New Zealand rightly sets 16 as the age of consent for sex and marriage. Yet our law lets a 13-year-old receive a permanent facial tattoo — even on a state-school campus — if a parent agrees. That contradiction puts children in harm’s way medically, socially, and economically.
The Short-Term Glow
Right now, this 13-year-old girl is celebrated as a cultural leader, framed as reviving an ancient tradition. The euphoria — the identity boost, media praise, alignment with Te Pāti Māori, and anti-colonial politics — is intoxicating. In the here and now, it feels empowering.
The Long-Term Reality
But the future won't mirror the present. Fads fade. Cults collapse. Political currents shift. A facial tattoo does not fade. What seems empowering at 13 may isolate at 23.
Employment hurdles: Studies show visible tattoos lower hireability and pay, especially for women.
Public access restrictions: In places like Japan, visible tattoos can bar entry to communal spaces like baths.
Permanent scarring: Tattoo removal is expensive, painful, and rarely complete. Even if celebrated now, a child cannot weigh lifelong costs of stigma and restriction.
Health Risks Aren’t Trivial
Tattoo inks may contain carcinogenic pigments, heavy metals, and nanoparticles that migrate deep into the body. The FDA hasn’t approved any tattoo ink; the EU has banned thousands of harmful substances. Infections, allergic reactions, and long-term toxicity are well-documented yet unsaid. No New Zealand child is required to be warned.
Culture Cannot Override Protection
Tā moko is a taonga — but taonga does not require children’s faces. Traditionally, moko kauae was tied to adulthood, not children in classrooms. Today’s moko is often applied with modern machines and inks, carrying the same risks as commercial tattooing. Culture deserves celebration — not at the expense of child safety.
Children’s Rights Under International Law
New Zealand ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1993, committing to protect children from physical or mental violence, abuse, and harm, and to uphold their best interests.
Article 19 requires states to protect children from physical or mental harm.
The CRC underscores that all actions impacting children — especially irreversible ones — must prioritise their welfare.
What Parliament Must Do
New Zealand is out of step with other democracies (e.g., the UK, Australia, US) that ban tattooing under 18, with no parental-consent loophole. Here’s a 6-point plan to align with child protection norms:
1. National minimum age of 18 for all tattoos, including facial ones.
2. Ban tattooing on school grounds or at school events.
3. Remove all legal cultural exemptions for minors.
4. Mandatory informed-consent disclosure of medical, social, and professional risks.
5. Ink safety standards consistent with EU regulation (REACH Entry 75).
6. Licensing and oversight of all tattoo practitioners, with enforced hygiene and reporting standards.
Conclusion
We safeguard under-16s from sex and marriage because we recognise they cannot consent to life-altering risks. A permanent facial tattoo is no different. The adulation of today must not become tomorrow’s stigma. New Zealand must close this legal gap and truly put child protection first.
References & Sources
Original news report: 13-year-old receives moko kauae surrounded by friends and whānau at school, Te Ao Māori News, 2 July 2025.
Opinion/critique: Matua Kahurangi, Tattooing a 13-year-old’s face isn’t culture — It’s child abuse, Substack, 7 July 2025; republished on Breaking Views NZ, Waikanae Watch, and Point of Order.
Local regulation: Invercargill City Council, Health & Hygiene Bylaw 2019 (exemption for traditional tā moko on marae).
NZ policy: Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) – monitoring and compliance (1993 ratification).
International law:
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, OHCHR.
End Corporal Punishment, CRC summary and protections.
Tattoo ink regulation and risks:
EU REACH restrictions (Entry 75, Annex XVII).
BfR (Germany), FAQ on tattoo inks (2025).
FDA (US), Tattoo Inks and Microbial Contamination Recalls (2023–24).
Lymph node pigment migration study (synchrotron-based imaging, 2017).
International comparison:
UK Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 (ban under 18).
Australia: Victoria & Queensland bans (no parental exceptions); NSW ban under 18.
US: New York & California ban under 18; Texas very limited exceptions.
Social/employment impact:
Peer-reviewed studies (2022–25) showing visible tattoos reduce hireability and pay, especially for women.
Emirates & Qatar Airways cabin-crew policies: “No visible tattoos.”
Japan: onsen, pools, gyms commonly ban tattooed patrons.
Judy Gill BSc, DipTchg, is a parent, former teacher, and a staunch advocate for secular education.
3 comments:
It’s up there with female genital mutilation of minors.
The facial disfigurement on maori females is a useful warning to future prospective suitors. II makes it clear that the wearer is obsessively captured by maori propaganda and a disproportionate degree of their time and effort will be directed to wallowing in matters maori to the detriment of most else. All accompanied by an endless barrage of tediously spouted trite propaganda .The tattoos also reduce the risk of employment and so increase the chance of a life long rental state unit at base rental.
I trust the govt tracks expenditure on tattoo removal.As expenditure primarily on maori will not be "equitable"".by the common definition.
The recipients lymph nodes don't like tattoo ink. Ask any surgeon who has had to remove the strongly discoloured body part.
Post a Comment