a young chap who tells me he does not have any tattoos anywhere that I need to know about. In any event, he tells me that he is aware of some of these procedures. Even over luncheon, I discussed the subject with Grace Arnold, a young student at school (I think she is 16 years old), and she tells me that she is aware of people in her school—and she comes from a highly regarded Catholic girls college in South Australia—who have piercings, mostly earlobe piercings, I must say I was pleased to hear, and that she is aware of boys, particularly, who engage in the practice of body modification with large holes in the ears, etc.

Again, I am at a complete loss as to why they do it, but, nevertheless, I have had a bit of a discussion with them about it. It seems to me on that very limited inquiry that it is still pretty popular. If anything is to be judged from the pop stars of the day and their public performances, tattooing is up there with adornment of jewellery and other things. It used to be quite wild and exotic to have dangly earrings and pierced earlobes, perhaps, when I was at that age, and to have your hair streaked was seen to be a bit more radical. Nowadays that is way past what is considered to be necessary for their best presentation and, presumably, attractiveness.

So, that is the information that has come to us, and I think that is telling. It is fair to refer to other members of this house. The member for Fisher, ten years ago, I think, even before I came into the parliament, was a man ahead of his time and introduced a private member's bill about the piercing of children. No doubt he will tell us about that. It seems that that did not proceed with any traction. I notice that the Hon. Michael Atkinson secured the adjournment of that debate, and I expect it—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: By interjection, I am reliably informed that it actually progressed through this house. That is to his credit, because at that time he was certainly raising his concern about the health and safety of children, as well as the need to have written consent or someone accompanying the young person.

What seemed to be particularly in vogue those days, with its associated risk, was piercing around the eyes, and the member for Fisher seemed concerned—as we would expect—about the potential for nerve damage and problems in that area. The sensitivity of intimate parts, which we referred to earlier in this debate, is one thing, but the importance of sight is something that a 14 or 15 year old might not appreciate, whereas one recognises its significance as one matures.

An example of that (which I do not think is covered by this legislation) is the legislation relating to optometrists and the regulation of that industry, and the introduction, which was agreed to by the government, of an amendment to require that if young women in particular—again, this seemed to be something that was attractive to them—wanted to use coloured contact lenses which had no optical value for sight or reading but were only to make them look more attractive, to have violet eyes or green eyes or cats' eyes or whatever, it required a prescription.

As I recall the debates on that, the then Minister for Health acknowledged the irreparable damage that could be done to children in unwisely selecting this form of adornment without proper advice and, therefore, a prescription by a qualified optometrist, or it may have been an optician, at least, would suffice to enable some protection to be given the child in those circumstances.

I think the honourable member also raised the risk of hepatitis C. There are other ugly, contagious and transferable conditions out there, but body piercing and blood transferable diseases were obviously of concern to him. I think the Hon. Dennis Hood in another place also raised this issue. I do not remember the detail of that now, but I do recall it being referred to.

So, people have been concerned about what has happened but, sadly, we are not allowed to view their submissions before we can conclude our debate. That could be remedied, if the Attorney-General were mindful to, overnight, find that material—and others may be able to make a contribution on that—and make it available.

I want to address the current legal position. Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act is brief and pretty simple. It makes provision for it to be an offence to tattoo a minor except by a medical practitioner, and it has to be for medical reasons. The penalty is a $1,250 fine or imprisonment for three months. As I think I said earlier, it is a defence if it can be established that the person conducting the procedure reasonably believed that the person was over the age of 18 years. This piece of legislation will be replaced with a new part 4, which is much more expanded to cover all the areas I have referred to.

I would also like to refer to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act because I just want to remind members that there is provision in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935—in particular, section 144F in part 5A of that act—that talks about the use of a false identity.

I refer to section 144F because that section tells us that, if a person is under the age of 18 years and misrepresents their age by using some false identification, then they are exempt—that is, this section about prosecution for using false information does not apply to them—if it is for the purpose of their obtaining alcohol, tobacco or any other product not lawfully available to persons under the age of 18. It also goes on to apply to entering premises which are not ordinarily allowed to persons under 18 years.

The reason I mention that is that the obligation under this act is, firstly, to exclude a number of people under the age of 18 years from certain procedures and very much expand that, but, secondly, to provide personal identification information to access a service. I just want to remind members that, in the course of this debate, children are exempt from prosecution in relation to the use of false identification.

Members might recall that when we debated this at length—and I recall this with the former attorney-general (the member for Croydon)—we dealt with the identity theft legislation which was a particular area of interest to me. I subsequently had the opportunity to meet with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington about identity theft. It is the new criminal activity of the 21^st century, along with water theft, which I think is telling in that exactly that has come to pass.

One of the aspects we then moved on to was that, in relation to the question of dealing with children who go into premises that are licensed to sell alcohol and the uses of the identity card, the introduction of these offences was going to be curtailed by not applying to young people if they went in to buy alcohol or, as I say, to buy tobacco or any other product.

I raised concern about this at the time. I felt that, in fact, the then attorney-general was really abandoning some level of responsibility, that if it is unlawful for under 18 year olds to drink or smoke or use a product that says that for whatever reason the parliament has indicated that they should not have access to—that it is bad for them or that is dangerous or that they are not in a position to maturely consider the responsible use or partaking of it—then exempting them from using false cards was simply going to produce a circumstance where that is exactly what a 15 or 16 year old would do if they wanted to access the purchase of a product in relation to which we, as a parliament, have said no.

They will simply get a false ID card to represent themselves as being over the age of 18 years to bypass all of this structure that we put here and simply present that card. They could misrepresent their age, their name or both. It concerned me that, during those debates, there was not any way, other than this section, of bringing to account young people for their role in breaking the law to get access to the very product that we considered may be dangerous to them.

One of the things we were considering at the time was the participation of some young people in binge drinking or accessing nightclubs, and there was one on the corner of North Terrace and West Terrace, but I will not name them. The point at the time was that there was concern about young people getting access to alcohol and using false ID cards to get in. So, the proprietor was able to say, 'Look, I reasonably believed that this young girl wasn't 15, that she was actually over 18. She showed me her ID card and of course I relied on that'—and why wouldn't they? Of course they do.

It is not unreasonable for people, with dress and make-up and the like, to be able to represent themselves as someone who, to the untrained eye—the usual person, the man in the street—would quite reasonably expect that they are over 18. The answer of the then attorney-general was, and I paraphrase, 'This would put too much pressure on young people and they really can't be expected to account for this. They are only minors, in any event,' and so on along that line.

My assessment at the time was that he represented a government that was very anxious not to lose the youth vote, to be frank. That was my view. I asserted it at the time, and it is still my view that the government was somewhat gun-shy of stepping on the toes of young people who might be offended by not being able to go to the nightclub that they had been going to for some time.

The alternative I put at the subsequent estimates hearing to the commissioner for liquor licensing was that he needed to investigate these matters, particularly after he advised the estimates committee that in the whole of that year not one establishment had had its licence suspended for underage drinking, and yet here in the parliament we were being asked to make decisions to better protect young people to deal with access to or enjoying entertainment in and around premises that sold alcohol. It is just bewildering to think of the extent to which we had gone to attempt to protect these children, and yet, for those who were going to deliberately flout the rules that were set in place, there would be no accountability, no responsibility and no repercussion. To me that was unacceptable then and it remains unacceptable.

