Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3392 ..

take water from within the ACT catchment for the irrigation of any crop, or certainly any large-scale or commercial growing of industrial hemp, within the ACT.

I think the things we would look at here in our determination to develop sustainable water systems and appropriate and strategic use of the limited water that we have available would not lead us to be exploring cash crops that require irrigation or require amounts of water simply to sustain them. My advice, although it is not detailed advice, from Environment ACT is that hemp is a crop that would, having regard for the ACT’s climatic position, almost certainly require irrigation. I simply cannot believe that hemp is a crop the growing or harvesting of which we would encourage if it required irrigation.

Having said that, it probably needs to be acknowledged that we have a bad history in Australia with cotton, rice and some other crops that are essentially unsustainable and should not be grown, and we are looking to a reduction in the amount of water used, particularly for rice. Whilst we worked through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission initially to discourage their expansion, it would be anomalous if, whilst we are engaged in resourcing a reduction in the use of water in the Murray-Darling Basin system for irrigation, we encouraged its greater use within the ACT.

This is a gap in the legislative scheme that applies within the ACT. I am advised that we are the only jurisdiction that actively discriminates against the possibility of either the growing of or research into hemp. That is anomalous: it is appropriate that the anomaly be removed, and the government will support the legislation. I also have received advice in relation to amendments proposed by the Greens and the government will be happy to support them.

MRS CROSS (11.02): I rise to support Mrs Burke’s bill, and I commend her for it. One of my concerns when deliberating on this bill was the water that would be required, but those concerns seem to have been addressed. I agree with the Chief Minister’s concerns with the water issue on this, but I think this is a very good initiative.

MRS BURKE (11.03), in reply: I will close the debate. I would like to thank members very much for their input into and support for this bill. It is interesting that the Chief Minister notes that the ACT is the only jurisdiction not to have such legislation. We are normally renowned for trying to be the first at things. It is interesting that we have been dragging the chain and that we are now catching up with the rest. I appreciate that.

In addressing some of the comments I will start with those of the Chief Minister. He was saying something about the bill not being a catalyst but he went on to qualify that by saying that perhaps the fact that there has been no legislation has deterred people. I take those comments on board.

The Chief Minister wondered whether hemp would ever be grown commercially in the ACT. It is interesting to note that, in thinking laterally about this, the parallel to this is the viticulture industry. As we know, in the early 1970s this was started off as a hobby by CSIRO and ANU academics. Of course now we see that viticulture is a fast-expanding industry, thanks to the likes of people like Ken Helm and Kate Carnell, who have obviously pushed that agenda forward and seen a really good increase in that industry.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .