Bills

Industrial Hemp Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms COOK (Fisher) (15:35): I think when I left off I was talking about the Controlled Substances Act 1984 being a barrier to the development of the industry and this industry having such enormous potential to generate jobs and wealth within our beautiful state of South Australia.

There is enormous potential for the commercial cultivation of hemp, including building products, fuels, paints, food products, cosmetics and plastics to name a few. If the state were to establish a regulatory framework for industrial cultivation, we would be putting ourselves on the same playing field as the other states and, as this state has a strong history as a manufacturing and technological hub, we would be well placed to attract further investment into the industry.

Late last year, the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC introduced a private member's bill, the Industrial Hemp Bill 2016 (a Franks bill), seeking to authorise and regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp in South Australia. I thank the honourable member from the other place for her advocacy on this issue. I am in favour of progressing the necessary steps, including introducing the regulatory framework for industrial hemp production. It would remove the current barriers to a potential new agricultural industry and bring South Australia into line with all other jurisdictions, except of course the Northern Territory.

As I stated earlier, this remains as a jurisdiction where commercial cultivation is currently unable to occur. Many industries, businesses and individuals would benefit from these opportunities, which include, as I have said, agriculture; construction, interestingly; retail, manufacturing and production of food; textiles; clothing; ecofuels and more. The government made minor amendments to the bill in the Legislative Council, and I will summarise these amendments that enhance the bill. They are:

a process for the renewal of a licence;

consideration of penalties to ensure they are consistent with other state legislation;

the inclusion of clear guidelines of what constitutes a 'fit and proper person';

that in addition to inspectors appointed by the chief executive of the relevant department, they will allow police officers to be defined as inspectors who can exercise the functions of an inspector under the legislation;

inclusion of a definition of 'criminal intelligence provisions';

a process to allow for the rectification of any breach of a licence; and

that the bill proposes to come into operation three months after assent, whereas it would be more appropriate for legislation to commence on proclamation.

The bill does not open up the cultivation of hemp for use in the manufacture of drugs or medicines at this stage, but it does open up boundless opportunities for these other new industries and for jobs and investment in South Australia.

I would like to state my support for investigation using evidence-based research around the provision of cannabis products for use in the treatment of medical conditions. Over the years, in my nursing role as well as in my parliamentary role, I have spoken with many people in the community about the use of cannabis oils, and I do see real opportunities for use in conditions where treatment currently is not effective. It is an adjunct for me rather than a complete medicine. The appropriate regulatory controls that will be put in place will be a fundamental principle of authorising and regulating the cultivation of industrial hemp in South Australia.

With the appropriate controls and legal framework, we will ensure that South Australia complies with any international treaty obligations, such as those defined by the United Nations Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs 1961. Currently in South Australia, there are a number of business operating the supply a range of hemp-based products, including skincare, cosmetics and clothing businesses, such as Ecolateral and Hemp Hemp Hooray. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, being the progressive woman that you are, have also used some of these hemp products yourself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually have a hemp outfit, but that's about as far as I go.

Ms COOK: Very impressive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't even breathe in when people breathe out.

Ms COOK: Perhaps we could invite Madam Deputy Speaker to wear it to parliament next sitting week for us to have a look.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will keep you guessing as to what day I will wear it.

Ms COOK: Fantastic, thank you. With legislative change, I really feel we could see dozens and dozens of new businesses develop in new industries, including those exporting their hemp-based products whilst boosting the state's finances. South Australia must remain a state of innovation and opportunity. We must not allow this very important opportunity to slip away. I welcome Mr and Mrs McDowell and the honourable member from the other place to the gallery to listen to this important speech, as well as those from other members. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (15:41): I also rise today to support this bill on industrial hemp. As we heard, it was introduced in another place by the Hon. Tammy Franks last year. It aims to legalise the cultivation of industrial hemp in the state. The bill seeks to change the Controlled Substances Act 1984 and authorise and regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp. When we as legislators seek to regulate this kind of product, obviously it is very important that we reach the right balance between the market and the consideration of the relevant and right safety and regulatory environment.

There is ample state legislation covering this area. South Australia, I believe, is the only state that does not allow this kind of industrial hemp to be cultivated. Various state legislation has one key difference: the THC limit that is allowed, which is the psychoactive compound found in hemp and marijuana. In states such as Victoria and WA, the THC max limit is 0.35 per cent in the leaves and flowering heads of hemp. In the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania there are two THC limits: the leaves and the flowering heads of the hemp plant have to have less than 1 per cent.

Hemp seed may only be used if it is supplied on the basis that it will not produce hemp plants with more than 0.5 per cent of THC in the leaves and flowering heads. I understand that the proposed bill adopts the latter limits prescribed in the respective ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmanian legislative frameworks, and it takes up the Tasmanian model.

Hemp has a relatively low concentration of THC: under 1 per cent. By contrast, the average marijuana plant could have anywhere from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. The framework created in this bill is very similar to another bill that was introduced and passed last year in another place concerning opium poppy legislation. In order to cultivate the desired hemp, a farmer would have to obtain a licence and also seek approval from the Chief Executive of PIRSA.

As you would expect, a vast array of checks and balances are required to screen any potential applicant because obviously, like any area, it is important that we have these checks and balances so that the process is not abused. There are powers for the chief executive to ask for documentation so that a report can be produced and also provided to the Commissioner of Police for review. There is a maximum term limit on the licences, and they can also be not only suspended but cancelled by the chief executive if a farmer actually breaches any of these conditions.

As we have heard, a wide array of products can be produced from hemp in all kinds of industries, ranging from the agriculture industry to textiles; recycling; the automotive industry; furniture; food and nutrition; beverages; paper construction materials; and personal care. The member for Bragg also alluded to some of the constitutional issues that may be raised. I trust that these have been looked at in the other place and also looked at by the government concerning section 109 of the constitution whenever a bill from the federal parliament is inconsistent with a state bill. I know that would have been looked at, and I trust that if there are any concerns that they will be perhaps fleshed out in the committee stage.

Overall, this has been a long time coming. This area has been ignored far too long by this government, and I look forward to seeing the bill progressed through the house and to this market developing here in South Australia, as it has in other states around Australia. Down the track, I look forward to a debate on other related areas, such as medical cannabis. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:46): I rise to speak on the Industrial Hemp Bill and provide my support for the bill and the proposed amendments. As we progress the bill to committee stage, I am sure that there will be more specific questions around particular amendments. This bill essentially aims to legalise the cultivation of industrial hemp in South Australia by seeking to amend the Controlled Substances Act 1984 to authorise and regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp.

Currently, South Australia remains the only state in which it is illegal to cultivate industrial hemp. I would say that the Riverland's economy could very well benefit from the cultivation of industrial hemp, and I understand that there has been interest from farmers and landowners in this area. I know that particularly in the Riverland they have the right temperature, the right sunlight hours and also the right humidity and environment, as I understand it (not being an expert in this area), to produce the right fibre length in the plant.

In order to cultivate hemp, a farmer must obtain a licence and approval from the Chief Executive of PIRSA, and a number of checks and balances are in place to screen potential applicants, including powers for the CE to require documentation so that a report can be produced and provided to the Commissioner of Police to review. Licences are limited to a maximum five-year period and may be suspended or cancelled by the CE if a farmer breaches conditions. The chief executive also has the powers to order inspections, and the inspector may seize material or take samples.

The bill is limited to the cultivation of hemp and does not seek to amend any other legislation that may affect its issues and does not touch on medical cannabis. The new laws will limit the level of THC (the substance associated with the psychoactive properties of marijuana) in any crops grown in South Australia. As the Hon. Kyam Maher said in the other place:

…the amendments create the regulatory and licensing framework that is, in part, borrowed from the work done by the Hon. David Ridgway in his bill to allow the growing of poppies in South Australia and what was inserted into the Controlled Substances Act in relation to that.

What I would like to say is that this is just another example of what could be achieved if this bill were passed, what could be achieved as another diversified crop here in South Australia. It is an opportunity for South Australia to benefit. Sadly, it shows that we are lagging behind with a product that we can grow, can use, to help our economy. We can contribute to the potential of industrial hemp and be part of a greater platform to bigger and better things.

Legalising the cultivation of hemp would enable South Australian farmers to access another crop that is currently being farmed in other parts of the country, other parts of the world, and the state Liberals will always support initiatives that benefit our regions and primary producers. If farmers decide that it is commercially viable to farm a particular crop, then cultivating industrial hemp could present a great opportunity for some of the primary producers to do so, particularly in the Riverland.

I am a very strong advocate for any diversification in farming practices, particularly in the Riverland and in the Mallee. We cannot forget those two great growing regions, great agricultural pioneers, if you like. I know that the Mallee Sustainable Farming group have been pioneers in introducing new styles, new methods of farming, and I think they would also be a very strong advocate and a good, progressive tool in helping to understand how South Australia could grow industrial hemp or be part of the industry, as well as to progress how we grow it and make it a bigger, better and stronger product.

It is also my understanding that in Victoria and Western Australia the THC maximum limit for industrial hemp is 0.35 per cent in the leaves and flowering heads of a hemp plant. In the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania there are two THC limits: the leaves and flowering heads of a hemp plant must have less than 1 per cent, while hemp seed may only be used if supplied on the basis that it will not produce hemp plants with THC in its leaves and flowering heads of more than 0.5 per cent. The bill before the chamber adopts the latter of the limits described in the respective ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmanian legislative frameworks and is based upon the Tasmanian model.

When the Hon. Tammy Franks—and I welcome her here to the chamber—introduced this bill here last year, I attended a showcase held in the parliamentary library relating to industrial hemp product and was delighted to see the diversity of products for which industrial hemp can be used. If it is allowed to be grown and produced in South Australia, I am sure it could also be one of the great leaders in being able to develop new products, to develop some of the new technologies that I am sure would be a great platform to adhere to if this bill were passed.

Overseas, many fibre operations are subsidised by the food and oil markets where hemp seed is used to make medicinal products, milk, cereals, granola, cakes and flour. The Hemp Business Journal has circulated that US sales of hemp products in the 2015 year are 25 per cent greater than the 2014 total of $400 million. The Hemp Industry Association estimated that US hemp product sales in 2014 reached a massive $620 million.

There are 36 countries throughout Asia, Europe, South America, Africa and North America that permit hemp production, so more than 30 industrialised nations, including Canada, cultivate industrial hemp for commercial purposes. As an example of the investment in the industry in Canada, to meet increasing demand for hemp foods Manitoba-based Hemp Oil Canada built a $14 million processing plant to triple its production capacity. Now, that is something I think South Australia could get on the back of.

We do not have to export the raw product to Canada, but what we can do is grow that product and value-add it here in South Australia. Providing that we can deal with the high cost of power, I am sure it would be a great industry that we can support and grow. Industrial hemp can be used legally through throughout the Australian commonwealth for fibre, topical oil and processed cannabis products other than food for human consumption or as a medical product.

Victorian farmer Harry Youngman took part in a trial recently. He said, 'The market is very much, in the first instance, for seed production, but we'd like to set up a business that will look at the hurd, which comes from the stalk—it's used for biodegradable plastics—and fibre aspects of it as well. We see a lot of potential in the industry—we just need to master growing hemp. We harvest using a normal header, then windrow, dry and bale to stalk. The only difficulty is the regulatory requirements which is really just police checks that can take up to two months.' I hope that South Australia can stream like that. As I understand it, the short growing period of between 100 and 120 days is a big advantage, and it can be grown in most soils using conventional machinery. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:56): I will make a few short remarks, although I was not going to speak on the bill but I am going to. I am not going to oppose the bill, I am going to support it, but I want to sound a couple of notes of caution about the bill. First of all, I understand the economic arguments and the case made by the proponents of the bill in regard to the economic opportunity linked to the industrial production of hemp.

I have been involved in the use of hemp. In fact, when I first learned to abseil, repel and descend from helicopters in the Army it was using hemp ropes. They have wide application, and I understand their applicability, but I must say I have some concerns that the proponents of the bill and some who are supporting and pushing the bill earnestly may see it as an opportunity to open the door to the recreational use of hemp.

I know that people are saying that will not be the case, but my experience with these matters in parliament is that they tend to be incremental: you pass one measure, then pretty soon somebody comes in with a bill to amend that act and to add new aspects to it. These things creep up, and pretty soon you are talking about the industrial use of hemp having established the industry on a commercial basis for non-recreational purposes. That gets back to the core issue about marijuana and hemp and their recreational use.

I know there are diverse views in the community about this issue, but I must say that I was convinced by Professor Susan Greenfield, former Thinker in Residence and expert on the brain, in her final presentation to Adelaide prior to her departure. She assembled one of the largest audiences I have seen in the Convention Centre to share her views on her experiences as Thinker in Residence. Someone got up and asked her about the recreational use of cannabis and its effect on the brain, I think assuming that her response would be supportive of its use. Quite to the contrary, she then proceeded in about a 20-minute dissection to explain, from her scientific experience, the effect of recreational cannabis on the human brain and the damage that she had seen it cause to patient after patient after patient.

For those who might argue at a later time that the recreational use of cannabis is a good thing, I refer them to Professor Greenfield and to many in the medical and scientific community who have strongly divergent views. It is a blight on many families. The continual and abusive recreational use of cannabis addles the brain. I have seen this within my own extended family. It has caused chaos, mayhem and tragedy to individuals in my extended family. It is a blight on society and on families, along with most illicit drugs.

I simply signal that I for one will be looking to see whether the economic benefits that have been promised in arguing for this bill are delivered. I ask the question: if it is such a good deal, why is everybody else not doing it? Producing industrial hemp and poppies for that matter, which is the other side of the argument in respect of opiates, which I know has been put forward by the Hon. David Ridgway in the other place and others, is fine.

However, if you talk to any family—and my family is one of them—that has suffered terrible losses at the hands of illicit drugs of one form or another, including marijuana, it is no laughing matter; it is bloody serious. If the arguments that have seen this bill come before the house stand up and we finish up creating a new industry with economic benefits, and provided that it does not extend into a subsequent argument about recreational use, will that not be a good thing?

I have listened to member after member get up and herald the benefits of this bill, but I for one want to signal a note of caution. I think all of us need to go into this with our eyes wide open because some of the proponents of this have another agenda. Some may think that is a great agenda, but I am not one them. I will be looking very carefully at the outcomes of the bill and I hope that we are not here in this parliament in a year or two saying, 'Now that we have opened the gate to the production of industrial hemp, why don't we just broaden out its applicability?'

I also note that the opinions of the medical community are diverse on the benefits of the medicinal use of cannabis. I have seen the various documentaries and I have heard people argue the case, but I observe that there is an element of zealotry in a lot of arguments that I hear—those who enthusiastically purport change on matters such as this and other issues, such as euthanasia and same-sex marriage. There are lots of issues and people tend to be very zealous on both sides of the argument.

I recently noted an argument in the media that this can sometimes verge on bullying behaviour: 'If you don't agree with me, then you're a terrible person and you're against progressive change in our community.' I do not swallow any of that. I just look very clinically at whether or not the arguments are true. I have seen the economic arguments, I hope that they are right and I hope that we are not here creating an industry that proves not to deliver the economic benefits that we have been promised.

Most importantly, I can tell you that I will be watching this most closely because I hope we do not ever get to a stage—and I am sure that Professor Susan Greenfield would agree with me—where as a parliament we are saying to young people and people of all ages everywhere, 'It's okay to go away and smoke marijuana.' Alcohol is just as bad and so is tobacco, by the way; they both have their own outcomes. I hope we are never in a position where we are signalling to young people or people anywhere that it is okay to go out and abuse yourself with the recreational use of marijuana—because it delivers heartbreak and ruin.

Often, people do lose control of their ability to manage their use of marijuana, and as a parliament we need to be a gatekeeper to protect the emotional, mental and physical health of those we represent. I will not be opposing the measure, but I can tell you that I will be taking a very keen interest in its progress.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:03): I rise to speak on the Industrial Hemp Bill that was introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks in the other place to legalise the cultivation of industrial hemp in South Australia. Currently, South Australia remains the only state in which it is illegal to cultivate industrial hemp. We have heard from speakers before me about the benefits that this material can bring as a cloth, as well as all the other uses it might have, and that the industry could present itself as a result of its legalisation.

We have talked about the THC level and that South Australia will be following the model of the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania to have the limits of THC at the very low end. Of course, THC is the chemical hallucinogen that we often refer to when talking about hemp in the social sense, as the member for Waite was discussing before.

I do not want to go too deeply into the discussion he had about recreational use. I do not think anyone condones that at all. More explicitly, I think 'recreational use' is perhaps a poor term and it should more correctly be called illicit drug use, but that is not what this bill is about. There are opportunities from an industrial point of view. As the shadow minister for industry, I think we are always looking for ways to grow industry in South Australia and catch up with the other states, and this could well be one.