However, I just remind members of the purposes of this discussion. I certainly read there is no provision in this bill to in any way modify the provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and the way out for young people in relation to this new level of prohibitions that we are about to impose.

The second thing I want to refer to is that the government's proposal in this bill is, essentially, to increase the regime of penalties for a number of things. They vary slightly but, essentially, the principal offence will now attract a fine of some $5,000 or 12 months' imprisonment. There are some lesser penalties in relation to failure of record keeping and the failure to provide information to police and the like, which is maintained at a lower level.

I note for the purpose of comparison that there are a number of other offences which I think are commensurate with or less than this type of offence which attract a disproportionate penalty. It is interesting to note that in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, under division 8, which is female genital mutilation, the punishment for that is imprisonment for seven years if one who performs such a procedure is guilty of undertaking it on a child.

When we go to the Summary Offences Act, we have some interesting comparisons. I might say that I am not critical of the government for increasing the penalty—I think that is appropriate—but I point out that it would be ridiculous if some of these penalties are not in some way proportionate to other summary offences.

For example, under section 10 of the Summary Offences Act 1953, it is an offence to consume dogs or cats. This piece of legislation was introduced, I think, after the Premier listened to some talkback in Victoria and heard that someone thought they might be eating a cat. He thought it was very important for justice to prevail and, to protect the people of South Australia, we should have a new offence to say you are not allowed to eat dogs or cats—notwithstanding that, presumably, he was advised by the then attorney-general that there was already a law that said you could not kill them, cook them or sell them in a restaurant. There was a whole plethora of laws that said you could not deal with such things, but the Premier decided that he was going to—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: We closed the loophole.

Ms CHAPMAN: —as the Attorney-General says—close the loophole and we were going to have a separate fine for eating a dog or a cat. I do not know of any cases, ever, that have been raised as a concern or prosecuted since.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No, we have stamped it out completely.

Ms CHAPMAN: You stamped it out. I see. That, I might say, had a penalty of a $1,250 fine, and it would be absurd to think that you would have a fine for damage to a child by modification that would have the same penalty. That would be ridiculous. So, on this issue, I support the Attorney-General in at least differentiating between that absurd piece of legislation and what we are now considering.

The Hon. R.B. Such: He knows the difference between a cat and a child.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope so. The other interesting comparison that members might not be aware of is that, under section 18A of the Summary Offences Act, a person who, in, at or near a place where a public meeting is being held behaves in a disorderly, indecent, offensive, threatening or insulting manner or uses insulting words, etc, or in any way, except by lawful authority, obstructs or interferes with someone attending the meeting, etc., can be guilty of an offence; and that offence carries a penalty of $1,250 or three months.

I thought I might remember that one next time we have a public meeting and I have any interruption or attempt to interfere by anyone who wants to stop the meeting and people having their lawful say—people who might come along and rally outside the steps of Parliament House or have a public meeting. That is a handy offence. I will remember that one. Incidentally, in my view, it still should not be an offence that is greater than the offence we are currently considering.

The other example is that it is already a more severe offence to use a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, or an animal (so, that is a horse or any other beast of burden) without the consent of the owner. So we have this absurd situation where there is a penalty of $2,500 or six months' imprisonment if you use someone's car or horse without their permission, yet it is far less if you tattoo a child. So it is an absurd circumstance.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, fix that one up while you are there. The other matter is throwing fire works. I was a bit sorry when this piece of legislation came in because Guy Fawkes Day used to be a great day of celebration—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: This is a classic example. I will not revisit the whole debate because I was not here at the time, but I will say this. As a keen observer outside of the parliament, the abolition of Guy Fawkes Day and the opportunity to have any celebration, I thought was a miserable, one-size-fits-all, over-the-top extreme reaction to what was a lot of good fun. It is typical, because, of course, it is absurd to think that you would have fire crackers around little children or in a place of dense population. I would agree with some restrictions in that regard, but to outlaw it altogether when we used to throw penny bombs into the hills or into a gully and have lots of good fun, or have a bonfire and be able to set off some penny crackers, to—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: —I know—completely close down fun for children—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Excuse me, I think that, perhaps, the member should come back to the debate at hand.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): I think that the member for Bragg was actually trying to draw a distinction between the various penalties.

Ms CHAPMAN: Exactly.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I will allow you to go on.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is a penalty for throwing a firework in a circumstance when you either throw it or set fire to or explode a firework or explosive material so as to injure, annoy or frighten, etc., but to light something so as to annoy someone carries a $2,500 penalty or six months imprisonment.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: What if you threw a firework, killed an animal and then ate it?

Ms CHAPMAN: You would be in serious trouble. I make the point that everyone agrees that we recognise the importance of protecting children against any permanent disfigurement or modification of their body in certain circumstances. We agree with that principle, but let us get some kind of comparison in the penalties between the protection of a child as distinct from public nuisance or otherwise irritation to individuals with some sort of relativity. So, let us tidy up what is to be done there.

The other matter which I bring to the attention of the house is that part 15 of the Summary Offences Act prescribes the powers and rights of police officers to undertake entry to property, premises, vehicles and to search certain property, etc., and that applies as a general regime. I was indicating earlier that, with the introduction of a new part 4, it is the government's proposal that we have a different set that applies just to body modification and the management of tattoo parlours, etc., and their record keeping—that we have a separate set of rules just for that. We do not agree with that at all. I foreshadow an amendment to delete entirely section 21I from the bill, because, when it comes to the provisions in part 15, it has been well debated over the years the capacity for police officers to undertake their job.

A fundamental rule always needs to be considered, that is, a balance between protecting the community and the police officers being the enforcers of our criminal law having the capacity to be able to enforce that and balancing that with the rights of individuals to go about their normal life—home, car, anywhere—without unreasonable interference with their freedom or capacity to travel.

So, a lot of different circumstances are allowed—for example, they can enter a property and search a property with a warrant. There are some conditions about when that is ordinarily able to be done, but again there are exceptions to it, even to the extent of police officers being able to break down doors, etc., and even cause damage to property to execute their warrants. There are certain circumstances when that is quite appropriate.

The power to search suspected vehicles and vessels, to be able to board ships, etc., is also part of that; but it is comprehensive, and I think it works quite well. In my view there is absolutely no reason why it should be not applicable and not utilised for this area, some of which I suggest, as I did earlier, public officers of the local government would be exercising rather than wasting the time of differently trained police officers. However—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney interjects, 'They're too frightened.' There can be similar circumstances when certain patrons occupy licensed premises for the sale of alcohol and even the proprietors of those premises are somewhat frightened in dealing with their patrons—I will not go into the detail of it; we have traversed this previously in this parliament—where they do need and have sought the assistance of police officers. That is fine, but to provide a situation where police officers have a special set of powers to essentially enter premises and seize private material without even having reasonable cause is completely unacceptable. Having traversed some of this now, the Attorney will be pleased that I will be brief when it comes to moving my amendment on that.

