Female Genital Mutilation

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins:

That this council—

1. Commends the work of No FGM Australia in raising the awareness of the health and other risks to Australian women and girls of the illegal practice of female genital mutilation and its concerns that—

(a) there is a lack of awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM;

(b) no data is collected about prevalence of FGM in South Australian residents; and

(c) girls most at risk of FGM are those who come from FGM-affected communities and that in Australia, three girls a day are in the high-risk category;

2. Notes that the World Health Organisation has described FGM as a violation of the human rights of girls and women and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women;

3. Notes that FGM has no health benefits and can cause severe urinary, fertility and childbirth complications;

4. Notes the review and recommendations of the Australian government’s 2013 Review of Australia’s Female Genital Mutilation Legal Framework Final Report; and

5. Notes that Australia’s first FGM prosecution is taking place in New South Wales for alleged offences on two young girls who were at the time aged only seven years old.

(Continued from 9 December 2015.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (16:49): I rise to support the motion in an amended way. I seek leave to amend the motion as follows:

Delete paragraph 1(a) 'there is a lack of awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM' and replace with:

1(a) 'recognising that there is a need to continue to promote awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM' in lieu thereof.'

I move the amendment to recognise the ongoing work of the state and commonwealth governments to prevent and respond to female genital mutilation (FGM) in Australia. In proposing this amendment, I acknowledge the work of all governments across Australia, as well as service providers, community groups and the UN.

The UN, through a number of agencies, including the World Health Organisation, the Development Fund for Women and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has funded educational campaigns and resources. They have also passed declarations to stop FGM. In April 2013, a National Summit on FGM was held in Canberra, fulfilling one of the then commonwealth government's commitments to raise awareness in order to end the practice. This summit brought together government and community representatives, health professionals and legal and policy experts.

At the summit, a National Compact on FGM was released, with a shared commitment to coordinate action. Consequently, the commonwealth government committed half a million dollars in targeted grants to support action to end FGM, including for educational campaigns by community organisations. In addition, a commitment was made that health and medical professional bodies would continue to educate and train health professionals in order to ensure effective and non-discriminatory support and services for women with complex health needs resulting from female genital mutilation.

In February 2015, on Zero Tolerance for FGM Day, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, then minister assisting the Prime Minister for women, announced more than $265,000 in funding for the Multicultural Centre for Women's Health to deliver the National Education Toolkit for FGM Awareness (NETFA). NETFA facilitates a national centralised system for networking and sharing expertise between FGM service providers throughout Australia. NETFA is now available online.

In South Australia, the Women's Health Service currently provides a service to refugee women to improve their health and safety, including those affected by FGM. I commend the work of No FGM Australia in educating the community and supporting the welfare of women affected by FGM. No FGM Australia is doing admirable work in ensuring FGM becomes a recognised form of violence against women, as it should be, and that girls are protected from the torture of this horrific practice.

No FGM Australia has made it clear that FGM is being performed on Australian girls in Australia or when they visit a country where the practice is still prevalent. It is very disturbing to hear that three girls a day are at risk of FGM. FGM is a vile practice which discriminates against girls and women. There are no health benefits and, indeed, many health risks and adverse outcomes, including fistulas during childbirth, which can subsequently lead to ostracisation of women from their community, especially in countries with limited access to health care.

In South Australia, the Office for Women within the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion is currently investigating how we can ensure better data is collected on the prevalence of FGM in our community. FGM is against the law in South Australia and is a form of child abuse. It is also illegal to take a child out of South Australia to another country to perform this practice. This is in line with the model code recommended in the Australian government's 2013 'Review of Australia’s Female Genital Mutilation legal framework' final report.

The state government has been following with interest the legal proceedings taking place in New South Wales in relation to FGM, which I understand has resulted in the first successful prosecution of offenders for performing FGM in Australia. It is the government's aim to ensure that people subjecting girls and women to this practice are prosecuted and experience the full weight of the law.

The South Australian government will continue to work with relevant agencies, including No FGM Australia, to end this terrible violation of human rights. Further, the Office for Women will work to ensure that FGM is considered by relevant services as they respond to violence against women and promote gender equity. I strongly support the need to continue to educate health professionals about FGM and suggest that, although there is a growing awareness, too many women and girls are still at risk here in Australia. FGM is a violation of human rights and cannot be tolerated at any level. The South Australian government commends the efforts of No FGM Australia and looks forward to the day when no girl is at risk of female genital mutilation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:55): The Greens rise to support this motion. I note that female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice. It intentionally alters and causes harm to female genital organs for no medical reason and can have some serious and long-lasting consequences, including infertility and increased risk of childbirth complications and maternal and infant mortality during and shortly after childbirth. The World Health Organisation estimates that female genital mutilation affects about 100 to140 million women and girls worldwide. Each year it is estimated that an additional three million girls are at risk of being subjected to the practice globally.

Quite rightly, we have laws in this state to address this issue. It is an issue that, like child sexual abuse and child abuse in general, is often kept secret. In particular, where a culture is involved, those very victims of FGM are often complicit in keeping that secret, because they are protecting their loved ones. The very secretive nature of the quite rightly defined crime of FGM means that we need special provisions, as very much observed in the 'Review of Australia’s Female Genital Mutilation legal framework' put out by the Attorney-General's Department federally in March 2013. The two parts of that crime are the act itself and measures taken to prevent the act where a child is deemed to be at risk, including the seizing of passports and further protections around those girls.

With regard to the government's amendment, my reading of their wording is that by leaving out the words:

(a) there is a lack of awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM;

and inserting instead:

(a) recognising that there is a need to continue to promote awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM;

It would then read:

Commends the work of No FGM Australia in raising the awareness of the health and other risks to Australian women and girls of the illegal practice of female genital mutilation and its concerns that—

(a) recognising that there is a need to continue to promote awareness amongst Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM.

Recognising a concern about promoting that need does not make sense. Unless the government is concerned that child protection professionals are being made aware, I suggest that the government perhaps either reword their amendment or withdraw their amendment. The Greens will not be supporting that amendment. We will be supporting the original wording, as moved by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and we will be recognising that there is already a lack of awareness amongst Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM.

That lack of awareness, of course, extends also to child protection law reform ministers, and certainly one in this state who seems to need a great deal of further education about female genital mutilation. While it is unparliamentary to refer to a bill that is now before this council, I note that recent debates as reported in the media have shown that the current Attorney perhaps does not understand the measures needed—those particular protective and culturally sensitive measures such as the ability to take away a child's passport that are required when it comes to protecting a child from female genital mutilation. While the act would remain a criminal offence, it is necessary, as the model code suggests, to have all of the protections we can give our girls and women in this state.

So much so that in those recent debates, certainly I, and I am sure other members of this council, have been contacted with great concern by organisations such as the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, and also ShineSA, expressing their concerns that our state was set to weaken female genital mutilation protections. Well, the Greens will not be supporting any weakening of FGM laws; we will be supporting a strengthening of those laws and we will be supporting this motion tonight.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:01): I wish to say only a few brief words in obvious support of the Hon. Ms Lensink's motion on female genital mutilation. The permanent altering of a child's genitals, of course, holds no hygienic benefits. It is extremely painful and it can have lifelong impacts, as have been outlined by other speakers, including infertility and other long-lasting, very detrimental health conditions. We certainly do need to get rid of this practice.

Can I say from the outset that, like other speakers, we certainly do not support the government's amendments to this motion which would seek to change the wording from talking about a lack of awareness within the health community and health profession about FGM and instead talk about the need to recognise that there is a need to continue to promote awareness among Australian health and child protection professionals about FGM. There are a few reasons to oppose this amendment to the motion, but, if I was to put it into one concept, I do not think the two groups of wording are opposing each other, because I have jumped on the Google and I have done—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It is what the kids are calling it; it will catch on 'the Google machine', and I have typed in the word 'lack' and what came up is a definition that reads:

Lack, noun

1. The state of being without or not having enough [knowledge] of something.

I do not think we are implying that there is not already existing knowledge. We are simply saying that we need to recognise that we can and must learn more about what this practice is, what it looks like and how to recognise it, how to stop it, and how it impacts people's lives for many years after the practice itself is undertaken. Given that it is very easy to find a definition of 'lack' as being either 'a state of being without knowledge' or 'not having enough knowledge' I do not think the work 'lack' should be frowned upon in this context. I certainly am not inclined to support the amendment to the motion because I think the original wording captures that intent very well.

