Tattooing Industry Control Bill
02/12/2015
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I am pleased to speak at the second reading stage to put Dignity for Disability’s position and some concerns on this bill on the record. Under this bill, as members would be aware, a person would, automatically and permanently, be disqualified from providing tattooing services if he or she or one of their close associates is a member of a prescribed organisation or subject to a control order under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.
The bill also seeks to give the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs the power to disqualify a person from providing tattoo services based on certain criteria, including the person being a member of a prescribed organisation within the preceding five years, or having been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the preceding 10 years.
My office has received expressions of concern about the bill by participants in, and employees of, the tattoo industry in particular. We are also aware of the concerns raised by the Law Society of South Australia and by some members of the opposition in the other place and some members in this place also. Together, these concerns raise fears that the effect of this bill may be to unfairly penalise innocent people who are pursuing a legitimate business and career, earning their livelihoods and expressing their artistic skills in the tattooing industry.
Participants in the tattooing industry, including trainees, employees and business owners, have advised my office that they believe that they are captured in the current incarnation of the bill under the definition of ‘close associate’ of a member of a prescribed organisation. Some thought that the bill labels them as criminals, simply because they work as tattooists. The Law Society expresses opposition to the bill because, in summary, its powers would be too sweeping. The Law Society feels its scope is too wide and its potential consequences are grave and unfair.
The society also expressed concerns that the bill does not strike the right balance between preventing or reducing crime and placing restrictions on rights and freedoms of individuals, and that the bill does not address health risks inherent in tattooing, notably the use of contaminated ink or needles. In light of the concerns about the bill raised by the Law Society, some of the tattooing industry participants and some members in both this place and the other place, there appears to be some risk that this legislation in its current form could be susceptible to a legal challenge.
Given this, Dignity for Disability shares the concerns expressed that the government is asking members of this chamber to support this bill without the evidence that it will actually assist in fighting crime. We also share the concern that the bill is likely to increase unemployment and force skilled young workers in particular to seek employment interstate. Certainly, given the state of unemployment in this state currently and the outlook into the future that is something we cannot afford to have happen.
We agree that to facilitate an informed debate on this bill the government needs to answer some questions about the links between tattoo parlours and organised crime in this state in particular, and how many employees and owners of tattoo parlours would fall within the current definitions of the bill, the effects of similar legislation in New South Wales and Queensland, and which members of the tattooing industry were consulted in the drafting of this bill.
With those few words, Dignity for Disability expresses its opposition to the bill in its current form, and I hope we can quickly get some answers to those questions we have raised just now in order to assist us in forming a position in later stages.