I will also just mention that section 73 in the Summary Offences Act, which is in part 15, relating to police powers, also gives power to police to remove disorderly persons from public venues. Even that has a penalty of $2,500 or imprisonment for six months. I am not saying it is a bad thing; I am simply saying again that it highlights the comparison with what we are doing. The bill is going to increase the tattooing of a child illegally, or body modification, to that standard, so I am pleased it is being increased.

There is one penalty which is slightly less but commensurate with refusing to obey a police officer under the new regime, with the same penalty of a $1,250 fine or three months. It seems to me that if the new section 21I is removed, the penalty regime in part 15 will still be consistent with the proposed penalties in relation to police powers, which is in the bill.

I will move to specific concerns that we have. One is earlobes. I just want to touch on these because I did mention in a very general way that we were concerned about hygiene and safety practices with earlobes. In this regard, I just want to bring to the attention of the minister one of the submissions that my colleague, the Hon. Stephen Wade, received.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: They provided it to the Hon. Stephen Wade, and he has provided a copy of it to me. It seemed that some of the people who were presenting submissions were very keen to tell other people in parliament what they were proposing, which is great. Had they not done so, I am sure some of the issues would not have been brought to our attention. One of them was the report prepared by Mr Steven Parker. He is a community safety consultant for Southern Primary Health Noarlunga.

Mr Parker raised a number of matters with us, and, I assume from the material that we have received, he has given notice to the government of a number of concerns that he had. They do not exclude earlobes; in fact, they include them. I just want to explain to the Attorney why we are concerned about this. Between the houses we will think about how we might deal with it or how we might better assist the government to get it right, because he is actually an employee of the government. May I say that he is not only an employee of the government in this important area of health and safety, but he is also someone to whom the government only a few months ago gave an award. He actually won the Minister's Innovation Award for Healthy Body Art for a primary school education program. So, I would have hoped that the minister, or at least Minister for Health, would have made sure that the Attorney-General was aware that he was someone who was clearly at the leading edge of—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct. It says they are not able to be protected.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay. As a recipient of the Minister's Innovation Award and the author of reports on his inquiry into body piercing, infection and injury research, which may or may not have been available at the time of the previous inquiry—I think it certainly post-dated that, but there may have been something similar—Mr Parker made a number of recommendations about identifying piercing-related infection and injury as necessarily being a target for intervention. So, it is not just who gets to have it done or who can do it to them with or without consent, but how and also what instruction should be provided to ensure that the post care is carried out to ensure that there is a reduction, or at least a minimisation, of infections and problems. He states:

A second survey was presented to practising general practitioners throughout the southern suburbs of Adelaide via the Southern Division of General Practice. Surveys were distributed to individual GPs in many of the 96 practices in the region. A total of 134 completed survey responses were voluntarily returned by freefax to the SDGP or collected by the SDGP Practice Liaison Team.

In all, 96 per cent of the responding GPs reported that during the previous 12 month period they had treated a patient presenting with infection or injury following a body piercing. A total of 410 body piercing complications were reported. The most common complication was that of the ear, followed by the navel, tongue, eyebrow, nose, nipple and genitalia, in descending order. The most commonly reported complication was infection—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): Going down you mean?

Ms CHAPMAN: This is a direct quote, Mr Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I just wanted to know what you meant by 'descending order'.

Ms CHAPMAN: To continue:

The most commonly reported complication was infection following a body piercing.

There is no existing data to ascertain the precise proportion of the local population who have undergone a body piercing procedure. However, Department of Health and Ageing statistics indicate that within the general community it is substantial. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of complications arising from body piercing from the Southern Adelaide Health Service catchment area.

The survey data constitutes a significant representative sample. The number of complications reported indicates a substantial workload for local GPs and subsequent costs to the Australian health care system. The survey results provide evidence that body piercing can indeed be hazardous to the health of the community, particularly in the youth population. With this in mind, Southern Primary Health Noarlunga has identified piercing related infection and injury as a target for intervention.

The problem here is that we have a bill which does not address this issue at all. All it does is say that it is an offence to make certain equipment available to minors; that is, you cannot sell them tattooing needles, piercing guns or—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Or to use it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Or to use it, that is right. What it does not do is identify a regime that clearly needs to be undertaken to ensure that the recipient of a piercing—probably also a modification but the area of expertise that is given to us is on piercing—needs to be accompanied by material and advice as to what is to happen with the after care.

In the bill, the preconditions of performing the procedure under proposed section 21(d) relate to the requirement to enter into a written agreement on issues to disclose details of the procedure, presumably, if you are going to inject a needle or a gun, it is going to hurt and it will last for a certain amount of time, and the manner in which it will be carried out, and then the customer is entitled to receive free of charge a copy of the agreement and the prescribed information. It is a bit like going to the doctor who now—usually to avoid being struck off or to avoid an insurance claim—sits there and meticulously goes through the details of the procedure about to be undertaken. Much attempt is given to ensuring that the proper consent is provided—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Informed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not just informed but that they know exactly what they are doing. It is checked off and they are asked to sign a form that they have received the information. They can be advised to get a second opinion and so on. The way that I read that, the expectation here is that there will be sufficient information for an un-intoxicated about-to-be participant to have informed consent and provide that for that procedure to be undertaken.

That is fine, but what is missing is the obligation to provide follow-up care. Advice as to the after care practices that should be undertaken, other than 'dab a bit of methylated spirits on the spot for the next few days', which used to be the advice given to my generation. What I am saying is this, if we are going to have a regime of prohibition, and we are going to allow limited access to these procedures, and we are going to try and remedy the ills—this is the reason for having a restriction for the public benefit—then we need to identify what the ills are. A big problem here, as identified by Mr Parker, is that the aftercare treatment service advice is not there, and these people by their hundreds, just in the southern district, are turning up to GPs to get treatment.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: We will be prescribing it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hear a murmur of positive response from the Attorney-General indicating that he will prescribe it. I certainly hope that we have some indication of dealing with this issue because if we do not, then we are going to go to all this trouble and still not resolve a very major complication. I am disappointed that there has not been any reference to this in the long time over which the government has had to read this report—since 2006—and to read the investigation that was precipitated by the then backbencher, now Attorney-General. But this would have stood out, because it seems to be not the only one of those that have been raised.

If anything it was heightened by the fact that some other people who presented submissions have talked about the importance of realising that a direct consequence of introducing a prohibition means that those who no longer have access to these procedures are likely, hopefully in small numbers, to find other ways to get around it. One of the areas highlighted in those stakeholders' contributions is the increased likelihood of people accessing backyard or underground facilities.

If that were to occur then we would also have the likelihood of a continuing health problem. Alternatively, we would have an increased use of false identity documents, in which case more of these people would still turn up to have these procedures done without that medical advice or follow-up care. So, I urge the Attorney-General to work hard and diligently to ensure that area is covered.

Those who have contacted us were also concerned about this going underground. They included Ms Morag Draper, and we also received some material from the president of the Professional Tattooing Association of Australia Inc., which was referred to in the briefing provided by the Attorney-General's office. In fact, there are only two other areas of principal concern still left in the system. They raised a number of concerns, and I appreciate that the Attorney-General has acceded to some of them.

