SUMMARY OFFENCES (PIERCING AND SCARIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 189.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (19:46): The subject of piercing, tattooing and the like has been considered on a number of occasions in this parliament. The member for Enfield (John Rau) introduced a bill—it must have been before 2005—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: It was 2002, the honourable member reminds me. That bill sought to change the regime in relation to tattoos and piercing. There were extensive amendments proposed to it, involving issues about whether or not tattooists should be licensed; whether or not there ought to be health requirements, for example, a code of practice governing the operations of tattooists and those engaged in piercing; and there was an extensive report of a select committee that was presented to both houses in October 2005.

The honourable member's bill is of fairly narrow compass. It introduces the notion of scarification, which is not defined, but which is said to include branding. The Liberal Party has consistently supported measures to improve consumer protection in relation to tattooing, although we have always had some reservations about those who seek to impose unnecessary restrictions and legislative requirements on the activities of small businesses. I do recall that, following the original proposals from Mr John Rau, I had a number of discussions with people engaged in businesses in the tattooing industry and many of those people were not happy with the amendments then proposed, on the basis that they did not take into account the way in which they might affect businesses. Some of the measures then proposed were cooling off type provisions, provisions which said that, whatever age you were, if you wished to order a tattoo, you had to give two clear days prior notice of the fact, the design had to be selected, etc. It seemed to us that some of those restrictions were unnecessarily restrictive.

Members of the Liberal Party strongly adhere to the view that individuals in our community should be free to make choices, choices about whether they decorate their body with tattoos or piercings, or the like. However, we do appreciate and support the need for measures which will protect minors from engaging in conduct which they might later regret. However, our fundamental philosophy is that, if an adult wishes to have a piercing, wherever that piercing might be on his or her body, or if an adult wishes to have a tattoo, however ugly or unsightly that might appear to some eyes, an adult should be free to do so. Much of the opposition to tattooing and piercing comes from an older generation who themselves would never consider having a tattoo, let alone undergoing piercing of any of their body parts. However, it is undoubtedly true that this form of personal decoration has become popular amongst certain sections of the community in recent years; in fact, it is becoming increasingly popular.

Once again, our fundamental philosophical position is that, if adults wish to engage in these practices, they ought be permitted to do so. Of course, there is a public interest in the avoidance of injury and disease, and if it were established that tattooists were engaging in practices which undermined public health, then there would be a public interest, because, ultimately, it is the public that would have to bear the costs of remedying the effects of dangerous practices. However, the honourable member's bill does not seek to go down the route followed previously by Mr Rau. His bill is relatively simple. As I say, it extends the definition of tattooing to include scarification, scarification itself not being defined.

The essential provision is proposed new section 21B of the Summary Offences Act, which is sought to be inserted. Section 21A of the Summary Offences Act already provides that minors under the age of 18 cannot be tattooed. The honourable member's new provision provides that a person must not pierce any part of the body of a minor unless the minor is actually accompanied by a parent or guardian and the parent or guardian consents to the piercing of the minor's body. I would ask the mover to identify the particular problem that has been identified and the number of occasions when it is suggested that minors have been adversely affected by undergoing some form of piercing or tattooing without parental consent.

The most common form of piercing is, of course, ear-piercing. Ear-piercing is a cultural practice that has been part of a number of cultures, including Australian culture, for very many years. The idea that a young woman of 17 years and 10 months be required to have her mother with her when she underwent a piercing of her ears seems to us, on the face of it, to be unduly restrictive.

From my own knowledge, which I must confess is not extensive in this field, one sees, certainly amongst certain sections of the community, very young girls having their ears pierced; for example, girls under the age of 10. Presumably, that is done in the presence of and with the consent of her parents, as it undoubtedly should be. But for girls in their middle teen years, I would have thought the necessity to have a parent present when a piercing was undertaken was unduly restrictive, and I will be very interested to hear the honourable member's comments on that. For example, why could not parental consent be provided by way of a written document? I would have thought that many teenage girls would want to go to a piercer with some of their friends and that it would be an enjoyable, social occasion, one which poses no particular social or other harm. It is difficult to see why we should be extending legislative protection that far. So, I will be very interested to hear what the honourable member has to say in relation to that particular aspect.

I think this particular provision could reasonably be amended (I am not currently suggesting such an amendment, because I do not have the authority of the Liberal Party room to do so) to give a greater latitude, for example, in relation to ear-piercing, which is not the sort of piercing, tattooing or scarifying that has really agitated so much public concern. I accept that parental consent to some of the more extreme forms of body piercing might well be appropriate.