Can I also say that as a woman with a disability in particular, who is all too familiar with medical and cultural norms in Australia which see people with disabilities in some respects, particularly women and girls, have decisions and information and rights around their reproductive organs and genitalia taken away from them far too often, or denied to them, in the case of knowledge or education. Given this, I find it really important to fight that lack of knowledge, that lack of awareness and the lack of the right information about one's own body. It is really important to tackle it at every turn in this community.

In fact, as the original wording of the motion states, to my mind I think it is about saying that we all have a role to play, whether or not we are an existing health professional who may already have some knowledge but could learn more, or whether we are a member in this place or someone out on the street. We can all learn more and we can all do more to stop this abhorrent and unnecessary practice.

We need to take this extremely seriously, which is exactly why I was so disappointed to hear that this issue was not being dealt with more earnestly by some members in the other place during yesterday's debate on the Children and Young People (Safety) Bill. I hope that is something on which we can work together in this place to rectify. With those words, we support the unamended motion.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (17:05): Given that the Hon. Tammy Franks drew my attention to a grammatical error in my amendment, I seek to rectify it. By leave, I further move:

Leave out the word 'recognising' in 1(a) and insert instead 'it be recognised'

So, it would read 'that it be recognised that'. This is not an issue to be pedantic about—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You can't speak to it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, I am not. I am just explaining the amendment, that is all.

The PRESIDENT: To appreciate the amendment, just a very brief explanation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This issue is enormously important, so I am sure that people will give me the opportunity to explain the amendment. The amendment seeks to respect and recognise the enormous amount of work that healthcare professionals—including the federal government, the Hon. Michaelia Cash—have done towards this issue. We all agree, we are all at one here, that this crime is atrocious. The amendment seeks to do that in a way that respects the work that these service providers and volunteers have done in the past and not just dismiss it, as if to say, 'It makes no matter'—

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Point of order, Mr President: I think the honourable member was given leave to explain her amendment in an amended form, but this is going beyond an explanation. This is going on to debate the issue, and the honourable member has already had that opportunity.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, I will be very brief.

The PRESIDENT: I think they get the gist of what you are doing.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This seeks to respect the work done but recognise that it is not enough and that we need to do more.

The PRESIDENT: Okay. The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:07): Thank you for the call, Mr President. I rise to support the Hon. Michelle Lensink's motion in relation to raising awareness of female genital mutilation and issues related to it. Worldwide, it is estimated that 200 million girls and women have been subject to FGM. The number of girls at risk or who have been the victim of FGM in Australia is unknown as this data is not collected. However, based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the United Nations Children's Fund, it is estimated that there are around 83,000 women and girls in Australia who have been victims of FGM.

The data also shows that girls who are born to women who themselves have been subject to FGM are more likely to subject their daughters to the same practice, meaning that three girls are born each day in Australia within this risk category, or 1,100 girls a year. A study of Australian and New Zealand obstetricians and gynaecologists found that 20 per cent of those surveyed believe that female patients presenting with FGM most likely had the FGM procedure performed in Australia or New Zealand.

The Hon. Gail Gago has moved an amendment to this motion. I know that no colleague is reflecting on the passionate views of the member in relation to female genital mutilation and the rights of women generally, but I do associate myself with the remarks of other colleagues who regret the fact that her amendment will take out the word 'lack'. I will refer to some data to explain why I think it is fair for this council to express our concern that there is a lack of understanding amongst health professionals—not to discount the good work being done—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That's what you are doing. That's exactly what you are doing.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: No, it's not.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade has the floor.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! We do not want to engage in discussion across the floor, especially when the Hon. Mr Wade is on his feet, talking on a very sensitive and important issue. The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr President. I reiterate that I am in no way reflecting on the strong feelings that the Hon. Gail Gago has. Of course, a lot of effort has been made within the health community to make health professionals aware of their responsibilities in relation to health care, particularly in this context, women in relation to FGM, but the evidence shows that there is still a lack.

