HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 5 May 2011.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will just indicate what I understand the state of play to be so that it might assist members about the matter. There are a number of amendments that have been filed by me and they are largely amendments that arose from the second reading debate and undertakings I gave to the house when we last spoke on this matter. They deal with tongue-splitting, dental and medical practitioner point and essentially deal with the matters, I think, that were raised by the member for Bragg and others with two exceptions.

One is that I think there is a more recent amendment that the honourable member is seeking in relation to earlobes. In relation to that particular amendment, I just foreshadow that I am not in a position to be able to agree to that amendment having regard to the time. It is a matter that we can consider between the houses, but there will be formal opposition to that matter.

There is a difference of opinion between the member for Bragg and me in relation to the police power matter. She has heard my views and I have heard hers, so I can foreshadow that there will be formal opposition here to that but, otherwise, I think the amendments that we are putting forward are actually amendments that were generated by the second reading debate. That might assist people so that we can move through it more swiftly.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the Attorney-General for outlining that. Essentially the amendments as indicated by the Attorney in his name were generated from our second reading debate and I thank him for that. When we come to government amendment No.5, however, this deals with the question of whether people under the age of 18 years should be able to have a defence against being prosecuted if they use false identification material.

I am not asking you to follow in detail the argument on this but, during the course of the debate, our position was that they should not be able to use false identification to get access to the service of being provided with a tattoo or body modification, or whatever. In other words, if they use someone's 20-year-old identification to get the service, they should not be eligible for a defence which is otherwise provided to them if they use these false IDs to get into a hotel to get alcohol or cigarettes, etc.

The reason I had raised the issue in the second reading debate—and I thought I had made it clear, but obviously I did not—was that in fact they should not be eligible and whether 'product' would cover these people. Our position was, if it was not clear to the Attorney before, that I was not very happy when this part of the act was made when we discussed the issues surrounding the Heaven nightclub and the legislation that went with that.

It was very clear from the then attorney-general that he thought it was important that children or those under the age of 18 years should not have the heavy penalties that using false IDs would attract, and they were quite significant if they were going to use it to get into a nightclub or to buy cigarettes and the like.

I do not want to revisit the argument on that, but I raised the fact that the current legislation in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act may allow a 15 year old who wanted to get a body modification and used a false identity to be excused from prosecution because of the wording. The Attorney has, in his amendments, in fact cemented (I suppose, directly the reverse) in it the defence of under-18 year olds in relation to this. The way I was proposing to deal with that was that we would formally oppose that amendment. It would leave it unresolved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to withdraw it. You have convinced me.

The CHAIR: I'm struggling to hear. Excuse me, member for Bragg. Attorney, did you say that you agreed with everything?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I misunderstood which one the honourable member was dealing with. This is one where we do not see eye to eye, but it will be sorted out.

Ms CHAPMAN: So it will remain in there opposed. We have the question of whether earlobes are included in the legislation, we have the police search issue, and we have the question of defence to use of identify theft as issues in dispute, and each of us will take advice from our respective party rooms. On that basis, I am happy for the matters to be left to another place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With the concurrence of the committee, I suggest we move through the bill.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 3—

After line 16 [clause 4, inserted section 21A(1), definition of body modification procedure]—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) tongue splitting; and

After line 23 [clause 4, inserted section 21A(1)]—After the definition of body scarification insert:

dental practitioner means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the dental profession (including, if appropriate, a dental therapist, dental hygienist, dental prosthetist or oral health therapist but not including a student);

Lines 28 to 29 [clause 4, inserted section 21A(1), definition of medical practitioner]—Delete the definition of medical practitioner and substitute:

medical practitioner means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the medical profession (other than as a student);

medical treatment means treatment or procedures administered or carried out by a medical practitioner, dental practitioner or nurse in the course of medical, surgical or dental practice or treatment;

nurse means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the nursing and midwifery profession as a nurse (other than as a student).

Lines 30 to 33 [clause 4, inserted section 21A(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) This part does not apply to a body piercing or body modification procedure performed on a person if the procedure is performed—

(a) in the course of medical treatment; or

(b) for a medical or therapeutic purpose of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

Amendments carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 4, line 17 [clause 4, inserted section 21C(2)(b)]—Delete '(other than an earlobe piercing)'

Page 5—

Lines 5 to 6 [clause 4, inserted section 21D(1)]—Delete '(other than an earlobe piercing)'

After line 25 [clause 4, inserted section 21D]—After line 25 insert:

(1a) Subsection (1) does not apply to an earlobe piercing performed on a person who is at least 16 years old.

Page 7, lines 13 to 37 [clause 4, inserted section 21I]—Delete section 21I

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For the record, we oppose those amendments.

Amendments negatived; clause as amended passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 7, after line 37—After clause 4 insert:

Schedule 1—Related amendment to Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

4—Amendment of section 144F—Application of Part

Section 144F(a)(i)—after 'product' insert 'or service'

Ms CHAPMAN: I formally oppose this amendment.

New schedule inserted.

Long title.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

After 'Summary Offences Act 1953' insert:

and to make a related amendment to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

Amendment carried; long title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

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) (17:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Can I just say thank you to members opposite for the expeditious way in which we have been able to deal with things today; it has been a model afternoon. It is a shame that there were not more children in the gallery, although my children are here, and I think they are very impressed that the parliament is behaving this way. I thank everybody for giving them an elevated view of this place because it is something that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 17:41 the house adjourned until Tuesday 7 June 2011 at 11:00.


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