HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2011.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:52): I wish to briefly place on the record my position on this bill. I feel that its passage has been a good example of how our parliamentary procedures can work effectively. When I saw the first draft of this bill in January I was quite offended by it. Among other useless and heavy-handed measures it proposed to totally outlaw body piercings for people under the age of 18, unless they wanted a nose, eyebrow, ear or bellybutton piercing.

In the past I have had a nose piercing, and why this particular piercing should be seen as more acceptable or be more legal than the lip piercing, which I also had at another stage in my life, is totally beyond any reasonable person's logic. Exactly what it was that the government thought distinguished the ear, nose, eyebrow and naval piercings from something like a labret piercing or a beauty-spot piercing, I am not sure, but this was the arbitrary rule our government had decided to punish South Australia's youth with.

The government had also seen fit to include a provision outlawing any pre-payment for a tattoo, piercing or body modification procedure. This measure would have effectively meant that tattoo artists would need to go through the design and research stages of preparing a tattoo without receiving any payment. This is simply an insult to the profession and discounts the true artistic merit that many professional tattooists bring to their craft.

Perhaps even more offensive would have been the other option that a tattooist would, in fact, be forced to forgo the designing stage and therefore have to 'wing it', so to speak, as they made a permanent marking on somebody's skin. This is not what I would call a preferential situation for customers, to say the least. Thankfully, this bill went through a full consultation procedure and those rather archaic and overbearing provisions were withdrawn.

The bill we are now considering today is, in many senses, a much more moderate document which has clear emphasis on safety and good practice. It is an amazing improvement on the original, which felt to me more like an attempt to paternalistically and condescendingly prevent members of the public, young and old, from altering their own bodies. I strongly believe that what people do with their bodies is their business, not the government's, and it is only on points of public health and safety that we should intervene.

I would like to thank both the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Wade for the effort that has gone into their amendments.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Ms Bressington was making some, I am sure, very worthwhile contribution.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I was talking to somebody.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: You were talking to Stephen but I was talking to the President, so I win. As I was saying, I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Wade for the effort they have put into their amendments to this bill. Both sets of amendments clearly have health and safety as their main goal, but I must say that I believe that the Hon. Ms Franks' amendments are a little more explicit about exactly how health protections should be enforced, so I intend to support her in making those changes.

Both the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Wade have also made a point of deleting section 21I of the bill. I fully support this and, if this section is not removed, I would be highly inclined to vote down the entire bill. Section 21I is a throwback to the government's earlier, totally unreasonable draft of this bill. The section proposes to give the police expanded search powers in tattooing, body piercing and body modification business premises.

The expansion of police powers is a worrying trend which we see often from this government's legislation. It seems to be almost a default setting for them. I cannot understand how, in this case, such a broadening of powers could be justified. When we are looking at relatively minor offences like those detailed in this bill which attract penalties of a few thousand dollars, why is it necessary to allow police to trample all over people's rights? The short answer is: it isn't necessary.

A little piece of my mind suspects that this push has something to do with a possible government perception that tattoo parlours have bikie gang links. This is a very stereotypical view which does not make a good case for policy change. Yes, bikies have tattoos, but so can artists, teachers, lawyers, students and even stay-at-home parents. I think you see my point, Mr President. Having a tattoo does not automatically mean you are a 'bad' person, just as having a tattoo parlour does not automatically make a person 'bad'.

This government should remember that an expansion of power can often result in a corresponding shrinking of individual rights. Such deprivation of freedoms should be used sparingly and balanced carefully. I hope that this council agrees with me and votes to delete this one last black spot in an otherwise reasonable bill. Then the passage of this bill could be seen as a truly great example of good governance at work.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:20]


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