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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 July 2011.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:16): I add my support to this legislation and I congratulate the government on bringing this bill to the parliament introducing measures to better regulate the tattoo and body modification industry. It is pleasing to see that key recommendations from the Select Committee on the Tattooing and Body Piercing Industries have been addressed, including the proposed ban on invasive piercing and tattoos for minors. Additionally, it picks up on the concerns raised regarding body modification carried out on individuals suspected of being intoxicated or under the influence of prohibited substances.

It shows the government's commitment to reforming the industry and protecting vulnerable elements within our society. The tattooing and piercing industry in South Australia (and indeed most states) over the years has operated with minimal regulation with only brief references in the Summary Offences Act 1953 relating to the tattooing of minors and the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 concerning the ability of council to regulate unsanitary premises.

It has been an issue that the government attempted to address previously. If my recollection serves me correctly, when I introduced a private members' bill on behalf of the then member for Enfield I think in November 2002, it did not receive the support of this chamber that we had hoped it would have received with members of the then crossbenches seeking to introduce measures which it was felt at the time really undermined the proposed legislation. I think the Hon. Dennis Hood also mentioned during his contribution his attempts in relation to a similar bill.

Due to the increasing popularity and increased range of tattooing and piercing options available such as ear lobe stretching, body branding and scarification, the government feels that it is imperative that there be increased oversight of the operators carrying out these procedures. These procedures have the ability to inflict a great deal of harm and potential disfigurement to the individual receiving them. This is especially true for body branding and scarification.

For example, body branding, as its name suggests, is apparently quite a painful procedure as it requires the use of superheated metal which is used to burn an impression into the skin. In the case of scarification, razor blades are used to cut the design into the skin, which is then allowed to scar, causing permanent disfigurement. These piercing and tattooing procedures in many ways probably equate to minor surgery.

According to evidence given by plastic surgeon and past president of the South Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Mr Timothy Edwards, to the Select Committee on the Tattooing and Body Piercing Industries back in 2005, the complication rate is not high for tattooing procedures, whilst complications of piercing procedures run at a rate of 20 per cent, which I believe is quite high.

Mr Edwards informed the committee of the wide range of complications associated with piercing procedures, including bleeding, infection, scarring and metal allergies, as well as the possible contraction of hepatitis C. Tattooing complications while less in number, are, I believe, no less dangerous, with evidence suggesting the potential for the transmission of bloodborne viruses.

This issue has attracted some media. We recently saw media relating to the issue in both the Sunday Mail and I heard some similar comments on ABC radio. The Sunday Mail article of the weekend of 3 July, entitled, 'Body-mod alert, Doctors warn on backyard surgery' reported by Heather Kennett, states:

Medical professionals say they are dealing with a surge of backyard 'body-modification' surgeries gone wrong, with two people needing intensive care treatment after they became badly infected. Many of the modification procedures carried out in South Australia are performed by international professional 'skin artists' during fly-in visits. RAH staff said they were alarmed at a 'surge' in cases at its emergency department from extreme modifications.

AMA state president Dr Peter Sharley is also quoted as saying:

These are unnecessary and dangerous procedures with risks of haemorrhaging, infection and disfigurement. Surgeons are highly trained and would not be involved in this sort of destructive surgery.

I think it was Dr Sharley who I heard on ABC radio with Ian Henschke making similar comments. With the potentially serious ramifications of these procedures, it reinforces the need for regulation, which this bill seeks to do, to protect those not in a position to properly assess the risks, such as minors and those under the influence of alcohol, of the procedure that they desire to have performed on them.

As well, in relation to implications for the tattoo/piercing industry, the bill before us seeks to introduce measures that will clearly define the rights and responsibilities of those engaged in the business of providing tattoo and body piercing, along with those consumers who engage in body modification treatments. It acknowledges the inadequacy of the legislation as it stands and the need to provide proper regulation of the industry. It greatly expands on the current laws specified in section 21A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 regarding body modification, which currently only prohibits the practice of tattooing minors.

It broadens the coverage of the act to include body scarification, lobe stretching, implantations and branding, significantly improving the protection provided to consumers, including those under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. It extends the ability of law enforcement to properly police the industry. The Attorney-General, as to be expected, has taken on board the concerns raised by members of the public in the consultation process, such as proposed age restrictions, and has incorporated their recommendations into the bill.

