HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (15:55): I would like to thank all the honourable members who made contributions in relation to the debate on this matter, and in particular, of course, my learned friend the honourable member for Bragg, whose contribution was as always thorough and in this case, exceedingly thorough, canvassing matters as diverse as fireworks and the consumption of companion animals as mere asides in the matter.

It was very helpful and, actually, I think there were many points made by the honourable member that do warrant serious reflection and consideration, and I will address those now because I think it is probably as good a time as any. First of all, there were some remarks made about the time that was taken for this piece of legislation to come to this point. I can only say that—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It didn't take you long once you became A-G.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I was elected, as was the honourable member, in the early part of 2002, and I believe that I received permission and, indeed, support from my colleagues to draft a bill in relation to these matters in about March 2002. I did so and I introduced it in private members' time. It went through this place. It then went into the other place, where a particular political persuasion, which is now extinct, formed a view about the inalienable right of all children to mutilate their bodies permanently, and it became cul-de-sac'd in there.

There was then a prorogation of the parliament, and the then Hon. Nick Xenophon (now Senator Xenophon) saw fit after the proroguing of the parliament to reanimate the legislation up there. It eventually came back here with a large number of amendments and then went off to a committee.

The committee was a committee, obviously, of interested members: the minister for primary industries, the Minister for Families and Communities and I were on the committee, as indeed were the former member for Newland—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —sorry—the former member for Morialta and the esteemed and greatly missed former member for Stuart. I can assure the honourable member for Bragg that his contribution throughout the work of this committee was outstanding, and if the honourable member for Bragg had had the opportunity of being there I am sure her head would be nodding. She would have been not surprised by the contributions made by the former member of the Stuart, but she would have been enchanted, I think—enchanted is the word.

The bill has been in and about for a long time and I think, as the honourable member for Bragg mentioned, the member for Fisher had a bill a year or so before mine, and the Hon. Dennis Hood put in proposals broadly along these lines, so there has been a great deal of discussion about this matter around the place.

There are a couple of matters of principle here, and I really gather, from what the honourable member for Bragg and her parliamentary colleagues had to say yesterday, that we are not actually tremendously far apart in terms of our objectives. I think it is a general consensus that there are certain sorts of things that one would hope nobody under 18 would have done to them, and one certainly would not want it to be lawful for these things to be done to them under any circumstances. Speaking entirely for myself, there are some things that I, quite frankly, think there is no call for at all. I accept that an adult person of sound mind probably can consent to any number of things which, perhaps, a prudent person would not, but that is another matter. The predominant thrust of this is to give some protection to minors.

The question as to what material was provided to us by way of the consultation, as I indicated and as the honourable member conceded yesterday, is a matter that has been in the throes of an FOI application, and it is entirely appropriate that it be dealt with in the ordinary course in that way. I can honestly say to the honourable member that the second reading explanation fairly and accurately outlines the range of opinions that were offered in the course of the consultation and does say that there were remarks made about different things.

To give one example, the original bill that was circulated did not permit some of the piercings for minors aged 16 and over that the current version does. The honourable member might recall that the original version of the bill basically had what you could do under 18 and what you could do over 18. A whole range of things were basically moved into the permissible 'with permission' category as a result of the consultation, so the consultation was not a Clayton's consultation. It was one that took into account the views expressed by people making submissions.

However, in saying that, I do not suggest for a moment that every single suggestion made in the course of the consultation was accepted. There are reasons for that and I will, where they are pertinent, try to identify them because that might assist the honourable member and others in understanding how we got to where we are.

There are a number of individual matters that I need to address because they were referred to by the member for Bragg in her submissions. Before I get to those, I will make a couple of comments in general terms about this type of offence. First of all, this is a complaint-driven offence. It is the sort of offence, unlike most road traffic offences but like most offences, that commences with a person who considers themselves to be a victim of an abuse of the law complaining to the police. Quite clearly, if somebody, who is a minor, is of a mind to have themselves tattooed because they think it is a good idea, it is pretty unlikely that that person will then subsequently complain about the person from whom they obtained the tattoo.