They make another point, and this is one of the difficulties of any piece of legislation, I suppose, about making a prohibition for people under the age of 18 years as distinct from under 16 years. The Attorney-General would be aware that there are a lot of things you can do when you turn 16, and there are more that you can do when you are 18. However at 16, with your parents' consent, you can get married, you can leave home—even without your parents' consent—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: And stay home. You can get a driver's licence, you can join the Army and fight for your country or help to prevent civil disturbances, but you cannot drink alcohol or get a tattoo. One of the stakeholders makes that point, and I think it is a fair assessment and is probably why we need to review all this issue. By that I am not suggesting that we rush to give 16 year olds the vote, but we do need to consider that in today's society there are a number of young people under the age of 18 years who are married, who are already parents themselves, who have a job, who are having sex—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Perhaps.

Ms CHAPMAN: —to have a child it is usually necessary—and who live independently. It does seem rather curious at best that, in some way, we prevent these people from making a decision when they are out there on their own, even managing other minors, and for them not to be able to have access to this. That criticism was made, and I think it is reasonable for the Attorney, at least with this legislation, not to tamper with the 18 age group because that is already there for tattooing. Other piercings in intimate areas and body modifications are serious other areas, so, rather than changing the age without a thorough consultation and disclosure of the consultation, I accept for that reason.

There was another aspect raised, and I will quote from the Professional Tattooing Association of Australia Inc. Apparently it is an interstate body, I think Western Australia, according to the information I have that was provided from the Attorney's briefing. It stated:

If professional, clean and hygienic body piercing is not made available to those under the age of 18 years, this will encourage minors to pierce themselves/each other/visit an amateur operator, please see 'Healthy Body Art: Body Piercing Infection and Injury Resource Report' conducted by Southern Primary Health—Noarlunga, dated October 2006.

I have already referred to that report; I do not need to detail it again. I hope the Attorney has read it and, if he has not, he should.

The other matter that they were concerned about is one in relation to which we are proposing to move an amendment, and that relates to the police powers. This was their contribution on the police powers aspect:

If young people under the age of 18 years are not given the opportunity to independently research professional advice with regards to tattooing or body piercing, without the concern of being questioned and possibly intimidated by a police officer, then this will only encourage them to visit an unprofessional or amateur or even attempt to carry out a procedure on themselves.

The copying and removal of sensitive personal client information is a direct infringement of client privacy and in turn will encourage clients to leave incorrect untruthful and information. In the instance of an infection enquiry, client records are made available to the health department for the purpose of contact and research. If incorrect details are left, then the health department are greatly hindered which will impact severely on the health and safety of the general public.

The serious downside to this is that those who operate unprofessionally will fly under the radar of all legislation and their client bases will increase. Amateur operators who purchase equipment from the internet and medical supply companies do not lease business premises, do not have Australian Business Numbers, do not undertake infection control seminars, do not comply with health department skin penetration guidelines, do not offer any form of after care support and do not know how to tattoo or pierce professionally.

They go on to say:

Fact: no other personal appearance service including beauty salons, hairdressers, acupuncturists, cosmetic surgeons and/or laser therapists etc. are subject to police checks.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, in this aspect, they go on to say:

As an industry, we would like to see additional legislation prohibiting amateurs from operating from residential and nonprofessional locations. Adelaide City Council has zoning regulations which should be enforced in the event of an amateur tattoo operator being located.

I do not know whether that is the case, as distinct from the Adelaide City Council zoning regulations, but, in any event, that is their submission.

The general concern about disease transmission being on the increase is making it hard, really, or at least intimidating, for young people to seek advice and get relevant information—even a comparison between service providers, if one bit of information is left and it is going to be made subject to a potential raid by a police officer.

These are all aspects that have been raised. Apart from the risk of enhancing the use of amateur operators who, as I say, fly below the radar, the concern is this: it seems that people who breach the rules at the moment—which is the no-tattooing for under 18s—are largely, on the information provided by your office as best as it can be interpreted, amateurs. The information, as the Attorney might recall, is that the offenders recorded their address as 'unemployed'. Now, they may have lied but that was the basis upon which the assumption is made that they were amateurs.

The other aspect that I just want to touch on is the intoxication requirements. It is important to ensure that when consent is given, it is informed consent and that the person who is giving the consent is not acting under some disability that prevents them from being able to make that informed decision. Sometimes there is a mental impairment; sometimes there is an illness; sometimes there is influence by a drug or alcohol that renders them unable to think clearly and make an informed decision.

The imposition here, which is largely that the person is not allowed to do it if they are intoxicated, is pretty obvious. It is a bit like a doctor conducting an operation or a pilot flying a plane—of course they cannot be intoxicated, and there is good reason for that. To have to make an assessment about whether or not the person is intoxicated, which is now a prerequisite to entering into the agreement to undertake the procedure, raises the question as to whether that person is qualified to identify whether that person is intoxicated.

What is reasonable when anyone is asked to make an assessment that consent is given is that, in all the circumstances, they are willing; that is, the person is there of their own volition and that they are not under the duress of a whole lot of rowdy mates who say, 'No, you've got to line up and actually have this. You've got to show us you're a man,' or whatever, 'and line up and have this tattoo. You said you were going to do it,' and so on, so they are not under the duress of their own friends, or whether they have a mental impairment, or whether they do not appear to be sufficiently understanding of the procedure or the seriousness of it.

These are all factors which, quite reasonably, the person who is about to conduct the procedure would need to assess. They have to be satisfied that consent was there. So, why pick out one feature—just intoxication—as though that is the only impediment on which they have to make an assessment for the purpose of whether they are giving sober consent?

What I suggest to the Attorney-General is that the qualification of intoxication here is unnecessary. There is sufficient law on the question of what is consent for that assessment to be made if it is subsequently argued that the consent was withheld, misunderstood or whatever. Intoxication has been plucked out as though a requirement will be created that will crush out some social ill, if one is in existence at all—that is, that people get these procedures done when they are intoxicated and that there is some high level of that. I thought that we had dealt with the drunken sailor stereotype and that the reality is quite different.

The Hon. Stephen Wade, who is a man of very sober practices himself, has investigated these matters and thoroughly and comprehensively considered this aspect. He tells me that in fact something near half the people who go in to ask for a tattoo actually present with a picture (usually a printout from the internet) of what they have in mind to be done to them. So, that person presumably has sat down in front of a computer, considered what the options are, investigated what tattoo they would like to have done, printed it off, made the appointment and gone in and asked for it to be done.

In the absence of there being any evidence and relying on the anecdotal comment of someone who might have had a tattoo done decades ago and who comes back and says, 'Now that I'm 55 I've decided it wasn't such a good idea. I was half-cut one night when we all went out on my buck's show and I got this done,' as the basis upon which we need an intoxication clause, I suggest, is not adequate. I am sure that the fine young men of today would not have got themselves in that state.

I do not want to mislead the parliament because that might be wrong, so I will temper that assertion with the fact that young people today, at least on the information we have, do make a conscious decision to have a tattoo or body modification procedure. They go in and provide their consent. If they are under 18 and if it is piercing, of course, it is with the consent of their parent, often in the presence of their parents. That was some other interesting information that I received from Grace Arnold today in her advice to me as a young person. Even when she had her ears pierced she went in with her dad and had it done, and that is quite common.

