{"id":"hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009","name":"Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009","slug":"hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":95414,"registerId":"sa-hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009","content":"South Australia\nHydroponics Industry Control Act 2009\nAn Act to prevent criminal infiltration of the hydroponics industry; to prevent the misapplication of certain types of hydroponic equipment by monitoring its sale and supply; and for other purposes.\n\nContents\nPart 1—Preliminary\n1\tShort title\n3\tInterpretation\n4\tCarrying on business of selling prescribed equipment by retail\n5\tCommissioner subject to control and direction of Minister\n6\tDelegation\n7\tCriminal intelligence\n8\tNon‑derogation\n9\tExemptions\nPart 2—Licences and approvals\nDivision 1—Hydroponic equipment dealer's licence\n10\tRequirement for licence\n11\tHydroponic equipment dealer's licence\n12\tCommissioner may require fingerprints\n13\tSuspension or revocation of licence\n14\tChange of information relating to licence\nDivision 2—Approval of hydroponics industry employees\n15\tRequirement for approval\n16\tTemporary approval on application\n17\tCommissioner may approve hydroponics industry employees\n18\tCommissioner may require fingerprints\n19\tRevocation of approval\nDivision 3—Appeal\n20\tAppeal\nPart 3—Sales of prescribed equipment\nDivision 1—Identification\n21\tPurchaser must produce identification\n22\tIdentification cards\nDivision 2—Record keeping\n23\tRecords of prescribed transactions\n24\tStaffing records\nPart 4—Enforcement\n25\tAuthorised officers\n26\tPowers of entry and inspection\n27\tCommissioner may require information from wholesalers\nPart 5—Miscellaneous\n28\tFalse or misleading information\n29\tStatutory declaration\n30\tLiability for act or default of officer, employee or agent\n31\tOffences by bodies corporate\n32\tSelf‑incrimination\n33\tGeneral defence\n34\tAnnual report\n35\tService of documents\n36\tEvidentiary provision\n37\tReview of operation of Act\n38\tRegulations\nLegislative history\n\nThe Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:\nPart 1—Preliminary\n1—Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009.\n3—Interpretation\nIn this Act—\napproval means approval as a hydroponics industry employee under section 17;\nauthorised officer means—\n\t(a)\ta police officer; and\n\t(b)\ta person, or class of persons, authorised by the Minister under section 25;\nCommissioner means the Commissioner of Police;\ncriminal intelligence means information relating to actual or suspected criminal activity (whether in this State or elsewhere) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations, to enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information relevant to law enforcement or to endanger a person's life or physical safety;\ndirector of a body corporate includes—\n\t(a)\ta person occupying or acting in the position of director or member of the governing body of the body corporate, by whatever name called and whether or not validly appointed to occupy or duly authorised to act in the position; and\n\t(b)\tany person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors or members of the governing body of the body corporate are accustomed to act;\nhydroponic equipment means equipment that is designed to be used, or is of a kind that is commonly used, for a purpose related to the cultivation of plants using hydroponic methods;\nlicence or hydroponic equipment dealer's licence means a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence under section 11;\nprescribed equipment means hydroponic equipment declared by the regulations to be prescribed equipment (whether or not the equipment is in working order or has been, or is being, modified in any way);\nsell includes—\n\t(a)\tauction, barter, exchange or let on hire; or\n\t(b)\toffer for sale, auction, barter, exchange or letting on hire; or\n\t(c)\tcause or permit to be offered for sale, auction, barter, exchange or letting on hire; or\n\t(d)\tpossess for the purposes of sale, auction, barter, exchange or letting on hire;\nsenior police officer means a police officer of or above the rank of inspector.\n4—Carrying on business of selling prescribed equipment by retail\n\t(1)\tFor the purposes of this Act, a person will be taken to be carrying on the business of selling prescribed equipment by retail if the person—\n\t(a)\tsells prescribed equipment by retail on not less than 6 days in any calender year; or\n\t(b)\tsells prescribed equipment by retail with a total wholesale value exceeding an amount prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or\n\t(c)\tsells prescribed equipment in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.\n\t(2)\tIf in proceedings for an offence against this Act it is established that the defendant—\n\t(a)\twas at the relevant time the holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence; and\n\t(b)\thad possession of prescribed equipment,\nit will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant had possession of the equipment for the purposes of sale in the course of the defendant's business of selling prescribed equipment by retail.\n5—Commissioner subject to control and direction of Minister\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner is, for the purposes of this Act, subject to the control and direction of the Minister.\n\t(2)\tA Ministerial direction under this Act will be taken not to be a direction for the purposes of section 8 of the Police Act 1998.\n6—Delegation\nDespite section 19 of the Police Act 1998, the Commissioner—\n\t(a)\tmay not delegate the function of classifying information as criminal intelligence for the purposes of this Act except to a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police; and\n\t(b)\tmay not delegate any other function or power of the Commissioner under this Act except to a senior police officer.\n7—Criminal intelligence\n\t(1)\tIf the Commissioner—\n\t(a)\trefuses an application for a licence or an approval or for a renewal of a licence, or varies or revokes a condition, or imposes a new condition, of a licence or approval, or revokes or proposes to revoke a licence or approval under this Act; and\n\t(b)\tthe decision to do so is made because of information that is classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence,\nthe Commissioner is not required to provide any grounds or reasons for the decision other than that to grant the application would be contrary to the public interest, or that it would be contrary to the public interest if the licence or approval were to continue in force without variation or new condition imposed, or that it would be contrary to the public interest if the person were to be or continue to be licensed or approved.\n\t(2)\tIn any proceedings relating to a licence or approval, the court determining the proceedings—\n\t(a)\tmust, on the application of the Commissioner, take steps to maintain the confidentiality of information classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence, including steps to receive evidence and hear argument about the information in private in the absence of the parties to the proceedings and their representatives; and\n\t(b)\tmay take evidence consisting of, or relating to, information that is so classified by the Commissioner by way of affidavit.\n8—Non‑derogation\nThe provisions of this Act are in addition to, and do not derogate from, the provisions of any other Act.\n9—Exemptions\n\t(1)\tThe Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, grant exemptions from this Act or specified provisions of this Act—\n\t(a)\tto a person, or persons of a class, specified in the notice; or\n\t(b)\tin relation to prescribed equipment, or prescribed equipment of a class, specified in the notice.\n\t(2)\tAn exemption under subsection (1) may be granted by the Minister on conditions specified by the Minister.\n\t(3)\tThe Minister may, at any time, by further notice in the Gazette—\n\t(a)\tvary or revoke an exemption; or\n\t(b)\tvary or revoke a condition of an exemption, or impose a new condition,\non any grounds the Minister thinks fit.\n\t(4)\tBefore granting an exemption, or varying or revoking an exemption or condition of an exemption, the Minister must consult with the Commissioner.\nPart 2—Licences and approvals\nDivision 1—Hydroponic equipment dealer's licence\n10—Requirement for licence\nA person must not—\n\t(a)\tcarry on the business of selling prescribed equipment by retail; or\n\t(b)\thold himself or herself out as carrying on such a business,\nunless the person holds a licence under section 11.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n11—Hydroponic equipment dealer's licence\n\t(1)\tSubject to this section, the Commissioner may, on application by a person, issue or renew a hydroponics equipment dealer's licence.\n\t(2)\tAn application for a licence must—\n\t(a)\tbe made to the Commissioner in the manner and form approved by the Commissioner; and\n\t(b)\tbe accompanied by the prescribed fee; and\n\t(c)\tif the applicant is a body corporate, identify each director of the applicant in accordance with the requirements (if any) set out in the regulations; and\n\t(d)\tbe accompanied by—\n\t(i)\tif the applicant is a natural person—such photographs of the applicant, and in such form, as may be specified by the Commissioner;\n\t(ii)\tif the applicant is a body corporate—such photographs of each director of the applicant, and in such form, as may be specified by the Commissioner;\n\t(iii)\tany other information prescribed by the regulations.\n\t(3)\tThe Commissioner must not issue a licence to a person, or renew a person's licence, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that—\n\t(a)\tif the applicant is a natural person—the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or\n\t(b)\tif the applicant is a body corporate—each director of the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.\n\t(4)\tThe Commissioner must refuse to issue a licence to a person, or to renew a person's licence—\n\t(a)\tif the applicant is a natural person—\n\t(i)\tif the person has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or\n\t(ii)\tif the person is subject to a control order (within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008); or\n\t(b)\tif the applicant is a body corporate—\n\t(i)\tif any director of the applicant has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or\n\t(ii)\tif any director of the applicant is subject to a control order (within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008); or\n\t(c)\tif it appears to the Commissioner that to grant the application would be contrary to the public interest; or\n\t(d)\tfor any other reason declared by the regulations to be within the ambit of this subsection.