Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Hydroponics Industry Control Bill HYDROPONICS INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). (Continued from page 3591.) The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:09): Prior to the lunch break I was discussing this bill and I said in closing that I would like the minister—given that this is one of very few bills where the commissioner is able to be directed by the minister—to give an explanation as to why that is the case. I also note that the commissioner will approve applications for someone to be a hydroponics industry employee based on the same assessment, and attracting an application fee of around $600 along with a $150 annual fee. Members in the chamber realise that the opposition is likely to support this bill, but this does seem to be a reasonably large amount of money for an application fee and an annual fee and I am interested to know how the fees have been arrived at. The bill also outlines the licence application process and that a $20,000 fine accompanies contravention of any of the licensing requirements. The commissioner assesses all applications on the basis of a 'fit and proper person' test; namely, discretion will be used as to an applicant's reputation, honesty, integrity and whether they have committed prescribed offences. The advice to the opposition was that these would be drug and firearm offences in the preceding five years. I guess if it had been longer than five years (in a previous decade) then the person may still be able to get a licence, so I would like some clarification of that. As indicated before, the licence fee and annual fee seem quite high, and the Retailers Association is concerned about those licensing costs. Assistant commissioner Harrison indicated that SAPOL is currently considering the same schedule that is used within the security industry, so I would like the minister to table a copy of the schedule that is used in the security industry so that we can compare them. The Second-hand Goods Bill, which has yet to be debated in the House of Assembly, has a list or schedule of fees that OCBA has, we believe, just created. We do not know where they have come from. We are more than happy to support the fees if they are consistent with other practices within the community, so we would like to see some evidence of where they have come from. The Retailers Association also expressed concern regarding the transitional provisions which state that, at the inception of the new legislation, a hydroponics business can only carry on a business until a licence is achieved or until three months expires, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Harrison, in our briefing, said that he believes that SAPOL has the resources to evaluate all licence applications within that period. I would like an assurance from the minister that that is the case because, if there are not enough resources to process the licence fees, somebody wanting to carry on a business legitimately and abide by all the terms and conditions laid out in this legislation may be trading illegally simply because their application has not been processed. With regard to online transactions and monitoring, a number of concerns were raised by the Retailers Association relating to the ability to provide real-time information on transactions. The bill provides that only prescribed information will be required of the buyer at the point of sale and that the licence holder will have to transfer such information to the commissioner as prescribed, which would possibly be electronically. The opposition is interested to know what information is required: is it just the sale of the prescribed goods or is it other prescribed information? Will there be a demand that it be provided electronically and, if not—which, of course, we know can be virtually instantaneously—is it then provided in a hard copy, and what timeframe or what delay would be permissible? It is also worth noting that the information system will be controlled by SAPOL, rather than OCBA, because they believe that much of the online system is already in place. That leads the opposition to believe that it will be electronic. In a stakeholder information paper issued by SAPOL, it stated that licensed businesses will all require a computer. I suspect that these days most businesses have some sort of computer, albeit a small computer, to run bookkeeping and accounting software and most tills are electronic these days. A significant number of licence fee payments will be expected to be made, and there will also be a requirement on business owners to invest in a computer, which I am sure will have to be compatible in such a way that the information provided to the police will be compatible with the police system. SAPOL asserts that the change will be phased in and businesses will be provided with a grace period, training and advice. SAPOL goes on to say that licensed dealers will not be disadvantaged in any way. Members can see from what has been said that there is a potential for some conflict, in that existing businesses will be required to have their systems in place and that, if they do not do so, they will not be licensed; but then, on the other hand, they will not be disadvantaged in any way. I would like the minister to give the opposition some assurance that that will not be the case. While we may go into committee today, it might be better for the minister to respond in clause 1 when we resume in a couple of weeks. The bill adds a significant amount of red tape for the industry. Although it is a shame that we see this increase in red tape, we believe that this is probably required to make the industry less vulnerable to serious and organised crime. I am sure that this is an area of interest for the police and the community; we all want to stamp out the scourge of drugs in our community. I am a little concerned about this type of regulation in relation to other activities in the community. The second-hand goods bill has yet to be debated in the House of Assembly, and