With those few comments, I indicate that we support the second reading of the bill. I look forward to the honourable member responding in due course and to the committee stage of the bill next week. Depending, of course, on any suggestions made by the honourable member, I will be able to indicate by the committee stage of the debate whether or not amendments are proposed.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:58): This bill seeks to outlaw body piercing of minors without parental consent. The bill provides that a person must not perform body piercing, including ear-piercing, on a minor (being a person under the age of 18 years), unless that minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian and the parent or guardian consents to the piercing. The bill makes it a criminal offence for a person to perform the piercing process. It does not make it an offence for a young person to seek or to undergo piercing.

This bill raises a number of important issues about the rights of young people and their parents and the role of the law in regulating personal behaviour. I believe that the bill is unnecessary for a number of reasons, and I also believe that it is disproportionate and inconsistent with other legislative provisions in this state.

I think it is disproportionate when we consider the rights and responsibilities and the various ages of consent more generally for young people in our society. We have a range of different ages below which we outlaw certain behaviour. For example, a person needs to be 18 to buy alcohol or cigarettes, but 17 year olds can join the army. Seventeen year olds can engage in consensual sexual activity, using their judgment, not the judgment of their parents. We allow 16 year olds to drive cars and motorcycles without their parents' consent, provided they have a licence, and I would suggest that this is an activity far more dangerous than having your ears pierced. Members would rightly point out that this bill includes all manner of body piercing, not just ear-piercing. Certainly, piercing has become much more popular in recent years, and the parts of the body subjected to piercing is virtually unlimited—

The Hon. R.D. Lawson interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —or limited only by the imagination of those who seek to have it done. No doubt some members might want to impose their own personal values upon the merits or otherwise of piercing. I note that there are no nose rings or eyebrow rings evident in the chamber. I have no idea—and I do not particularly want to know—what other piercings honourable members might have beneath their clothing. This bill is not about what we might think of the merits or otherwise of piercing; it is really about whether young people under the age of 18 have rights over their own bodies or whether their bodies are effectively under the control of their parents.

As a parent myself of three teenage children I do have views on how I think my children should behave and even what I think they should or should not do with their bodies and their lives. However, I do not need the help of the law to impart those values and views. Consequently, I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:01): I have been moved to speak by the eloquence of my colleague, the Hon. Mr Lawson, and I will speak briefly. I support the position that the Hon. Mr Lawson has put, that is, we are supporting the bill at the second reading. I also share the concerns, which I think he was expressing on behalf of a number of us, in relation to the specific issue of ear-piercing. In particular, the Hon. Mr Lawson talked about young women, but it would equally apply to young men these days in terms of being required at 17 years and 10 months, as he indicated, to have mum or dad go with them to have their ear pierced.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Were you a bit of a rebel, Rob?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I wasn't, sadly, Mr Finnigan. I would have thought that there are a number of options that the committee should explore in relation to the issue of the piercing. I would have thought that most members of the community would treat ear-piercing differently to various other forms of piercing, some of which would bring tears to your eyes with just the mere discussion of them.

I would have thought that there ought to be consideration of separating them out. One approach would be to have either specific provisions for ear-piercing or reducing the ear-piercing parental requirement to the age of 15, 16, or something along those lines. Certainly, as a parent I take the view that if your child, under the age of 10, 11 or so, wanted to wander off and make a decision about ear-piercing, you probably would not be very comfortable about them wandering off anyway. But, certainly, daughters and sons at the age of 13 and 14 are not infrequently travelling together in groups in the city, the shopping centres, or wherever else.

It is not an uncommon experience for parents to find their 13 or 14-year old who says, 'Hi mum, hi dad; I just had my ears pierced today with the girls' or with the boys, or whatever it happens to be, and that is the first occasion on which you might be aware of it.

I think the issue of ear-piercing ought to be treated differently. The principle that the Hon. Mr Hood is pushing, I think, is supportable. If this particular issue remains, it will be capable of being mocked. I can hear the debate on the morning talkback radio programs and a variety of others which might ensue in relation to what is a modest proposal overall. Certainly, I would have thought that the issue of how we treat ear-piercing should be uncontroversial.