\n\t(5)\tWithout limiting the matters to which the Commissioner may have regard, the Commissioner may, in determining whether to issue or renew a licence, have regard to—\n\t(a)\tthe reputation, honesty and integrity of the person; and\n\t(b)\tthe reputation, honesty and integrity of people with whom the person associates or has associated.\n\t(6)\tA licence is subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner in the licence.\n\t(7)\tThe Commissioner may by notice in writing given to a licence holder, vary or revoke a condition of the licence, or impose a new condition, on any grounds the Commissioner thinks fit.\n\t(8)\tA licence holder who contravenes or fails to comply with a condition of his or her licence is guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(9)\tSubject to this Act, a licence issued or renewed under this section remains in force for the period specified in the licence.\n\t(10)\tThe Commissioner may renew a licence despite the fact that application for renewal of the licence was made after the end of the previous term of the licence.\n\t(11)\tA licence has effect, on issue or renewal, from the date specified in the licence for that purpose (and which may be earlier than the date of application for the issue or renewal of the licence).\n\t(12)\tA licence holder may, at any time, by notice in writing to the Commissioner, surrender his or her licence, at which time the licence ceases to have effect.\n12—Commissioner may require fingerprints\n\t(1)\tIf a person applies for a licence, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, request—\n\t(a)\tif the applicant is a natural person—the person; and\n\t(b)\tif the applicant is a body corporate—each director of the body corporate,\nto attend at a specified time and place for the purpose of having his or her fingerprints taken.\n\t(2)\tIf the Commissioner has requested a person to attend for the taking of fingerprints under subsection (1), the Commissioner is not required to consider the application in relation to which the request has been made until the fingerprints have been taken and the results of any analysis or comparison of the fingerprints provided to the Commissioner.\n13—Suspension or revocation of licence\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner may, by notice in writing given to a licence holder, suspend or revoke the person's licence if the Commissioner is satisfied on reasonable grounds that—\n\t(a)\tthe person has contravened this Act; or\n\t(b)\tthe person is not, or is no longer, for any reason a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or\n\t(c)\tit is otherwise in the public interest to do so.\n\t(2)\tA suspension of a licence—\n\t(a)\tmay be made for a specified period or until revoked by the Commissioner; and\n\t(b)\tmay operate generally or in relation to a particular aspect of the licence holder's business.\n14—Change of information relating to licence\nA licence holder must, within 14 days after any change in any information supplied to, or required by, the Commissioner for the purposes of determining an application for a licence under section 11, provide written notice of the change to the Commissioner.\nMaximum penalty: $2 500.\nExpiation fee: $210.\nDivision 2—Approval of hydroponics industry employees\n15—Requirement for approval\n\t(1)\tSubject to section 16, a person must not carry out prescribed duties in relation to the sale of prescribed equipment by retail unless the person is approved as a hydroponics industry employee under section 17.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(2)\tSubsection (1) does not apply—\n\t(a)\tto a person who is the holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence; or\n\t(b)\tto a director of a body corporate that is the holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence identified, in accordance with section 11(2)(c), in the relevant licence application.\n\t(3)\tIf a person contravenes subsection (1), the—\n\t(a)\tholder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence pursuant to which the prescribed equipment was purportedly sold by retail; and\n\t(b)\tif the licence holder is not the person's employer—relevant employer of the person,\nare each guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(4)\tIt is defence in proceedings for an offence against subsection (3) if the defendant proves that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person who contravened subsection (1) was approved as a hydroponics industry employee at the relevant time.\n16—Temporary approval on application\nA person who—\n\t(a)\thas applied for approval as a hydroponics industry employee in accordance with section 17; and\n\t(b)\thas not previously been refused approval under section 17 or had his or her approval revoked; and\n\t(c)\tis not a person who must be refused approval under section 17(4)(a), (b) or (d),\nmay carry out prescribed duties in relation to the sale of prescribed equipment by retail as if he or she were approved as a hydroponics industry employee under section 17, until the day on which the Commissioner determines the person's application.\n17—Commissioner may approve hydroponics industry employees\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner may, on application by a natural person, approve the person as a hydroponics industry employee.\n\t(2)\tAn application for approval must—\n\t(a)\tbe made to the Commissioner in the manner and form approved by the Commissioner; and\n\t(b)\tbe accompanied by the prescribed fee; and\n\t(c)\tbe accompanied by—\n\t(i)\tif the applicant is a natural person—such photographs of the applicant, and in such form, as may be specified by the Commissioner;\n\t(ii)\tany other information prescribed by the regulations.\n\t(3)\tThe Commissioner must not approve a person unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to be involved in the sale of prescribed equipment by retail.\n\t(4)\tThe Commissioner must refuse to approve a person—\n\t(a)\tif the person has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the 5 years immediately preceding the application for approval; or\n\t(b)\tif the person is subject to a control order (within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008); or\n\t(c)\tif it appears to the Commissioner that to approve the person as a hydroponics industry employee would be contrary to the public interest; or\n\t(d)\tfor any other reason declared by the regulations to be within the ambit of this subsection.\n\t(5)\tWithout limiting the matters to which the Commissioner may have regard, the Commissioner may, in determining whether to approve a person, have regard to—\n\t(a)\tthe reputation, honesty and integrity of the person; and\n\t(b)\tthe reputation, honesty and integrity of people with whom the person associates or has associated.\n\t(6)\tAn approval is subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner in the approval.\n\t(7)\tThe Commissioner may, by notice in writing given to an approved person, vary or revoke a condition of the approval, or impose a new condition, on any grounds the Commissioner thinks fit.\n\t(8)\tAn approved person who contravenes or fails to comply with a condition of his or her approval is guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(9)\tAn approved person may, at any time, by notice in writing to the Commissioner, surrender the approval, at which time the approval ceases to have effect.\n18—Commissioner may require fingerprints\n\t(1)\tIf a person applies for approval, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, request the person to attend at a specified time and place for the purpose of having his or her fingerprints taken.\n\t(2)\tIf the Commissioner has requested a person to attend for the taking of fingerprints under subsection (1), the Commissioner is not required to consider the application in relation to which the request has been made until the fingerprints have been taken and any relevant information provided to the Commissioner.\n19—Revocation of approval\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner may, by notice in writing given to an approved person, revoke the person's approval if the Commissioner is satisfied on reasonable grounds that—\n\t(a)\tthe person has contravened this Act; or\n\t(b)\tthe person is not, or is no longer, for any reason a fit and proper person to be approved; or\n\t(c)\tit is otherwise in the public interest to do so.\n\t(2)\tThe Commissioner must, before revoking an approval—\n\t(a)\tgive written notice to the person of the proposed revocation, including, subject to section 7, a statement of the reasons that the Commissioner considers justify the revocation; and\n\t(b)\tallow the person a period of 21 days (or such longer period as the Commissioner may in any particular case allow) to show cause why the approval should not be revoked.\n\t(3)\tThe Commissioner may suspend an approval pending final determination of the question as to whether the approval should be revoked.\n\t(4)\tOn revoking an approval, the Commissioner must cause notice of the revocation to be given, personally or by post, to all persons affected by the revocation.\nDivision 3—Appeal\n20—Appeal\n\t(1)\tA person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner under this Part may appeal to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court against the decision.\n\t(2)\tSubject to subsection (3)(b), an appeal must be instituted within 1 month of the making of the decision appealed against.\n\t(3)\tSubject to section 7—\n\t(a)\tthe Commissioner must, if so required by the appellant, state in writing the reasons for the Commissioner's decision; and\n\t(b)\tif the reasons of the Commissioner are not given in writing at the time of making the decision and the appellant (within 1 month of the making of the decision) requires the Commissioner to state the reasons in writing, the time for instituting an appeal runs from the time at which the appellant receives the written statement of those reasons.\nPart 3—Sales of prescribed equipment\nDivision 1—Identification\n21—Purchaser must produce identification\nA person must not sell prescribed equipment by retail to another person (the purchaser) unless the purchaser first produces identification that complies with any requirements set out in the regulations.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n22—Identification cards\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner must issue an identity card in a form approved by the Commissioner to each of the following persons:\n\t(a)\tthe holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence (being a licence holder who is a natural person);\n\t(b)\teach director of a body corporate that is the holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence identified, in accordance with section 11(2)(c), in the relevant licence application;\n\t(c)\teach person approved as a hydroponics industry employee under section 17.\n\t(2)\tA person to whom an identity card has been issued under this section must carry the card at all times while on premises at which prescribed equipment is sold pursuant to a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence, or while carrying out duties in relation to such sale.\nMaximum penalty: $2 500.\nExpiation fee: $210.\n\t(3)\tA person required to carry an identification card under subsection (2) must produce it forthwith if requested to do so by an authorised officer.\nMaximum penalty: $2 500.\nExpiation fee: $210.\nDivision 2—Record keeping\n23—Records of prescribed transactions\n\t(1)\tA licence holder must keep the information required by the regulations in relation to each prescribed transaction occurring in the course of, or for the purposes of, the licence holder's business.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(2)\tThe information required to be kept under subsection (1) must be kept in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations.\n\t(3)\tA licence holder must transfer to the Commissioner, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, the prescribed particulars in respect of each prescribed transaction.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n\t(4)\tWithout limiting subsection (3), the regulations may require that the prescribed particulars of each prescribed transaction be transferred electronically.\n\t(5)\tIn this section—\nprescribed transaction means—\n\t(a)\tthe sale of prescribed equipment (whether by retail or wholesale); or\n\t(b)\tthe purchase of prescribed equipment (whether from a wholesaler or otherwise); or\n\t(c)\tany other transaction involving prescribed equipment declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition.\n24—Staffing records\nA licence holder must make and retain records in accordance with the regulations in relation to the persons working in, or for the purposes of, the licence holder's business.\nMaximum penalty: $2 500.\nExpiation fee: $210.\nPart 4—Enforcement\n25—Authorised officers\n\t(1)\tThe Minister may authorise a person, or a class of persons, to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.\n\t(2)\tAn authorisation may be made subject to conditions or limitations specified in the instrument of authorisation.\n\t(3)\tThe Minister may, by notice in writing to an authorised officer, vary or revoke an authorisation, or a condition or limitation of an authorisation, on any grounds the Minister thinks fit.\n26—Powers of entry and inspection\n\t(1)\tAn authorised officer may—\n\t(a)\tenter and remain in or on any premises, place or vehicle that the officer reasonably suspects is used for, or in connection with, carrying on the business of selling prescribed equipment by retail (and, if entry is refused, may employ such force as is reasonably necessary to gain entry); and\n\t(b)\tinspect or search the premises, place or vehicle or any equipment or other thing on the premises, place or vehicle.\n\t(2)\tAn authorised officer may—\n\t(a)\tinspect any records kept by a licence holder and, for that purpose, require the licence holder, or an employee or agent of the licence holder, to produce the records; and\n\t(b)\texamine, copy or take extracts from records kept by a licence holder, or require the licence holder, or an employee or agent of the licence holder, to provide a copy of the records; and\n\t(c)\tremove and retain records kept by a licence holder for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of making a copy of the record.\n\t(3)\tAn authorised officer may not exercise the power of entry conferred by this section in relation to residential premises except—\n\t(a)\twith the consent of the occupier of the premises; or\n\t(b)\ton the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate under this section; or\n\t(c)\tif there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the premises are used on a continuing or regular basis for, or in connection with, carrying on the business of selling prescribed equipment by retail.\n\t(4)\tA magistrate may issue a warrant for the purposes of this section if satisfied, by information given on oath, that the warrant is reasonably required in the circumstances.\n\t(5)\tAn authorised officer may, in exercising a power under this section, be accompanied by such assistants as may reasonably be required in the circumstances.\n\t(6)\tA person who—\n\t(a)\thinders an authorised officer in the exercise of powers under this section; or\n\t(b)\trefuses or fails to comply with a requirement made under this section,\nis guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $5 000.