If I could go directly to that issue: in a recent survey of paediatricians about their experience with FGM, more than 50 per cent of those surveyed believed that FGM is being performed in Australia but rarely asked patients or examined for it. Ninety per cent had seen at least one case of FGM in children below the age of 18 during their career, and only 81.8 per cent knew notification to child protection authorities was mandatory. The journal article on the survey states:

These novel data indicate a minority of paediatricians in Australia have clinical experience with or education about FGM. Educational programs, best-practice clinical guidelines and policies are required to address knowledge gaps and help paediatricians identify, manage and prevent FGM in children.

As I understand it, the concern of honourable members is that the Hon. Gail Gago's amendment would remove the word 'lack'; the implication being that there is not a lack, we are having continuing efforts and that lack of awareness has been addressed. I think the survey shows that, in spite of the best efforts, well-intentioned efforts, there is still a need. I therefore support the Hon. Michelle Lensink's motion without the benefit of the Hon. Gail Gago's amendment.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink also previously mentioned that the very first FGM prosecution took place in New South Wales. In 2016, Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri was the first person in Australia, as I understand it, to be charged in relation to FGM. Reporting and prosecutions of FGM have been virtually non-existent, with freedom of information requests in every state and territory reporting that not one FGM report has ever been made to police.

Based on the statistics mentioned earlier, it is highly likely that, while incidents of FGM have not been reported to police, the practice is occurring within Australia or children are being illegally flown overseas to have the procedure undertaken. This issue was addressed by the Australian government's national summit in 2013 and, based on SAPOL's response, still has not been addressed.

The UK government introduced the FGM dataset in 2015 in order to identify those who have been victims of FGM and those who are at risk, through the collection of data at hospitals, mental health providers and GP practices. Since this practice began in the UK, thousands of victims have been identified every year. This is a practice that state and territory governments may well consider in Australia.

This is not the first time I have risen on the matter of female genital mutilation. It is an issue that I raised in this council in 2009 and again in 2010. I was provoked by an article in The Advertiser on 23 September 2009. The Advertiser published an article entitled, 'Child genital mutilation seen as illegal torture'. The article referred to a UniSA report which found that a number of Families SA child abuse workers identified female genital mutilation as requiring sensitive responses from Families SA when dealing with the issue. The report stated:

While some staff see that (mutilation) is very wrong, we need to be very sensitive how we deal with that issue.

The late Professor Briggs, who was highly respected right across the parliamentary forum, was quoted in that article as saying:

This attitude is unacceptable. This is an offence under Australian law and they should throw the book at them—there is no shadow of grey in it.

Professor Briggs was a long-term campaigner against FGM. Other campaigners include my highly-respected colleague, the Hon. Trish Worth, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink mentioned her good work. I recognise people right across the political divide who have worked cooperatively to promote the rights of women in the context of FGM.

That is what was so distressing about the implication in the government material. I appreciate that it was not in the name of a minister, it was in the name of a department, which suggested some equivocation on the stance of the government against FGM. In my question I asked, 'Will the government make an unequivocal statement that it will enforce the laws of this state against female genital mutilation?' To the credit of the government, the Hon. Gail Gago, representing the Minister for Police, provided me with a response some time later and after a reminder but still it came, which I appreciated, and it made the clear statement:

Female genital mutilation is a serious offence which carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment and is not acceptable under any circumstances.

This is a bipartisan issue. We all support efforts against female genital mutilation but I think it is really important that we be clear. One of the issues that we will discuss in a bill coming up shortly is the implications of statutory changes which, in my view, make less equivocal this parliament's views about female genital mutilation.

I stand in the house today as the shadow minister for health but I also stand as a White Ribbon Ambassador, as a male who is taking a stand against violence against women and girls. We should be clear that FGM is not just a medical procedure; FGM is a form of violence against women and children and should never be condoned and should be eliminated. The fact that protection against FGM is a human right is recognised by the fact that on 6 February every year the United Nations holds an International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

The Australian Human Rights Commission considers FGM a violation of the rights of women and children. As Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the United Nations Under Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women, wrote about FGM:

…is a kind of control that lasts a lifetime. It makes a mockery of the idea of any part being truly private and underlines the institutionalised way in which decisions over her own body have been taken away from that girl.

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aims to end FGM by 2030. Let us be clear: FGM has no medical basis and can result in recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility, an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths, and the need for later surgery. FGM is a barbaric practice that is being forced on children within Australia and worldwide every year. I welcome the Hon. Michelle Lensink's motion because I think it gives this parliament an opportunity to reaffirm its opposition to this practice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:18): I rise to close the debate and thank honourable members for their contributions—the Hon. Gail Gago, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, and the Hon. Stephen Wade—and reiterate the recognition of the work of No FGM Australia. I think it is significant that some 20 or more years since this legislation has passed we have community members who are committed to making sure that this issue is highlighted.

In South Australia we have Khadija Gbla. Marika Ryan and Sally Cox have been very active, and nationally No FGM Australia is driven by Paula Ferrari. I thought when I called this motion to a close that I would be merely updating the chamber on the legal cases. When I moved the motion in October 2015 there was a case in New South Wales, to which the Hon. Stephen Wade has referred.

So, this information comes from Paula Ferrari of No FGM Australia. She says there have been two successful prosecutions in New South Wales, with guilty verdicts for four people, both in 2015. Three people from the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community were found guilty of female genital mutilation of two girls, both aged seven at the time. The crimes occurred in private homes in Sydney and Wollongong. The mother and the nurse who performed the cutting were sentenced to 11 months home detention. The imam who conspired to cover up the mutilation was sentenced to 15 months in jail.

The second case is the case of a man who took his nine-month old girl to Indonesia for female genital mutilation, which resulted in a 12-month suspended sentence, which we learnt about from the New South Wales police as this was not publicised. The current case is in court, and this email she sent me was dated February, so it is very recent.

In Queensland there is a case in the courts in Brisbane at the moment of two people who are accused of mutilating their daughters on a trip to Africa. So, that is an update on the particular cases that are taking place in Australia. They are the first ones, and I think it is part of the difficulty with this matter that a lot of the cases are taking place in a hidden way. If I can turn to the government's proposed amendments to the motion, I really take issue with the manner in which they have described it. I do acknowledge that governments have been attempting to take action, and I think I referred in my motion a year and a bit ago to the actions of the then Gillard government, to which other honourable members have referred as well.

The background paper, published in March 2013, referred to health in one of its recommendations. It was referring to the lack of information and, as a recommendation aimed at improving that, it said that it is recommended that the commonwealth, states and territories work together to identify potential opportunities for cooperation and improved information sharing between the health and legal systems to better make those connections.

In April 2013, there was a national summit—Tania Plibersek, I think, was presiding over that as the then federal health minister—and it made recommendations, including training and support for all professionals, and found that information must be consistent across all the health and social services, which really does get to the nub of the matter that, if we are to eliminate FGM in Australia, then it is the health and child protection professionals who need the greatest upskilling, if you like, or improvement in understanding of what the situation is, what are their responsibilities and what the risks are.