Likewise, regarding these body modifications which are presently not prohibited but if the bill is passed will become prohibited, it would not surprise me if there was not an avalanche of prosecutions because a person who is under 18 and wishes to have an intimate piercing or a tattoo or something is, one would have thought, highly unlikely to subsequently turn around and go to the police station and point their finger at the person who did it and say, 'Prosecute them.' That just does not stand to reason.

Some of the philosophical underpinning of the member for Bragg's contribution about where is the mischief that we are seeking to cure, how many complaints have there been, how many prosecutions have there been and this sort of stuff, is, with respect, in the context of this particular area, probably not a helpful or informative way of approaching the nature or extent of the problem.

The second thing is that the current legislation inasmuch as it refers to anything, and it is only basically tattooing, is quite frankly weak and inadequate. The honourable member, I think, said as much in terms of the remarks she made about the need for the penalties to be increased for these types of things and her general support for that. Again, weak and inadequate legislation, which has to be complaint driven, is unlikely to attract a great deal of attention or effort by anybody, not least of which being the police. Those are some general comments.

The first thing about the prohibition of taking of deposits: the prohibition of taking deposits was the subject of complaint during the consultation process. That complaint was considered, and I think it is fair to say that the tattoo lobby (if there is such a thing) was of the view that their not being able to take a deposit when they have to spend time preparing things and they have to set aside time to their bookings and so on was not a reasonable restriction to have imposed on them. Bearing in mind that the bill that was actually put out for consultation did not contain a cooling-off period, the major driver for the deposit prohibition probably was pretty well gone. We listened to that as a result of the consultation and we took it out, and that is why we took it out.

The question about having a cooling off period: I was mortified by the tongue lashing I received from the honourable member about the ludicrous nature of possibly having a cooling-off period and how it would be strange to compare something like this with the purchase of a car or a house or something of that nature. The honourable member was here yesterday afternoon when the honourable member for Adelaide got up and said it was a pretty good idea. Perhaps I am not the only person who might have strayed into that little thought process. Anyway, we did not consult on that and, aside from the honourable member for Adelaide, no-one else asked us to do it, so we have not included it. There again, we are listening.

That really covers the cooling-off period. I make no apology for this: I started off in 2002 advocating a cooling off period. The honourable member asked why. The reason why is quite simple. To the extent that the folklore about impulse tattooing has any force, it struck me at the time that a person being required to reflect hopefully soberly, at least for a short period of time during the 48 hour period, it may reconsider whether they wish to go ahead with this.

Something about the nature of these things needs to be understood, and this might be a matter where there is not general agreement on this, but quite frankly tattooing, body piercing, body modification, etc. in the Australian context is not an artefact of culture in the sense that it might be for a Maori or for the Brazilian tribes the honourable member talked about who have their lips done and all that sort of business. It is not a traditional requisite of membership of society. What it is is an artefact of popular culture, if that is not an oxymoron. So popular culture, being what it is, is a moving target. I am old enough to remember a time—

Mr Venning: And wise enough.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Wise is a moot point. But I am old enough to recall a time when people like Austin Powers walked our streets. Real people like Austin Powers walked our streets, people going, 'Groovy, baby' and dressed in strange costumes. I know the honourable member for Bragg is a bit too young for this but Carnaby Street, Haight Ashbury, Woodstock, Canned Heat, Bob Dylan—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The Grateful Dead.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Grateful Dead. In fact—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Thunderclap Newman.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thunderclap Newman. The honourable member for Croydon has got them all. This is actually quite good. Who else was at the Isle of Wight?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Joni Mitchell wasn't there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, she wasn't. Leonard Cohen was at the Isle of Wight. He sang pretty well exactly the same songs on the Isle of Wight in 1969 as the ones he sang in Adelaide a few months ago.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's what we paid for.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's right. Isn't it interesting that very little that these others have done since they turned 25 has actually added to their body of work. Anyway, we are going off onto another point.