\n\t(7)\tAn authorised officer (other than a police officer in uniform) must produce to the person (if any) affording the officer entry to premises under this section a certificate of authority issued to the authorised officer by the Minister.\n27—Commissioner may require information from wholesalers\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner may, by notice in writing, for any purpose associated with the administration or operation of this Act, require a person carrying on the business of selling prescribed equipment by wholesale to provide the information specified in the notice to the Commissioner in the manner, and within the period, specified in the notice.\n\t(2)\tA person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement made under subsection (1).\nMaximum penalty: $5 000.\nExpiation fee: $315.\nPart 5—Miscellaneous\n28—False or misleading information\nA person must not make a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular (whether by reason of the inclusion or omission of any particular) in any information provided, or record kept, under this Act.\nMaximum penalty: $20 000.\n29—Statutory declaration\nIf a person is required to provide information to the Commissioner, the Commissioner may require the information to be verified by statutory declaration and, in that event, the person will not be taken to have provided the information as required unless it has been verified in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner.\n30—Liability for act or default of officer, employee or agent\nFor the purposes of this Act, an act or default of an officer, employee or agent of a person carrying on a business will be taken to be an act or default of that person unless it is proved that the officer, employee or agent acted outside the scope of his or her actual, usual and ostensible authority.\n31—Offences by bodies corporate\n\t(1)\tIf a body corporate is guilty of an offence against section 10 or 11, each director of the body corporate is guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as is prescribed for the principal offence unless the director proves that he or she could not by the exercise of due diligence have prevented the commission of the offence.\n\t(2)\tIf a body corporate is guilty of any other offence against this Act (other than an offence against the regulations), each director of the body corporate is guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as is prescribed for the principal offence if the prosecution proves that—\n\t(a)\tthe director knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was a significant risk that such an offence would be committed; and\n\t(b)\tthe director was in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate in relation to the commission of such an offence; and\n\t(c)\tthe director failed to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.\n\t(3)\tSubsection (2) does not apply if the principal offence is an offence against section 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 or 28.\n\t(4)\tThe regulations may make provision in relation to the criminal liability of a director of a body corporate that is guilty of an offence against the regulations.\n32—Self‑incrimination\nIf a person is required to provide information or to produce a document, record or equipment under this Act and the information, document, record or equipment would tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty, the person must nevertheless provide the information or produce the document, record or equipment, but the information, document, record or equipment so provided or produced will not be admissible in evidence against the person in proceedings for an offence, other than an offence against Part 3 of this Act, or an offence against this or any other Act relating to the provision of false or misleading information.\n33—General defence\n\t(1)\tIt is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Act if the defendant proves that the offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence.\n\t(2)\tThis section does not apply in relation to a person who is charged with an offence under section 31.\n34—Annual report\n\t(1)\tThe Commissioner must, on or before 31 October in each year, submit to the Minister a report on the administration of this Act during the period of 12 months ending on the preceding 30 June.\n\t(2)\tThe Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receipt of the report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.\n35—Service of documents\n\t(1)\tSubject to this Act, a notice or document required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a person may—\n\t(a)\tbe served on the person personally; or\n\t(b)\tbe posted in an envelope addressed to the person—\n\t(i)\tat the person's last known address; or\n\t(ii)\tif the person is a licence holder—at the person's address for service; or\n\t(c)\tif the person is a licence holder—be left for the person at the person's address for service with someone apparently over the age of 16 years; or\n\t(d)\tby transmitting it to the person by fax or email to the fax number or email address last provided to the Commissioner by the person for that purpose.\n\t(2)\tThe address for service of a licence holder is the address of which the Commissioner has been last notified in writing by the licence holder as the licence holder's address for service.