So, put aside the illicit use we have talked about, which is not what this bill is about. Let's make it abundantly clear that this bill is not about illicit use: it is about using hemp as an industrial tool for the benefits that can come from the cloth, fabric and whatever can be made from industrial hemp. That is the point of this bill. The legislative framework of this bill is similar to the bill put forward by the state Liberal Party. The Hon. David Ridgway in the upper house put forward his opium poppy legislation, which was passed last year. That was a great bill that again looked to find more industry in South Australia.

In order for a farmer to cultivate hemp, the licence must be approved by the Chief Executive of PIRSA, which is just one of the ways in which this will be policed and managed. I notice that the state government has provided a number of amendments with the aim of ensuring that this is appropriately regulated and that the security requirements are met. I trust that these amendments will bring the legislative framework in line with the existing poppy legislative framework, so I think the structure there is very positive.

Again, we are talking about this from an industrial point of view. As I said, as shadow minister for industry, I think we need to be looking at every opportunity we have in South Australia. We saw today in the ABS employment data that again South Australia is the worst state in the nation, which is incredibly sad and disappointing to see. For 28 months now, we have been the worst state in the nation on trend. Today, at 7 per cent, South Australia is the worst seasonally adjusted as well. The national figure is 5.9 per cent, so South Australia is a big outlier. We are the only state in the 7 per cent category, and that is really disheartening.

That is where this government has got us. We are looking for industries that we can lift up, grow and expand in South Australia. With this bill coming before the house, we see this as one such industry. I again go back to the point the member for Waite made just before me. I think he referred to it as recreational; I will refer to it as illicit drug use. Can I stress that this bill is in no way tied to that.

This is about industrial hemp and creating an industry to produce a product of cloth and material that can be used in a variety of different ways that very strictly has a very low level of THC, which is the compound often found in hemp and marijuana. Keeping it at that very low level will ensure that the product is safe and will not have any bearing on the illicit drug scene, and we will be producing a product that can be utilised in many ways for the benefit of industry in South Australia. To that end, I support the bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:08): I rise today to speak on the Industrial Hemp Bill, which was introduced in the other place by the Hon. Tammy Franks and which has moved to this place with support from both government and the opposition. I will speak in support of the bill as well.

I come to this as a primary producer. I know many aspects of this bill have been canvassed during the debate but, as a primary producer, I have been an agriculturalist for almost 40 years now. Time flies when you are having fun. I really believe that it is not a government's place ever to tell our farmers what they can or cannot grow. From that perspective, this provides an opportunity for our growers in South Australia. That said, it is most likely that, under South Australian conditions, this is going to require irrigation, which of course counts out a big part of this state without access to irrigation water or any groundwater.

The bill seeks to amend the Controlled Substances Act 1984 to authorise and regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp. As the previous speaker stressed, it is about industrial hemp. Taking on board the member for Waite's comments too, this is purely and simply about the industrial opportunities that exist for this plant, which has been grown for some 8,000 to 10,000 years. In fact, it was one of the earliest plants cultivated by humankind and has its origins in the Northern Hemisphere, in China and Japan.

Currently, South Australia remains the only state in which it is illegal to cultivate industrial hemp. One key difference in the various states' legislation is the THC limit permitted. THC is the psychoactive compound in hemp and marijuana. In Victoria and Western Australia, the THC maximum limit is 0.35 per cent in the leaves and flowering heads of the hemp plant. In the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, there are two THC limits: the leaves and flowering heads of a hemp plant must have less than 1 per cent, while hemp seed may only be used if supplied on the basis that it will not produce hemp plants with THC in its leaves and flowering heads of more than 0.5 per cent. It does not sound very much.

The proposed bill adopts the latter limits prescribed in the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania legislative frameworks and adopts the Tasmanian model. In fact, Tasmania has not only an industrial hemp industry but also a poppy industry, which the shadow minister for agriculture, the Hon. David Ridgway in the other place, successfully introduced legislation for earlier this year. Hemp has a relatively low concentration of THC, being under 1 per cent. By way of contrast, the average marijuana plant could have anything between 15 and 20 per cent.

The legislative framework in the bill is similar to that of the state Liberals' opium poppy legislation I just mentioned, and there are a number of checks and balances in place to screen potential applicants, including powers for the chief executive to require documentation so that a report can be produced and provided to the Commissioner of Police for review. I can say to the house that landowners and agricultural producers in my electorate have already made approaches to me seeking to explore the opportunities that might present themselves when this legislation passes.

Licences are limited to a maximum of a five-year period and may be suspended or cancelled by the chief executive if a farmer breaches conditions. The CE also has powers that mirror those in the opium poppy legislation to order inspections in which the inspector may seize material and take samples. It will be highly regulated. The state government has provided a number of amendments, the majority of which bring the legislative framework in line with the existing opium poppy legislative framework.

The bill is limited to the cultivation of hemp and does not seek to amend any other legislation that may affect its uses and does not touch on medical cannabis. Legalising the cultivation of hemp will enable South Australian farmers to access another crop that is currently being farmed around Australia—another potential opportunity and another crop that farmers can use in their farming system and in their rotation. No doubt, it will have agronomic characteristics that could potentially be of great benefit to intensive cropping systems and rotations.

In the end, I have come to the conclusion that this is a natural product. It has been produced in the east in the Northern Hemisphere for some 8,000 to 10,000 years, and we are simply catching up with the rest of the world. Its uses are wide and well known. It can be used as a food. Probably most commonly it is known for fibre production. In fact, Deputy Speaker, you have an article of clothing, I think, made from hemp.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a two-piece outfit. I may wear them together to shock you all.

Mr TRELOAR: No doubt you look very smart in it. How long have you had it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since the Rainbow Warrior was at Port Adelaide the very first time, in about 1998. It is vintage.

Mr TRELOAR: I am sure you still have occasion to wear it, so that is nice. Certainly, it has historically been used for fibre, rope, sailcloth and things like that. It can be used as building material in hemp fibreboard, for insulation blocks and for acoustics, and it is even used in lightweight, convenient and relatively cheap concrete building blocks sometimes used in Europe. It can be used for plastic and composite materials. Most of the plastics we use are based on the petrochemical industry. By contrast, this is a natural and renewable product that can be used for all sorts of plastics and things we require in the modern world.

It can be used for water and soil purification, and as a farmer I picked up on this. Hemp can be used as a mop crop to clear impurities from wastewater such as sewage effluent, excessive phosphorus from chicken litter or other unwanted substances or chemicals—all products of the modern world and our modern urban and agricultural systems. In the rotation, it can be used for weed control and, obviously, biofuels.

In Australian circumstances, it would need to be sown in the early spring. It grows rapidly. It would probably be sown here in about August and harvested towards the end of spring and early summer. It matures in about three to four months. As the member for Chaffey mentioned, often in more intensive farm situations, it is hand weeded and hand harvested, but on a more broadacre approach modern farming machinery and equipment can be used to harvest and process this crop. It is widely grown around the world, although the total acreage is not great.

My reading suggests that France is the biggest producer in the world, with about 70 per cent of the world's output. The opportunities are relatively niche; it will be a niche market. It is not going to provide opportunities for all our agricultural producers, but certainly we see it as having potential growth. From an agronomic and agricultural perspective, I am quite excited about the opportunity to give our farmers in South Australia another crop in their armoury and the potential to make a productive contribution to the state's agricultural sector.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:17): I would like to thank all the speakers in the debate on the Industrial Hemp Bill, particularly the members for Reynell, Fisher, Bragg, Mitchell, Hammond, Stuart, Chaffey, Flinders, Hartley and Waite. We heard some excellent contributions on both sides discussing what will hopefully be a new and growing industry for South Australia. As people think about this topic, they immediately think about high THC uses for this plant, but I think that most speakers have properly understood that the limits of this bill are to those low THC uses that are allowed in law in every state around the country.

When we find that something is legal in every other state and not legal here, it is either because we are leading the way or because we need to take some steps to address our laws. This is definitely a case where we have needed to take some steps to address our laws. On behalf of the government, I particularly thank the Hon. Tammy Franks in the other place for bringing this issue to the parliament's attention via the bill. I also thank minister Kyam Maher in the other place for his work on this with his task force, as well as his officers, including Lou Jansen and other people in the Department of State Development, and his adviser Andrew Christie.

I would particularly like to thank those people who have been campaigning on this issue and are involved in the industry, particularly Teresa McDowell and Graeme Parsons, who are here today in the chamber. I am also aware of Dianah Mieglich, who is very proactive on Twitter in supporting this industry and has been supportive today. Thank you to all of them for helping to educate people on this issue and on the importance of addressing this industry for South Australia. I would also like to thank Gemma Paech from my office for her work on this bill. I hope that it receives wide support from the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.