I think there are a couple of models. The Hon. Mr Lawson is obviously going to contemplate, in a discussion with our party, what some of those models might be. As I said, one of them might be to just drop the age back. I do not support the notion of 16 and 17 year olds having to go along with a written letter of consent from their parents, which was one of the models that was floated. I think the proposal ought to be either dropping the age for ear-piercing or treating ear-piecing in a different way, with different age modifications. I support the views that the Hon. Mr Lawson put. I indicate that I support the second reading, as well. I hope that we will move something in the committee stages to clarify the issue of ear-piercing.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (20:06): I had also not intended to speak until inspired by the eloquence of my colleague.

The PRESIDENT: It is such a piercing subject!

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: However, I want to very briefly point out to the council that in South Australia you can get married, get pregnant and have an abortion—all at the age of 17; yet we are moving to say that people have to be accompanied by their parents to have their ears pierced. Although I will support the second reading, it seems to me that perhaps we should go back and try to apply some consistency to our laws and perhaps a modicum of common sense.

I agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas, that all of us as parents would be mightily upset if our 10, 11 or 12-year old came home with their ears pierced, without being consulted. However, at 17 many people are apprenticed to work, they are earning their own money, they are paying their own taxes and, as I have pointed out, there are many more serious life decisions that they may take under South Australian law than having their ears pierced. Certainly, there are other parts of our anatomy where I think we should probably seek psychiatric help before we take the decision to have them pierced.

Again, these are decisions that I think are probably relatively valid for someone aged 17. I suppose, as a case in point, what if someone is actually working in Perth and their parents live in Adelaide? Do they have come back to Adelaide to be accompanied by their parents under the law to have their ears pierced? I think we should perhaps have more of a look at this particular piece of legislation.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:08): I have managed to get through to this far in my life without having my ears pierced, and I do not feel disadvantage by that. I have to say, when I see some young adults with piercings in their eyebrows, noses and various other places, I do not find it particularly attractive. A few years ago my niece had a tongue stud put in, and it seemed to me to be one of the least attractive options that I would ever consider. On top of that, in the 15 years that I have been in Parliament I have never once received a complaint from anyone about the issue body piercing.

The speech that the Hon. Mr Hood made when introducing his bill made comparisons with the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act. I disagree with his view that body piercing—let us say having your ears pierced for an earring—is in the same category as surgery. There is no opening up of the skin in a way that would require any sort of stitches; there is no major trauma. There is a little bit of local anaesthetic. To my mind the comparison does not stack up. However, if he is correct, then what he needs to do is to amend the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act.

The member gave figures for infection from body piercing, although I am not sure that it was body piercing or whether he meant tattooing and included the process of using needles as a body-piercing activity. If he can throw some light on those figures about people in the southern suburbs and infection from body piercing, I would be interested to hear more.

Whether it was body piercing or tattooing, the issue he raised was really one of hygiene, rather than the age of the people who allowed themselves to be given this sort of treatment. If the member wants to introduce a bill about hygiene practices for body piercers, I am very happy to consider it because, if he is right about those figures, it is something we should be concerned about; however, it still has nothing to do with the age of the customer.

Again, it is not an area I have much to do with but, when I walk past these parlours, I note that, if they are tattooists, body piercing seems to be in the same parlour. As we already have a law preventing minors from getting tattoos, I suspect that, for the most part, people going into those parlours would automatically be asked for ID by the proprietor in order to protect themselves.

I do not know which age group the Hon. Mr Hood envisages would have body piercing against their parents' wishes. If it were a 10 year old, obviously (although not 'obviously' because it is not obvious to the Hon. Mr Hood) from my perspective, the proprietor of such a parlour would send that 10 year old running very quickly. I suspect that the Hon. Mr Hood may be talking more about 16 or 17 year olds who can pass for being over 18 by their looks, and there may be some proprietors who do not check age identification.

If what we are dealing with in this bill is an issue about parents exercising control over their 16 and 17 year olds, I think it is a moral issue (at least for the Hon. Mr Hood) and not a health issue. The young people I have spoken to who have gone into these parlours tell me that, when they have been there, if anyone comes in whose age is a little suspect, the operators ask for identification.

Again, I do not understand the motivation for this bill unless, of course, it is simply about the exercise of parental control. If your 16 or 17 year old goes out and gets some body piercing, of which you as a parent disapprove, you can quite clearly confiscate the ring or the stud; the opening will close over very quickly, and they would have to wait until they were a little older before they could do it without your permission. However, I do observe that parents might never know about some sorts of piercing on some parts of the body.