When young people, and some older ones for that matter, are out drinking there are occasions when the evening is getting on a bit and they are looking for ways to kick the evening along and they may often take part in activities they would not have otherwise engaged in when they were in a more sober state. Tattooing is often one of those activities and one that I think they may often regret when they are in a better frame of mind. I certainly know some people now in their 60s who wish they had never had body tattoos and, indeed, some people—

An honourable member: Lou?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: No, not Lou—not likely. Some people are now having laser treatment for the removal of these tattoos. While it can be seen as a bit of fun, there may be unwanted consequences resulting from such actions, whether it be a danger to health or sometimes the possible jeopardising of employment.

It should be stressed that the purpose of the protections proposed in the bill do not seek to limit the discretion of reasonable adults to obtain tattoos but to protect them from operators who may seek to exploit their present condition for their own gain. This will put the onus on operators to provide a proper duty of care to their customers. I recognise that society has changed and that a lot of people find tattoos an art and prefer to see them on their body but, nonetheless, I think it should be with proper regulation.

The government is seeking to extend a protection to a particular vulnerable element in our community, which is our young people, in particular those aged under 16 years. It is the government's view—and I would like to believe it is one that the wider community also holds—that the use of intimate piercings and body modification techniques should be restricted for young people. As the Attorney-General in the other place has stated, 'Minors should not be subject to inappropriate or indecent contact, and the law protects them by prohibiting these procedures, regardless of whether parental consent has been given.'

Additionally, in an effort to provide comprehensive protection to those under the age of 16, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of products that could be used for body modification purposes. This is a move that should be commended, as the potential for some dangerous side effects that result from self treatment, such as infection, will be substantially diminished.

It is important to note, however—and it is a fact that the Attorney-General has previously alluded to—that, through community consultation, it has been concluded that these restrictions will not be extended to those over the age of 16 when having non-intimate procedures such as lips, nose and eyebrow piercings. It is widely felt that, when teenagers reach this age bracket, they have the ability to make informed decisions in regard to their body. As I mentioned previously, society has certain values at different times, and we should certainly respect those values over a certain age.

One of the key elements of this legislation, and essential to its success, is improving the ability of police to regulate the body modification industry. This was cited as one of the key concerns by the Select Committee on the Tattooing and Body Piercing Industries, which felt that the current system relies too heavily on aggrieved customers—after the fact, as it were—coming forward and making complaints. I feel that it is unacceptable for any industry, let alone the tattoo and body piercing industry, to be regulated in such a manner.

There is a need for a proactive system of oversight which will allow law enforcement to target businesses it believes to be conducting underage body modification treatment. Police will now have the ability to inspect premises and demand that they produce records of all procedures to show that they are in compliance with the law.

The police will also be granted the ability to ask for proof of age from those engaging in body modification if they reasonably suspect them of being underage. While there are those who may believe that the government has afforded the police too great a power in regulating tattoo and piercing operators, I think that line of thinking undermines the faith in the professionalism of our police force in carrying out their duties. These powers are not designed to harass the industry; they are about ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are protected from rogue operators.

Additionally, I support measures to increase the penalties for performing under-age body modification procedures. The current penalty of $1,250 or three months' gaol is not an effective deterrent to such behaviour. It is effectively a slap on the wrist. The substantial increases proposed by the government include fines of up to $5,000 and 12 months' imprisonment and I believe will send a strong message to those carrying out illegal under-age procedures that they must discontinue this practice which is simply unacceptable.

In summary, this bill is not about legislating away the discretion of individuals to have a tattoo or piercing. It is about protecting those in the community at risk of exploitation by unscrupulous operators. There is a view in the community, which the government shares, that the legislation as it currently stands does not provide adequate protection. I am of the belief that the measures that have been outlined in the bill before the parliament will go a long way to providing the protection that is required.

While some may argue that these measures that have been introduced, such as the increase in fines and the maximum terms of imprisonment, may seem somewhat heavy-handed, there must be effective deterrents in place to ensure that children in our communities remain safe, which I believe is especially important.

Overall, the bill before us has addressed the key concerns that were raised by the select committee on tattooing and body piercing and balances the needs of both the consumer and the body modification industry. It provides a consistent and reasoned regulatory framework that will allow the industry to move into the future with, I believe, greater certainty. I am pleased to add my support to this legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.