that bill is designed to capture issues in relation to stolen motor vehicles and a whole range of products. I can just see the potential for good law abiding second-hand motor vehicle dealers and second-hand dealers to be captured in a red tape burden in an effort to try to clamp down on some illegal activities, none of which is of their own doing. In the hydroponics industry, potentially, this could be where you have people selling products as a bit of a package deal—buying the equipment, growing the crop and selling the crop back: we will deduct the value of the equipment and you get the profit! In relation to second-dealers, I am concerned that this legislation will open the door for an increased red tape burden on good, law abiding business people in South Australia. We understand that the bill is not perfect in terms of stopping all the transactions involved in the cultivation of cannabis. As I mentioned earlier, there is a whole range of other ways in which these goods can be traded, such as eBay and other online trading systems, and I suspect SAPOL will have some difficulty in monitoring those. Nonetheless, the opposition sees this as probably the way forward to help frustrate the industry. As assistant commissioner Harrison commented in our briefing, whilst this will not capture every transaction, it will be a way of making it more difficult and closing off the easily available access points. Thankfully, I did say to the minister's representatives that I wanted a copy of the submissions provided to SAPOL on this issue. I have received a copy of those, and I thank the minister's office for that. It is interesting to note that I asked for submissions on this particular bill and also the second-hand goods bill. I have been provided with all the submissions for this bill, but for the second-hand goods bill I have received only a sanitised copy of a summary of the submissions. I am disappointed about that because I think that bill has more far-reaching implications for South Australian businesses than this bill has. With those few comments, I indicate that the opposition supports the second reading of this bill, and I look forward to further debate during the committee stage. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:20): I understand that all members who wish to speak to this particular bill have already done so. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the bill. The Hon. Mr Ridgway asked a number of questions before and after the lunch adjournment. In relation to his comments before the lunch adjournment, I can say that he is correct in his assertion that the Commissioner of Police will effectively have the combined responsibility for the policing of the legislation and the judicial role, but this is not unusual. Pursuant to the Firearms Act 1977, for example, the commissioner is responsible for the policing of the legislation as well as making many administrative decisions, including whether a person is suitable to hold a firearms licence or a firearms dealer's licence. As with the Firearms Act, the hydroponics bill contains checks and balances, including provision for a retailer or industry employee to appeal directly to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court if they are dissatisfied with the commissioner's decision. Further to this, the commissioner must report each year to the minister on the operation of the legislation. This report must be tabled in the parliament within six days of the receipt of the report. A final check is in place in that the minister is required, as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of the legislation, to review the operation and effectiveness of the act. The Hon. Mr Ridgway is also correct in his assertion that, subject to clause 5 of the bill, the minister will be able to direct the commissioner. Section 8 of the Police Act 1998 requires the Minister for Police to gazette and lay before the parliament any direction he gives the Commissioner of Police. These provisions are quite broad, but essentially relate to the administration of that act. Clause 5 of the bill makes it clear that any direction given by the minister to the police commissioner under the hydroponics legislation will not be subject to section 8 of the Police Act 1998. The minister will therefore not be required to gazette or table those directions in parliament. The provisions are there not to permit the minister to direct the commissioner on daily operational decisions: rather, they relate purely to the administration of the act. Members will note that, pursuant to clause 9 of the bill, the minister may exempt certain persons or class of persons from the act or certain provisions of the act. The minister, in granting these exemptions, must inform the commissioner and direct him or her as to this decision and exempt the person from the licensing regime. This daily administration of legislation is not something that I would expect the parliament would want to concern itself with. The honourable member did raise some other questions. For example, I think he asked whether the operators of hydroponics shops would need to invest in computers. My advice is that probably that will be the case. As I understand it, the administration of this act will work in much the same way as the second-hand dealer's and pawnbroker's licence but, obviously, to make the operation of acts like this effective, you really do need some real-time connection of the computer systems. My understanding is that businesses will not be in the position of trading illegally if their applications are processed. I understand that the legislation puts the onus on SAPOL to ensure that, within the three month transition period, all licences are applied. Perhaps when we resume debate on clause 1 during the committee stage I will provide some further detail in relation to the other questions asked by the honourable member. At this point, I again thank members for their contribution to the bill and look forward to its passage before the end of this year. Bill read a second time.