My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade recited some statistics, which I think are pretty scary, that a lot of health professionals, who have probably come into contact with girls who have had this barbaric practice undertaken on them, are not aware of their responsibilities. On those grounds, I will not support the government's amendments to the motion.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Shame on you. All that work people have done, it doesn't matter—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It just doesn't matter—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: What an insulting thing to do.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Gago, show a bit of respect for the member on her feet—it's her motion.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It's an insult.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was prepared to consider the government's amendment and I listened pretty attentively.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No you didn't.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: She told me earlier on today she had no intention of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr President, the honourable member, through her interjection, is completely misrepresenting the conversation. She asked me if I would be supporting their amendment and I said it was unlikely, but if they could provide me some evidence that the people working in this sector had been vastly upskilled in things, then I would be all ears. I think those are probably pretty close to the words that I used. In any case, the honourable member has had her opportunity—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon. Ms Lensink, please take your seat. The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order: I would ask you, Mr President, to give the member who has the call the opportunity to speak without being interrupted. She is clearly trying to engage the member in debate—

The PRESIDENT: I fully agree.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —and you have asked her to stop more than once.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to make it clear that this is a very emotional issue, on all sides, on both sides of this chamber. I do agree that the Hon. Ms Lensink should have the right to sum up without any interjection. So, the Hon. Ms Lensink, continue.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Mr President. If the government has any evidence that there has been a lot of education provided to people working in this sector, then I would be extremely pleased and I would congratulate them on that. That remains to be seen.

I refer to the fact that I raised this matter in questions to the police minister in this house on 28 February this year. I received what I thought was a reasonably hopeful response from the minister. He seemed quite sympathetic and undertook that he would seek to get some more information. My office has followed that up and we are still awaiting that information—this is in relation to SAPOL and the freedom of information request that was made under the auspices of No FGM Australia—about whether the freedom of information request that they received in 2015, which reported that there had been no complaints in relation to female genital mutilation since the legislation was introduced in South Australia, stood. I look forward to receiving that in due course.

In relation to the substantive matter—the reason I said at the outset that I thought I was only going to be updating the chamber on the prosecutions that had taken place in other jurisdictions—there was some debate in the House of Assembly yesterday, and I can only say I was quite disturbed at some of the comparisons made by the member for Light and the Attorney-General in relation to female genital mutilation. I think they were making the comparison that there may be similar practices on boys and children of intersex. I struggle to understand what they were talking about. I can only assume that the member for Light was making some comparison between circumcision of boys and female genital mutilation of girls.

My understanding of male circumcision is that it is a declining practice in Australia. The BabyCentre website—before anyone accuses that of being some Google doctor search—is a very well-trusted, Australian parenting website, which relies on a lot of Australian and overseas evidence and is a great resource for new parents. Their information is that there are medical indications for male circumcision and there are no indications for female genital mutilation. The National Council of Women recently issued a report which has been provided to a number of us and, again, it repeats the negative health consequences of female genital mutilation: severe bleeding, cysts, infections, infertility, increased complications during pregnancy, high rates of newborn deaths and HIV. It goes on to say:

According to WHO, FGM reflects 'deep-rooted in-equality between the sexes', and [is] 'an extreme form of discrimination against women [and girls]'.

At the risk of listeners or readers becoming squeamish, I think it is worth actually reading, particularly for the benefit of the member for Light, who needs to inform himself—I think some of his views are somewhat Neanderthal—and potentially the Attorney-General, their own documentation, which is in the South Australian Perinatal Practice Guidelines, which refers to the different types of female genital mutilation. It states:

Type I

Excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part of or the entire clitoris. Other terms used to describe Type I include circumcision, ritualistic circumcision, sunna and clitoridectomy

Type II

Excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora. Other terms used to describe Type II include clitoridectomy, sunna, excision, circumcision and infibulation

There are some diagrams that the member for Light might like to acquaint himself with and ask himself whether this, in any way, is relatable to male circumcision. It continues:

Type III

Excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infundibulation). Other terms used to describe type III include infibulation, Pharaonic circumcision and Somalian circumcision

Type III can result in a very small opening which may cause difficulties in urination, menstruation and sexual intercourse, as well as serious problems in childbirth

Type IV

Unclassified: includes

Pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia

Stretching of the clitoris and/or labia

Cauterisation by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue

Scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts)

Introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purposes of tightening or narrowing it

So, if any honourable members have any misapprehensions, as I believe the member for Light possibly does, about what sort of procedures are involved in this, I hope that they no longer are. With those comments, I commend the motion as it is to the council.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 14

Majority 7

Amendment thus negatived; motion carried.