Ms Chapman: Body of art.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Body of art, indeed. In fact, Einstein wrote his last great work when he was in his 20s and spent the next 40 years of his life trying to complete the circle.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think so, but he might have had one of the moon landing things afterwards. I am not sure. I have not explored that particular topic. Anyway, the point is that these things, at best, are artefacts of popular culture, whatever standing that might have. Like bell-bottom jeans, high-waisted jeans—the ones you had to zip up very, very tight, which was uncomfortable for the gentlemen and were best not worn by some ladies—those things are now no longer with us. Witches britches—you have probably never heard of them.

Ms Chapman: Hot pants.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hot pants.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Witches britches—I will explain them to you later. All of these things were artefacts of fashion and, in their day, were considered the high couture—is that the right word?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Haute couture.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's it, exactly. People would actually allow themselves to dress in these ridiculous costumes and prance around the place, and they thought they were terribly cool. They would be at the Spaghetti Machine, the Arkaba Hotel or the Old Lion, collecting the rubber chicken that they had to pretend to consume in order to still be there late at night. The honourable member knows what I am talking about.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And Saturday Night Fever, exactly. Who could forget that—John Travolta's look? The honourable member cannot remember this because she is far too young, but there was a time when men in Adelaide dressed like John Travolta and went out to local hotels and danced around to Bee Gees songs and threw their arms up in the air. They usually were not as good as him. The moonwalk had not yet been invented and the clutching of the groin was not a normal part of the dance routine, but there were some strange things that went on. I know I have gone into this in some detail, but it is important to make the point.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Set the scene.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly; I am setting the scene. The point I am trying to make is this: all of those behaviours, silly though they were, were reversible. I remember friends of mine—I will not name them—whose hair went from being straight to very, very curly, and these were men. And other men—

Mr Venning: Is that why yours is white, John?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, I admit that I have been dying my hair a bit for the last few years, but other men used to dye their hair quite often—changing colours all the time. Again, one might regard this as silly—one won't, but one might—but one could at least comfort oneself in the knowledge that these things were reversible. All one had to do was slip off those—what were those very high-waisted jeans called, where they had three buttons at the top?

Ms Chapman: Uncomfortable.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Uncomfortable. Yes, they were very uncomfortable. Anyway, one could take those off and put on a pair of trackie pants and be sort of normal—just like that. The point is that what we are talking about here are artefacts of popular culture which are not reversible. For example, to have the word 'skins' tattooed on your forehead to demonstrate your affiliation with a particular group of gentlemen might seem like a fantastic idea at the time. The fact that you do it in the mirror to yourself makes it worse because it comes out as 'sniks'. Question: do you wish to do this for the rest of your life and be associated with this for the rest of your life?

The great author, Theodore Dalrymple, in one of his many magnificent books, talks about a fellow who had the words 'no fear' tattooed on his head. When he was taking the medical history from this fellow in prison, he asked him whether he had had any serious illnesses. He said no, but he noticed all these gashes over the bloke's head which had healed up more or less. He asked, 'Have you ever been in a fight?' He said 'Yes.' 'Has anything ever happened to you?' and he said 'Yes, I have been knocked unconscious.' He regarded that as an insignificant medical history. Apparently it had happened to him almost every time he went to the pub because he would go to the pub, order a pint, look at some bloke with the words 'no fear' tattooed on his head and the fellow would say 'No fear, hey?' and he used to get glassed. I think that is the expression for it. This was obviously not a wise career move for this fellow, not to mention making socialisation in public houses difficult.

This is a really simple point: there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between popular culture which you can take on or off or wash out of your hair or let your hair grow or whatever it might be and stuff that is irreversible and cannot be changed and you wind up looking like that lady in that pot and pan ad.

An honourable member: Circulon.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Circulon lady. That is what we are worried about. We are worried about Circulon ladies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Attorney-General gives me this space to speak, I would like to point out that we are not in any way maligning any particular brand of kitchen good.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I just wanted to set that scene because it is actually a materially different situation to all these other things. I know that the honourable member has asked why we are bothering to go through all of this stuff. The reason that we are bothering to go through it is because it is a bit more significant than flared pants or a funny haircut. That is the reason, and it cannot be fixed up. I gather there is no argument about tattooing minors; I gather there is no argument about intimate body piercing. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT