Read into Hansard on Wednesday 14th October 2015
INDUSTRIAL HEMP BILL 2015 (No. 47)
Second Reading
[4.31 p.m.]
Mr VALENTINE (Hobart) – Mr President, I too support this bill. I have had some concerns with the degree of strictures that exist to some extent but we go in steps. It is important this bill goes through. Much has been said on it so I am not going to repeat everything that has been said already.
I did go to an AGM of the hemp growers association in the north-west. It was probably a couple of years ago now. I had a chat to some of the farmers interested in getting into this crop for all sorts of good reasons. It is an extra rotational crop; it is something which provides a real opportunity for farmers. Yes, I guess it is to be proven how viable it is in terms of the margins, as the honourable member for Western Tiers has stated.
Let us remember, it was hemp which was used all those years ago for ropes, sails and all sorts of things. It was a product heavily relied on. Here we are in the year 2015, and we are about to see it brought back into the realms of production again on a major scale. The opportunity is there.
I had some work done on looking at the uses. Some members have talked about the uses for this product. I would like to run through a few that were compiled for me. In terms of consumption: whole seeds, raw or toasted; hemp seed flour for pastas, cake mixes and breads; hemp seed oil in salad oils; health food products; hemp seed protein used to produce virtually any product made from soya bean, tofu, vegetable burgers, butter, cheese, ice-creams, milks; it can be brewed into beer and fermented into wine; topical applications such as massage oils, soaps, body butter, deodorant, insect repellent, cosmetics, detergent.
The fibre can be used in textiles, clothing and manchester. I sleep on hemp sheets every night, ladies and gentlemen. I am still here. I have not tried smoking them. They heat up very quickly, I can tell you that.
Members laughing.
Paper, from tissue paper to cardboard. That is interesting, isn’t it? We have this big debate in Tasmania about forestry plantations and the need for paper and export. Here we are, we have a product which, as far as I am aware, has a higher fibre content per cubic metre than eucalypts.
Mr Armstrong – Expensive paper.
Mr Dean – We could set up a pulp mill here for them.
Mr VALENTINE – It is interesting, isn’t it? The advantage is that it is an annual crop. You do not have to wait 20 years for it to mature. It is far more flexible in terms of being able to provide the fibre. If you come to a point where there is a glut or there is more being produced than is needed, a farmer can go on to something else. They do not have their land tied up with plantation timber. Who knows what might come of this particular bill passing?
It can be used for rope, carpet, nets and webbing. It can be used for construction and building materials. It is fire and moisture-resistant. It can be used for fibre board. It can be used for planks to make pallets for transporting goods. It can be used for insulation. Hempcrete is a lighter and more flexible option to concrete which is good in earthquake-prone regions. It is strong, durable and biodegradable in plastics. It can be used in paint, it can be used for varnish, and for ink. It can be used for fuel, industrial oils, biofuel production, non-toxic diesel fuel, and ethanol fuel. It can be used in batteries for solar power made from hemp waste. There are something like 50 000 uses for this product and I am not going to read them all out. The member for Murchison is going to be very pleased about that.
I, too, read the article that the member for Launceston read out. It was an article by David P. West, who is a PhD, for the North American Industrial Hemp Council. That was in 1998 at Wisconsin. It was about myths and realities, and that has already been covered. It is a fact that really, while it is not impossible to obviously grow marijuana in a hemp crop, it is absolutely non-advantageous because they are harvested at different times. It would be more a nuisance than it was worth.
Ms Forrest – It would be pretty obvious, wouldn’t it?
Mr VALENTINE – It would be pretty obvious. Indeed, trying to manage those two things just would not work. It would actually degrade any of the marijuana crop because it would cross‑pollinate and it would reduce its potency and all of those things. I do not think that there is an issue, I do not think there is a problem. It is wonderful for farmers. It is a great opportunity for this state. I wholeheartedly support it.
Bill read the second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
…
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 – Suitability of applicant
Mr MULDER – This once again relates to the suitability of the applicant, which is the nub of my concerns. Why should you have any criteria of suitability when you grow a legitimate crop? My concern is if you are a fit and proper person and you have a history behind you, it is like saying any person who has ever been to jail cannot engage in legitimate business. I have some deep concerns about that. Here we have someone who wants to turn legitimate and you are saying to them, no, you cannot and only on the basis you have an illegitimate past. We are talking about legalising the product here, not criminalising it. I have those concerns about suitability. I invite defeat once again but without going through the other process.
Mr VALENTINE – My query is, because this plant is on the poisons register, does that make this something mandatory in terms of how we licence the product? Is that the reason we have a lot of this regulation in force? Perhaps the Leader might be able to answer that question.
Dr GOODWIN – This is about any other fit and competent person test around licensing. It is about determining whether someone is suitable to be engaged in this particular business given the risks of illicit cannabis cultivation and supply, trafficking, et cetera. These are matters which could potentially be taken into consideration by the secretary after making inquiries. The criminal history check is one part of that. It may not be every conviction can be relevant. If they have been convicted of a serious offence such as drug trafficking you would think that would be something the secretary would be looking very carefully at.
…
Mr VALENTINE – Madam Deputy Chair, my question is in respect to discrimination. Is this clause in danger of people being discriminated against? We are talking about a product which is no longer illegal, it is not a drug and yet here we are saying that people who have had a previous conviction cannot grow it. I ask whether the discrimination side has been looked at, if you can give me that answer.
Dr GOODWIN – We have a whole range of ‘fit and proper person’ tests in a range of different contexts. We have them for occupational licensing, registration to work with children and eventually vulnerable people, liquor licences, poppy growing –
Mr Dean – Joining the police –
Dr GOODWIN – Police, yes. We have them in this context. This is not unusual. You talk about discrimination on the basis of criminal history. That happens in a range of settings and for good reasons. This is about managing risk at the application stage. There are concerns around the growing of industrial hemp and potential for that to be exploited with the growing of illicit cannabis as well. The licensing requirements in the act are based on other jurisdictions. They have been developed with Tasmania Police and the Chief Pharmacist to ensure appropriate regulation.
…
The Committee divided –
AYES 7 NOES 7
Mrs Armitage Mr Armstrong
Mr Farrell (Teller) Mr Dean
Mr Finch Dr Goodwin
Mr Forrest Mr Hall
Mr Gaffney Mrs Hiscutt
Ms Rattray Mr Mulder (Teller)
Mr Valentine Mrs Taylor
Motion negatived.
…
Mrs ARMITAGE – I am going to try this. Madam Deputy Chair, I move –
That clause 8 be postponed.
This is to make a different amendment to the member for Murchison’s.
For consistency, I would like subclauses (1) and (2) to say ‘the Secretary may refuse to’.
Dr Goodwin – You cannot have them granting a licence to someone who is not a fit and proper person.
Mrs ARMITAGE – Or (2). Otherwise it becomes mandatory. I do not believe in taking a whole clause out but I do not like the mandatory aspect, certainly in subclause (2).
Dr Goodwin – It is possible for someone else to postpone.
…
Mr VALENTINE – I am going to show my ignorance. There is a definite difference. The secretary ‘must not’ grant means they cannot do anything but refuse if these conditions are met. ‘May not’ gives that opportunity for the secretary to think about all of the circumstances associated with this. He may not – I agree that it may be captured in (3) but the word ‘must’ is still in there and there is every good reason to change it to ‘may’.
…
Clause 8 postponed.
Clause 9 – Criminal history of applicant
…
Dr GOODWIN – You have to read these in conjunction with the Annulled Convictions Act because there is a reference in the definition of criminal history to the Annulled Convictions Act. There is a capacity under part 2 of the Annulled Convictions Act for minor convictions after a certain period of time to be annulled for good behaviour. You do need to read those two together.
Mr VALENTINE – We are looking into the criminal history of the applicant in this section. I had a little bit of a look at the Poisons Act part 5, Special provisions relating to narcotics, prohibited plants and prohibited substances. Clause 53 of that act says, ‘Minister’s discretion to grant or refuse licences. The grant or refusal of a licence under this part lies in the discretion of the Minister’. That is all it says.
Dr GOODWIN – There is another section which talks about convictions similar to the wording of 8(3)(a) in section 17.
Mr Valentine – Section 17 of the Poisons Act?
Dr GOODWIN – Yes.
…
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Read into Hansard on Thursday 15th October
[11.44 a.m.]
Postponed clause 8 – Suitability of applicant
Mrs ARMITAGE – Mr Chairman, I move –
That clause 8(2) be amended after ‘Secretary’, by leaving out ‘must not’ and inserting instead ‘may refuse to’.
…
Mr VALENTINE – I thank the member for Launceston for digging up that information with regard to discrimination. She would remember I raised yesterday that we could be in danger of breaching discrimination issues.
I looked further into the Poisons Act and that governs the opium poppies. Under section 17 of the Poisons Act 1971 –
The Minister, in his discretion, may refuse –
(a) to grant to a person applying therefor a licence under section 16; or
(b) to renew a licence granted to a person under that section –
if that person has been, or is, convicted of an offence against this Act or of an enactment repealed by this Act of such a nature that in the opinion of the Minister (having regard to the nature of the offence and to all the circumstances of the case) it would be contrary to the public interest if that person were granted such a licence or, as the case may be, if such a licence granted to him were to continue in force.
Quite clearly there is a difference – there it is the minister while here we are talking about the secretary, but the same principle applies. The fact is that it is ‘may refuse’ and for that reason the amendment that is being put forward by the member for Launceston, to my mind, takes away the mandatory nature of it. That is important for all sorts of reasons. It may have been 50 years ago that somebody transgressed. It may have been yesterday. In that case, there is that opportunity to be able to say, ‘Well, in this case, it cannot be issued. In this other case, it can be.’ The discretion needs to be there to make sure that natural justice applies across the board.
I would be supportive of ‘may refuse to’ and not ‘must not’. In subclause (1), in that part of clause 8 it says, ‘The Secretary must not grant a licence to an applicant unless satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person.’ There is discretion there, too. That is fine, even though it says ‘must not’. There is discretion there.
Ms Rattray – Do you not acknowledge that there is discretion in (3) as well?
Mr VALENTINE – There is.
Ms Rattray – Why do you need two?
Mr VALENTINE – I am going to be listening to other contributions as to whether I support yours, or whether I support the member for Launceston’s. The important thing is, ‘may refuse’ is very important in this case. It reduces any discrimination that might able to be pointed.
…
The committee divided –
AYES 9 NOES 5
Mrs Armitage Mr Armstrong
Mr Finch Mr Dean
Mr Forrest (Teller) Mr Farrell (Teller)
Mr Gaffney Mr Hall
Dr Goodwin Mr Mulder
Mrs Hiscutt
Ms Rattray
Mrs Taylor
Mr Valentine
Amendment agreed to.
…
Clause 8 as amended agreed to.
…
Bill taken through the remainder of the Committee stage.
Read the full debate for 14th October here and 15th October here