I am sure that, at the moment, when some young girl at 19 decides that she wants to have a little tattoo on her ankle or above her bikini line like some pop star does, she has thought about it and decided it is a great thing to do because Madonna or Victoria Beckham, or someone, has one somewhere, and it is very attractive and she is going to have it done also. I think that, in the absence of there being any evidence that, currently, people are having these procedures done only because they are in a state of intoxication and they wake up the next day totally regretful, is an unfair reflection on the young people of today, and I think the Attorney should have more developed research and evidence to present to us before he goes down that line.

I want to come to the proscribed practices, because we have a quite definitive process. One of them is that we cannot have implants under the new body modification, and I will ask the Attorney in committee to identify (so I am sure he is listening intently to this) whether or not some of these things will be affected.

I recently observed on television that someone had implanted a microchip somewhere in their wrist, and they were using the microchip as a means to open their front door, car, etc. It is like one of those little cards we have to use to get in and out of Parliament House. It seemed to me that that would be within the definition of implants and the prohibition that we are currently talking about.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, well, that may be so. To have this clear, the Attorney-General interjects to say your GP could do it for you. The GP can only do it for us under the definition that is proposed in this legislation, that is, if it is required for medical purposes. I have to say, on the program I saw (assuming that all the information was accurate), this man had done it for his own convenience. He did not want to take his keys out, lose his keys, or whatever, and he thought this was a great thing to do. I have to say that it is not something I would rush into, and I know there are a lot of other people who would not necessarily go to those lengths. But we microchip our cats and dogs—we not allowed to eat them but we can microchip them—and we are in an electronic age. Perhaps we will microchip our children to make sure they do not get lost and we can keep an eye on them. They would not be able to dump their mobile phones so we cannot track where they are, etc.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It is actually in the five-year review.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney says there is a five-year review. In any event, I think microchipping needs to be looked at. The other example under proscribed practices is tongue forking.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That is in there. That is in there as part of the definition of body modification.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney says that it is in there. On the definition, I do not see it, but, if it is there, I am just giving some alert to the minister that I will be asking about that, because that does appear to be a procedure—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That is intended to be covered by—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is intended to be covered.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay. I will ask you that in committee and you can just cover that. The other is what we might inadvertently be covering, and I would like some indication from the minister as to what he proposes to do here. One is this question of hair removal—

The Hon. R.B. Such: That happens naturally.

Ms CHAPMAN: —yes, for some—laser removal of hair and skin exfoliation, which are largely beauty treatments, if I could put them into very generalised practices. There are a number of practices there. I will be looking for some indication from the minister as to whether he is proposing in any way to introduce these as prescribed practices, which would therefore make it illegal for young girls to have their legs lasered, or other types of things.

Permanent hair removal in a genital area, for example, would, on the face of it, be something that would be unacceptable for the thrust of what we are talking about in this legislation. We will look for some guidance there, because the logical extension of that is that we would, perhaps, inadvertently catch a whole lot of beauty therapists, and so on, who undertake some of these procedures to the immense acclaim of their clients and which they would want to participate in.

The logical type of thing we are talking about is when there would be, say, a breast reduction or an enhancement which would be done by a medical practitioner but which would not necessarily be done for medical reasons. An implant, for example, if it was a breast enhancement, could be captured under this. We are looking for some guidance in that regard. I will say that if a medical practitioner says that it is necessary for an under 18-year-old girl to have a breast reduction for a medical reason, I would accept that. I think that may be necessary. There may be a major problem.

Similarly, we have modifications which are taken out, particularly on facial features, on deformed children (to use an old-fashioned word) who are brought in from overseas—they have craniofacial treatment, and it is not necessarily required to be done because of a medical reason but is done for comfort and for social acceptance in their community, etc. It is something that we do, and we do it proudly as a humanitarian position.

I think that because we have very much tightened up on not only the exemption being a medical practitioner and for a medical purpose, the issue of what we would otherwise describe as 'elective surgery' is one. There is a fine line, and I remember having this debate with the Minister for Health when he removed a lot of plastic surgery procedures from the public health list.

What that meant was that if one of the surgeons at the Royal Adelaide Hospital took the view that their accident victim needed to have a lot of subsequent plastic surgery, just to be able to reasonably present themselves publicly, that should be reason enough to be able to have the plastic surgery. Obviously, if it is just to make your lips look better or to get rid of some wrinkles, or whatever, then that is to be considered—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, well, he was over 18. Commonly now, if we are talking about procedures of enhancement, women will have Botox inserted in them, and there is another one too, but I forget. I am looking back here to a man married to medical people. Women use collagen implants, which apparently have the effect of reducing wrinkles or making their lips look more luscious and kissable. In any event, implants are permanent, as best as I understand, and therefore we need to be clear about where we are going on that. I am also advised by the member for Stuart that there are at least two forms of birth control which involve implants. Again—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No; it does not necessarily have to be a medical purpose, and this is where the tightening of the definition needs to be tidied up. For example, it would be reasonable if someone took on a birth control procedure, for example, being prescribed the pill to keep the menstrual cycles regular as a medical purpose, to minimise pain, regularity, etc.—no need to go into the detail. Obviously it has another benefit of stopping one getting pregnant; it is in the high 90s percentage. However, the point I make is that if there is an implant for the purposes of birth control other than for a medical reason, but simply to make it more socially safe to have sex and to not get pregnant, we need to be clear about that, and that is what we are looking for.

The final area is one where there appears to be no information other than somewhere along the line a copy of this draft bill has gone to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, as I understand it. No submission has been received. I was informed of that yesterday, and therefore I have not had an opportunity to follow that up.

I do raise this point: the Attorney-General would be aware (and if he is not aware, I am sure the minister for Aboriginal affairs would be aware and, hopefully, the Minister for Families and Communities, who was up and the APY lands yesterday) about the fact that there is a practice undertaken for the initiation of young boys, usually between 12 and 14, in some of the Aboriginal communities. It involves a procedure on male genitalia which clearly creates some scarring.

The opposition has a question about whether or not that is covered, bearing in mind that if it is a body modification it is prohibited altogether, in which case any other adult males, for example, who might be present at the time of the initiation, who are either party to the act of incision or participatory as an accessory, could well be prosecuted.

There is no specific provision in the bill to exempt for cultural purposes, or allow for the practice to be done, through some application procedure, or whatever. I will say for the record that, although I have never attended or witnessed one of these initiations, I have received information over the years of this practice being undertaken on occasions when the child is hysterical with fright, where some or all of the male participants themselves appear intoxicated or under the influence of something they have imbibed and, thirdly, that the procedure is undertaken with implements which are hardly sanitary.

Assuming that is the case in some of these circumstances, this is a practice which at the very least if it is not stopped, and we want to respect the cultural action and importance of this initiation process continuing, we as responsible adults must ensure that it is carried out by people who know what they are doing, people who are sober and, in addition to that, we do it in a manner which is safe for the child.

I have to say that it is not a practice that I favour in any way. I am over here in the category of female mutilation and the importance of that legislation being in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I was very vocal about that before my days in this parliament, and I supported the then Hon. Trish Worth in the federal parliament in moving legislation to protect young women against that type of procedure being imposed on them.

I think it is an important initiative; however, we do not provide a similar protection for young men. Clearly though, it is a practice which has been continued, and it may be one that we need in all conscience to continue to respect as something that should be allowed, but that does not mean that we should not consider it in a way that is going to minimise the damage to the child. I for one support the concept that parents should be able to consent to a child being circumcised. I think about 50 per cent of male children are still circumcised (after birth) in our hospitals and clinics. That is something that is exercised by medical practitioners with the consent of parents. Many people elect not to do that.

So, it is not as though young boys in these circumstances would be restricted in being able to have some of this procedure undertaken. It may be that the rest of their initiation—in whatever form that is and whatever thresholds of endurance, or whatever, that they are asked to undertake to satisfy the advance to manhood under Aboriginal culture—is not impeded in any way. This is an aspect on which I think we need to have some answers as to how that is to be accommodated. If this does not apply, what is the Attorney-General going to do to deal with that issue before we complete the debate? So, with those few words I will conclude my contribution. I thank members for their attention.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:17): I promise that my speech will not be anywhere near the length of the member for Bragg's. Members were made aware by the member for Bragg that 10 years ago I introduced the Summary Offences (Piercing of Children) Amendment Bill into this house. It went through the house and was passed. It went to the upper house and, as I indicated earlier by way of interjection, it got within five minutes of being passed when the Democrats created some obstacles by raising very unusual claims about medical standards in hospitals, etc., which had very little to do with the substance of the bill.

Their philosophy was that you should not restrict children. My view is that, if children want to play on the train line, it is a good idea to restrict that behaviour. It is also important that we protect children, and that is where I come from in relation to this bill. I commend the Attorney for resurrecting this issue and trying to get it through, and I trust that this time there will be success.

The issue apart from seeking to protect children who may later regret having had something done to them by way of a tattoo, body piercing or body modification is the health aspect. That really concerns me. I will not be too precise, but someone in the street where I live had a piercing some years ago and ended up with hepatitis C. As we now know, those with hepatitis C are prone to liver cancer.

So, there are very serious consequences and I think people need to be aware, when they have piercings anywhere on the body, and around the eyes and so on, that there is a risk. I am reassured that the regulations will deal with some of the necessity to provide a health warning to people who may consider these sorts of options.

One of the issues I raised back in 2001 was one raised by a dental professional saying that some of the cheap jewellery that is used in piercings has a nickel component that can cause an allergy, which can have serious consequences if dental treatment is required later in life. I am not a dentist, I am not an expert on that, but that was an issue that was raised at the time by a dentist, and it was something that I had not been aware of, and I do not know whether the quality of jewellery has improved but they tell me that cheap jewellery is the main offender.

In terms of tattooing, the other day I had the pleasure of watching the movie Johnny English, starring Rowan Atkinson. I do not know whether any members are familiar with that but there is a plot by a nasty Frenchman to take over the Crown of England and part of that was to have a fake Archbishop of Canterbury who had a facial makeover, and above his buttocks he had tattooed 'Jesus is coming, look busy'. Fortunately, the plot was foiled and it never came to pass with the bumbling Johnny English who, in Westminster Cathedral, defrocked the real Archbishop of Canterbury who, fortunately, did not have that tattooed message on his buttocks, which were on display to the world.

Some other things that I have noticed or become aware of include someone I know who has a tattooed wedding ring. I do not know if it is because it is cheaper than the real thing but I was contemplating whether in the service they say, 'With this tattoo, I thee wed.' I am not sure what they say. But, putting aside those more light-hearted aspects, this is a serious issue. Whilst most people have approached these things with a bit of common sense, the main thrust needs to be to protect young people, and certainly to protect people who might be under the influence and so on who get something done to them that they later regret, and also there is the health aspect.

In essence, I commend the minister. I believe the opposition is not happy with certain aspects of this bill, but I trust that we can come up with something ultimately that gets through both houses, and gets into place to do those things that I believe, as I have indicated, are important.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:23): I rise to support the Summary Offences (Tattooing, Body Piercing, Body Modification) Amendment Bill. I speak with interest, having three young children and watching them going through the motions, particularly my oldest, I guess, under social pressure, and with the challenges of today's social life as to whether they should get tattoos, whether they should get piercings, whether they should have some form of body modification.

I guess with any body modification, in particular piercing and prescribed procedures, there is a downside. Usually at the time the excitement overrides a lot of commonsense, particularly with the young. With a little bit of history I have seen that tattooing has been around for many thousands of years. It originated in the ancient Egyptian era and some of the first tattoos were first detected on Egyptian mummies. The word tattoo was first used by Captain Cook, believe it or not, in the mid 1700s. He used that word in his journey across the South Seas. In the 17^th century the Romans tattooed their criminals and slaves, and in more recent times the Nazis tattooed the Jews during the Holocaust.

However, today people tattoo for all sorts of reasons, whether it is serving in the armed forces, recognising their loved ones—whether it is their mother or whether it is Sue or Janet, on their arms or legs—or achievements, or just for the aesthetic look of tattoos. I can reflect on an experience I had some years ago when I was competing in water skiing. It was a big achievement in the sport of water ski racing that, if you could win the four major races for the year, you tattooed your buttock with the particular signature 'King of the River'. That was something I always chased; I chased it for perhaps 20 years, and I managed not to get a tattoo on my right buttock.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: The price of success! Today we look at aged tattoos and, personally, I do not think it is a good look. That is usually what I base discussions on with my children and young ones. I am normally pretty open with my kids and their friends, sitting around in general discussion: 'Why do you want a tattoo? Why do you want a piercing?' It normally comes down to 'Because he's got one,' or 'Because I like the look of them,' but I ask, 'What is it going to look like in 10 years' time, what is it going to look like when you're a bit older or a bit more wrinkly?' They normally admit that it does not look all that great, it is usually a bit frazzled, a bit blue, not much colour and pretty hard to recognise. If you speak to any elderly person with a tattoo they can usually give you a reason why they got it, but essentially it is something they usually regret.

I also have a little bit to say on body piercing. I guess the history with body piercing is that it has been practised for over 5,000 years. In ancient times anyone with a body piercing was regarded as a good lover and had an abundance of beauty, particularly when their ears were pierced. The Roman centurions used to pierce their nipples as a sign of strength and virility. Today I think people pierce their nipples just because they can; then it was regarded as a badge of honour to have pierced nipples.

In Central America women pierce their lips and then stretch the holes with wooden plates to emphasise their beauty and accentuate their lips. Looking at stretching piercings today, while not common, a lot of the young ones have the 'loops' (as they call them) in their ears. As my son explained, they have a piercing and normally stretch that hole with a knitting needle and then put in an expanded loop earring, which stretches the hole. Once they have broken the gristle, it is much easier to put a cone in that piercing and stretch the hole until it becomes a suitable size. I look at it with a shudder; I really do not think it is a good look. Again, in consultation with the young ones I am very open: 'Don't think about what it looks like today; think about what your ears will look like in 10 years' time.'

If we look at a little bit more history, with Western civilisation I guess we look at a lot of movies—in particular, Pirates of the Caribbean or the old pirate movies. We could see that they used to have a piercing in the ear with a very chunky gold earring. That was done for a reason; it was renowned that piercing their ear would improve their sight at sea. That was the belief. It was also noted that if a sailor was shipwrecked at sea and had that earring, if he was washed ashore the person who found him would retrieve that earring and then give him a reasonable burial. That was a belief many years ago.