I do not see why this parliament needs to run around and make laws for every possible situation that might arise in a family. The problem the Hon. Mr Hood is addressing is something that I think might be better sorted out by family members over the kitchen table. In essence, the way I see this bill is that Family First wants the state to sit at that same kitchen table when that family meeting is occurring. I wonder, in fact, whether Family First wants the state to be part of every parent-adolescent conflict. I hope that is not the case, because the better solution, surely, is to assist parents in developing parenting skills.

My position is that this bill does not solve any problems such as health issues. To my mind, it is about issues of parental control and who is the boss. It is simply unwarranted and inappropriate.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (20:15): Since honourable members have elected to share, I am happy to inform the chamber that I have no piercings or tattoos. I suspect that the people most grateful for that would be those who would have had to provide such services if I had chosen to get them.

As the Hon. Mr Lawson and others have indicated, this bill has something of a history. There have been previous bills, and a select committee was initiated by the member for Enfield in another place; and the Hon. Mr Hood is seeking to progress the issue with this bill. The government is considering reforms in this area, so we are reserving our position on this bill. The government will not oppose the bill progressing to the second reading, but that should not be taken to presume our position on any amendments thereto or on the bill, should it progress to the other place.

As members have indicated, a number of issues are involved, including consent and health and hygiene considerations. The government is still considering those matters and therefore reserves its position in terms of support or opposition.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:16): I thank members for their contribution and I would like to sum up by trying to address some of the questions that were raised, if I may. I will be brief, given that there are plenty of other things for us to cover this evening.

Those who are familiar with my second reading speech would have noticed that I said I am open to amendments with respect to ear-piercing particularly. I agree with the points made by the Hons Mr Lawson and Mr Lucas. My personal view is that ear-piercing is very much a separate case and should therefore be subject to separate legislation or rules, if you like, or separate consideration.

The question is—and I do not really have a good answer for it, to be honest; but I look forward to the committee stage—whether or not we simply exclude ear-piercing. That is, we put in the legislation that ear-piercing is exempt, or we impose a lower age for ear-piercing to be okay without parental consent. That is a matter that I am happy to debate with members when the time comes. So, I agree with what the Hons Mr Lawson and Mr Lucas said in that regard.

The Hon. Ms Schaeffer raised the point that there are several things that 17 year olds can do currently under that legislation. Of course, that is true; however, there are also several things that 17 year olds cannot do under legislation, for example, vote or drink alcohol, etc. I think the point that she is making is somewhat arbitrary, and I agree with that at some level. Where do we draw the line? Should it be 16, for example? Should this bill be targeting people under 16? I think that is a valid question, and the answer to that is: I am not sure. We have to pick some number, some age, in order to put a bill forward for debate.

I have had fairly extensive consultation with the industry and there was very much a mixed view within the industry itself regarding 16 and 18. I chose to go for the more conservative option and bring it to the chamber for debate. If people feel that the age should be lower, that is a debate I am obviously willing to have.

In her contribution, the Hon. Ms Kanck said that she has never had a complaint about body piercing. That may be the case, but it is certainly not the case in my experience. I have had many complaints about it, and that is why I have brought this bill to the council. I estimate that I have had at least a dozen complaints from individuals.

I remember one specific woman who came to me who did not want to be identified. She told her story on the Leon Byner show, giving just her first name. She told of her two children, aged 12 and 14, who underwent piercing without her consent, and she was absolutely ropeable. In fact, she wrote to me perhaps eight months or so ago, and I have had a number of meetings with her. She has stated her case quite strongly, along with a lot of other parents whom I have met and who feel the same way.

I would like to take up one of the points that the Hon. Ms Kanck made about confiscating the ring or stud, as the case may be. I had that discussion with the woman I just mentioned. I will call her Mrs Smith for the sake of clarity. The response that Mrs Smith gave me was that, 'It's just impossible. He's 14 years old. I can't simply rip it out of his skin because he won't give it to me.'

Those are the issues that parents face in the real world and that is why this bill would assist parents. The industry is broadly supportive of this measure. I have met a number of parents who are also broadly supportive. The Hon. Ms Kanck then made the ridiculous statement that Family First wants the state to sit at the kitchen table. I reiterate that that is a ridiculous statement; it is not true. It is just the usual rubbish that we get from the Democrats.

With those few words, I look forward to the committee stage. As I said, I am certainly open to amendments with regard to various ages, and I think the point about ear-piercing is entirely valid. I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.