Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Summary Offences (Piercing and Scarification) Amendment Bill SUMMARY OFFENCES (PIERCING AND SCARIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clauses 1 to 4 passed. Clause 5. The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I move: Page 3, line 13 [inserted section 21B(2)]— After 'relation to' insert: 'piercing of the earlobes or' As I indicated in my second reading contribution, this bill, as the mover acknowledges, really arises out of initiatives taken by John Rau, the member for Enfield in another place. Mr Rau introduced a bill, which was subsequently referred to a select committee, which published an extensive report. John Rau's bill, in its definition of 'piercing', excluded piercing of the ear lobes; not all ear piercing but simply piercing of the ear lobes, which is a well-known practice. The amendment I have moved seeks to exclude from the restrictions that are being imposed by this bill the piercing of ear lobes. I remind members that it is currently an offence in South Australia to tattoo any minor. This bill will extend tattooing to include scarifying. It will make it an offence to pierce the body of a minor unless accompanied by a parent. My amendment is based not only on the fact that John Rau's original proposal did not include ear piercing but also to note the fact that there is widespread concern in the community, and the legislation states a number of forms of body modification. In relation to piercing, other states have banned the piercing of the genitalia of minors, what is sometimes termed intimate piercing, as well as other parts of the body: the nipples, the perineum, etc. I will not go into that in order to save the sensitive ears of some members who might, like myself, find it rather distasteful. However, there has been no demonstrated need to include the piercing of ear lobes in this matter. True it is that, from time to time, there might be an infection as a result of the piercing of ear lobes, but there have been no significant and demonstrated problems over the years. It is for that reason that I seek the support of members for the amendment. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise as the mover of the bill to indicate my support for the Hon. Mr Lawson's amendment. Members who are familiar with the original speech I gave to introduce the bill will recall me saying that I expected amendments to be made, and I specifically mentioned that I was open to that. I think the Hon. Mr Lawson's proposal is a commonsense amendment. As he rightly points out, it was in the original bill introduced by John Rau, the member for Enfield in another place, back in 2002. I am very happy to support the amendment. I think it makes absolute sense. The reason I did not put it in there originally was really just as a means of reducing the number of hooks, if you like, that could be contentious in terms of getting it through this place. This bill dates from a long way back. In fact, the Hon. Bob Such introduced a similar bill to mine in 2001, and the member for Enfield, John Rau, presented a similar one in 2002. It has been back and forth and back and forth. I am very keen to get it through, and I am happy to support the amendment. The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY Legislative Council The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I think the Hon. Bernie Finnigan spoke on this originally and indicated that the government's position is that it will not oppose it. The government will consider its position and inform the lower house. Amendment carried; clause as amended passed. Title passed. Bill reported with an amendment. Third Reading Third Reading Bill read a third time and passed.