In recent years, it has become fashionable to pierce one's ears. More recently, we see nose piercing, face piercing and body piercing, and it is becoming much more common these days to see multi-piercings, particularly on the face. Some people have strong beliefs: whether they have their finger webbing, their toe webbing, their nipples or their genitals pierced, it is all done for a belief or it is the style of person they are.

There are, of course, downsides to tattooing, piercing, branding, body stretching, scarification and any of the other procedures that change the body's look. Of course, I think the member for Bragg has given a very comprehensive—

Mr Pederick: A concise assessment!

Mr WHETSTONE: A concise assessment, perhaps, on some of the impacts, but we look at some of the tattoos and what they can cause—obviously allergies and infections. In some extreme cases with dirty needles and dirty equipment, we see the introduction of AIDS to those people. We see tetanus and hepatitis introduced to people having used not clean needles and equipment. One of the unknown things is that people who have tattoos and then have to undergo a medical procedure, such as an MRI, can experience severe burning and swelling that take many weeks and sometimes months to go away. Again, that is a serious downside to it.

Body piercing does pose much more of a risk, and I have seen infections at all levels. I think ears are probably a very forgiving part of your body; if you do get infections, they do heal and they do go away, but I have seen young ones with eyebrows that had been pierced and have been infected and, once they get infections, I have seen eyebrows that have sagged. That is irreparable. Once an eyebrow has sagged, you have a droopy eye.

With bellybutton piercing, I have seen bellybuttons that have been infected, and it has disfigured the bellybutton. I really do think that it is an absolute pity that young ones can have these procedures done and not be aware of the side-effects. We look at tongue piercing. Normally, with tongue piercing, it is not the conventional earring, where an earring is put through a tongue with the clip at the back. At tongue piercing is a barb, and it is actually pushed into the tongue and it is a sign of—well, I am not sure what it is a sign of, but it is a piece of fashion.

Some of the downside to tongue piercing is that it chips teeth, it breaks teeth severely, and it rubs off the enamel. What I have seen is that, if tongue piercing does become infected, it can restrict eating for an extended period of time, and we are not just talking days. We are talking weeks and months because once the tongue is infected, because we have a lot of bacteria in our mouth and we have a lot of germs on occasions, it really does take a long time to heal.

Piercing of any body parts, particularly the genitals, the fingers and, as I said, toe and finger webbing, does create severe risk of infection. I have also seen a lot of piercings on young ones who get into fights, young ones who previously, before rules, have had those piercings ripped out. It disfigures ears, it disfigures nipples, it disfigures webbing, and it disfigures wherever it has been pierced forever because, once you tear a piercing, and it has torn the flesh, it can be stitched up but there is still that disfiguration.

We also look at other types of scarring to signify ownership, particularly in some gangs, not so much here in Australia, but I have seen some of the gangs in America and I have seen some of the Asian gangs. They scar themselves to give recognition to being a gang member. It is something that differentiates them, between a particular tattoo or a particular welcome. It is all about the harm that it causes and putting the body at risk.

I was a little overawed to see young lads who have had a medical procedure, as I mentioned to a few of my colleagues, called 'tongue-splitting'. That is a procedure that I have noticed on an international singer who has had his tongue split. He has had a reasonable tongue procedure, between one and two inches long; he has had his tongue split and stitched. What it does is it signifies being part of the family of the snake. We all know that snakes have forked tongues; well, these people do too.

An honourable member: I reckon I've heard forked tongues in here!

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, and some people do talk with a forked tongue. I have actually witnessed tongue-splitting myself—not of my tongue—but I have seen a bit of a cult of young people who have split their tongues. I spoke to them and they were very proud of the fact that they had their tongues split. To me, it was quite gross; it was grotesque. They did that as young people, and I have spoken with them a number of years later and they have regretted that act.

They said they have trouble with eating, tasting food and with their speech. They bite their tongue all the time. It is just one of those grotesque acts that you do as a young one not understanding the consequences. That is why I believe age restrictions should be imposed. These body-changing acts are, in a lot of instances, done on the spur of the moment with peer group pressure. There needs to be an age restriction put on it.

I would like to extend on this. We are looking at imposing fines. We are looking at imposing penalties on people who perform the acts and the young ones who actually have the procedure, but in a sense there needs to be some documentation. There needs to be some education put out there for young ones to realise the side-effects of having tattoos, piercings and body-changing procedures. It is not about the effect it has on them today, it is about the effect it has on them later in life when they go for a job with a big droopy ear that look gross, a tongue that is all floppy and has a split in it, or tattoos that are faded and saggy. It really is about the long-term effects on these young ones' lives.

Again, we look past adults when they have these procedures done because they are supposed to know what they are doing. One thing I would like to put to the Attorney is that there needs to be a process of education. It is not about fining them. Once it has been done, it is too late. It is about being proactive. It is about the outcome. To have some form of documentation, some form of awareness program, is a much more proactive measure to making these people, these young ones, aware of just what will happen later in life once they have taken this on, whether it is tattooing, piercing or a body change.

In some cases, when applying for jobs, people will look at the face value of someone and immediately they are no-starter. It is a no-brainer that to walk in there with an unusual look about them they don't even stand the initial chance of getting that job. So, that is something that needs to be realised by the young ones.

I believe it is a similar story in the case of young drivers on our roads. It is about educating the young ones. It is about making them aware and educating them to make better decisions in a time of crisis—whether it is a time of crisis on the roads at speed, running off the shoulder of a road, hitting a tree, or getting a piercing or a tongue split. It is about making better decisions in life, and I really think an education program would be much more effective than slapping them with a fine.

I am sure the Minister for Education would agree that education is the best method to teach the young and inexperienced. That is why I present that idea to the Attorney today. We can put fines on people who perform the act and the young ones who have the modification done, but it is about educating them and making them better prepared for the repercussions later in life.

That is my contribution. I endorse the amendment bill and look forward to the young ones being better educated and better prepared for some of these body-changing acts that they do to themselves today, with the effect that will have on them in the days to come.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:41): I rise to speak in support of this bill, and I have a few comments to make. I am certainly very happy with the amount of consultation that was undertaken and the length of time and effort put in by the minister bringing this forward. The only disappointing thing is that we do not get to read all of it to have a good understanding. However, I consulted widely within my own electorate, and I have a few comments to make and a bit of feedback. Predominantly, I think it is a great idea and there are some good initiatives to protect young people from making life-changing decisions.

Personally, I am not a fan of any body modification. All babies, I think we would agree, are born perfect and stunning, and at what point do we think we need to modify our bodies to become perfect again? One of the things we try to teach people in my self-development classes is that you are still that baby and perfect as you are. There is no need for tattooing, decorating or putting holes in your body because you are already beautiful exactly as you are.

I note that tattooing laws already exist and that you have to be over 18, and I think there are some slight changes to the category it has now been put in. As far as tattooing someone under the influence of alcohol, I believe there was some prior regulation, but this will make it more strenuous.

I come from a modelling industry background, and, certainly, it is very important that any body modification is not done. For example, a lot of Asian countries will not accept a model with a tattoo, even with a small logo or emblem. Even if it is on their wrist where they think their watch will cover it, it can stop them gaining work overseas. It is extremely important and it has cost several of my models work because they have had tattoos, even on their bottom where they do not think it would be visible. You can see through a lot of fabrics, and that is very detrimental to any work opportunities in the industry.

Also, I have had models who have had their eyebrows pierced, and when it has grown out it has left a scar and a permanent mark in their eyebrow. A female can probably cover that with make-up, but for males, who are more likely to have this procedure, it is a permanent scar, and it shows up on every photo and would affect other job opportunities also. I have also seen my share of bellybutton piercings that have become infected and scarred.

For most television commercials, tongue piercings have to be removed. Your tongue heals very quickly and often they will heal within about four or five hours. So if you are in a job where it is not suitable, you pretty well have to have it re-pierced or get rid of it. Generally, most people I know who have had their tongue pierced have not been able to eat for several days. It is not a very healthy thing. As the member for Chaffey mentioned, it does cause damage to your teeth, besides being very distracting and not really appropriate in many working environments. Also, they cannot speak properly. In my consultation there were a few cultural concerns. Hindus, for example, often have nose piercings for their babies, and African people have multiple earring holes. I note that these concerns have been allayed by having the parental consent for under 16 year olds.

I am also satisfied with the changes. I know from speaking with different hairdressers who do piercings that they often feel that many under 16 year olds have forged parent's signatures. It is good to see that that has been tightened up by needing the stat dec signed by a JP; I think that will help reduce, at least, if not hopefully get rid of, the falsifying of parental consent.

The only other thing I think might be a little over the top are the police powers. I think that it is fine for police to search if they have reasonable grounds but, as a business owner, for police to have grounds to search all your documentation and the personal records of your clients with no reasonable suspicion or belief of anything wrong in your business is a bit over the top and really should, perhaps, be brought into line with other normal police powers.

One other matter was mentioned to me. Quite a few young people mentioned a cooling-off period for tattooing. I note that we were briefed that around 40 per cent of people have a design already picked out and that they have put quite a bit of thought into having a tattoo. However, 60 per cent of people obviously have not and possibly do it on the spur of the moment—whether it be a dare, out with a group of friends or peer pressure. I think that a cooling-off period is a wise thing.

It was actually young people who suggested it and who agreed that it was a good idea. When you purchase a house, a car or a big item you have a cooling-off period, and I think that, given that a tattoo is a for-life purchase, maybe you should consider a cooling-off period of three days so that, if you really want it, in three days you can go in and get the tattoo. I would definitely try to talk anyone out of having a tattoo because it is permanent. I think that giving them the extra three days cooling-off period lets them think about it themselves to really assess it properly. That is all I have to say.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:47): I just wish to make a few brief comments re the Summary Offences (Tattooing, Body Piercing and Body Modification) Amendment Bill 2011. I certainly support the comments made by the member for Bragg, the contribution made by the member for Chaffey and the contribution made by the member for Adelaide.

For the life of me at times, and call me old-fashioned, I cannot understand some of the body piercings that people do, especially the facial piercings that are obvious to everyone when you see people getting around in the public arena. I do not think that there is not too much space left on a person's face that has not been played around with. You see pierced cheeks, studs in the nose and studs in the forehead, near the eyes and around the mouth. It is just incredible. To me, it does not do anything for a person at all; and, certainly, some of the intimate piercings that people have I fail to understand as well.

I note the member for Adelaide's comments that she has just made in the house, and I wonder whether people really do understand what they are getting into with tattooing. Recently, just after Christmas, I was on leave in Western Australia, and certainly over there it is very popular to have the full arm tattoo on one side of the body. You see it on a lot of AFL footballers. It might be a trend at the time, but it is a bit like the lady on the Circulon frypan ad—it is a decision you may regret later in life. I was discussing with the member for Chaffey the splitting of the tongue, and I just cannot comprehend why you would go down that path. So I do applaud that there will be some more safeguards in place.

I have an interesting little story for the house about when I was going out with Sally before she became my wife. She went on a trip to Bali, and when she came back we were out with a few friends and someone noticed, when she lifted her shirt, that on her lower torso she had a tattoo with 'Adrian' written on it. One of my friends said, 'Well, you're stuffed now, you're going to have to marry her.' I still married her, but it was only a henna tattoo. So, at this stage it would not have hurt if it was permanent.

However, people do make those decisions. They might have a certain member of the opposite sex that they are in love with at the time, and they may have their name tattooed over their heart, on their chest, or on their arm, and all of a sudden down the track things change. I guess that is something people certainly need to take into consideration. Certainly, with tattooing these are things for life. These are tattoos for life, and people need to be very aware and, as member for Chaffey indicated, they need to be educated on all the risks, whether it is body scarification, whether it is tattooing, or whether it is having piercings put in the body.

Really, I just think people have got money to burn if they want to do one of these practices, but we live in a free society. I agree with members on this side that the proposed police powers are over the top, and I am sure there will be questions asked during the committee stage and also in the upper house. With those few comments, I will leave that as my contribution.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (17:51): I would just like to speak briefly on this matter and commended the minister, the Attorney, for taking account of some of the submissions made in response to the draft bill, and making some of the provisions relating to young people more consistent with the way they live—whether we like the way they live, or not. I have not quite come to grips myself with the extent of body art that is around these days.

I want to point to the fact that Southern Primary Health Care has long been active in this area. The member opposite cited the study that they conducted in relation to infections arising out of body piercing. It was quite clear that the problem is backyarders, and also some of the organisations which are considered to be appropriate. I do not want to name anybody, but it is some of the respectable organisations that offer the piercing by the stapling method, and the stapling method is very difficult to control in terms of infection.

The good old-fashioned grandma's needle over the candle is, in fact, safer in terms of infection, than the way I had my ears pierced many years ago when these stapling gun things came in. Southern Primary Health has done an excellent job in investigating the source of infections and, more than that, it has put together a very relevant program for educating primary school children. While we are talking about young people much older than primary school, the research shows that it is at primary school that children need to learn about the dangers of piercing.

There have been many sessions conducted now in southern primary schools with evaluations that indicate that children's knowledge of the risks involved in piercings has increased considerably and that their attitude has also changed. I think that it is really important that, as we bring in this legislation, we continue with complementary education, both in terms of education programs in primary schools and the other education that Southern Primary Health has been undertaking in the workforce.

In 2009 that organisation won a significant WorkCover grant, whereby it worked with health inspectors in local government (the City of Onkaparinga in this case) to develop appropriate standards for inspections of these facilities. One of the things which actually led to the work done by Southern Primary Health in the area of piercing and tattooing was that health inspectors really did not have any clear understanding of what it was that they were inspecting. So, the WorkCover grant was very important in working out what needed to be inspected and in training local government inspectors in how to go about inspecting and, indeed, in educating people in reputable tattooing and piercing parlours to undertake these procedures safely. So, I am confident that the appropriate education programs will continue together with the more restrictive legislation that we are about to pass, I hope.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.

At 17:56 the house adjourned until Thursday 5 May 2011 at 10:30.