\n36—Evidentiary provision\n\t(1)\tIn proceedings for an offence against this Act, an allegation in the complaint—\n\t(a)\tthat a person named in the complaint is or is not, or was or was not on a specified date, the holder of a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence; or\n\t(b)\tthat a person named in the complaint is or is not, or was or was not on a specified date, approved as a hydroponics industry employee; or\n\t(c)\tthat a specified person is or is not, or was or was not on a specified date, an authorised officer; or\n\t(d)\tthat equipment specified in the complaint was prescribed equipment,\nwill be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.\n\t(2)\tIn any legal proceedings, a document apparently certified by the Commissioner to be a licence, approval or other document issued under this Act, or to be a copy of such a licence, approval or other document, will be accepted as such in the absence of proof to the contrary.\n37—Review of operation of Act\n\t(1)\tThe Minister must, as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of this section, conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act.\n\t(2)\tThe Minister, or any person involved in the conduct of the review, must maintain the confidentiality of information provided to the Minister or other person that is classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence.\n\t(3)\tThe Minister must prepare a report based on the review and must, within 12 sitting days after the report is prepared, cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.\n38—Regulations\n\t(1)\tThe Governor may make such regulations as are contemplated by, or necessary or expedient for the purposes of, this Act.\n\t(2)\tWithout limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may—\n\t(a)\tmake provision in relation to the electronic transfer of information for the purposes of this Act, including specifying—\n\t(i)\ttechnical or operational requirements relating to such transfer; or\n\t(ii)\ta particular application, software or device, or a particular class of application, software or device, to be used for that purpose;\n\t(b)\trequire licence holders to comply with a code of conduct or practice;\n\t(c)\tmake provisions of a savings or transitional nature consequent on the enactment of this Act or the commencement of specified provisions of this Act or specified regulations under this Act;\n\t(d)\tincorporate or operate by reference to a specified code or standard as in force at a specified time or as in force from time to time;\n\t(e)\tfix fees to be paid in respect of any matter under this Act and regulate the recovery, refund, waiver or reduction of such fees;\n\t(f)\timpose a penalty, not exceeding a fine of $10 000, for contravention of, or non‑compliance with, a regulation;\n\t(g)\tfix expiation fees, not exceeding $315, for alleged offences against the regulations.\n\t(3)\tThe regulations may—\n\t(a)\tbe of general application or limited application;\n\t(b)\tmake different provision according to the matters or circumstances to which they are expressed to apply;\n\t(c)\tprovide that a specified provision of this Act does not apply, or applies with prescribed variations, to any person, circumstance or situation (or person, circumstance or situation of a specified class) specified by the regulations, subject to any condition to which the regulations are expressed to be subject;\n\t(d)\tprovide that a matter or thing in respect of which regulations may be made is to be determined according to the discretion of the Commissioner or the Minister.\n\t(4)\tIf a code or standard is referred to or incorporated in the regulations—\n\t(a)\ta copy of the code or standard must be kept available for inspection by members of the public, without charge and during normal office hours, at an office determined by the Minister; and\n\t(b)\tevidence of the contents of the code or standard may be given in any legal proceedings by production of a document apparently certified by the Minister to be a true copy of the code or standard.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tFor further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.\nPrincipal Act and amendments\nNew entries appear in bold.\nYear\nNo\nTitle\nAssent\nCommencement\n2009\n49\nHydroponics Industry Control Act 2009\n5.11.2009\n1.3.2010 (Gazette 14.1.2010 p50)\n2013\n16\n Statutes Amendment (Directors' Liability) Act 2013\n23.5.2013\nPt 28 (ss 54 & 55)—17.6.2013 (Gazette 6.6.2013 p2498)\nProvisions amended\nNew entries appear in bold.\nEntries that relate to provisions that have been deleted appear in italics.\nProvision\nHow varied\nCommencement\nPt 1\n\n\ns 2\nomitted under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002\n17.6.2013\nPt 4\n\n\ns 31\nsubstituted by 16/2013 s 54\n17.6.2013\ns 33\n\n\ns 33(1)\ns 33 redesignated as s 33(1) by 16/2013 s 55\n17.6.2013\ns 33(2)\ninserted by 16/2013 s 55\n17.6.2013\nSch 1\nomitted under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002\n17.6.2013\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on general knowledge, the Act appears to have remained focused on its original intent: controlling the sale of hydroponic equipment to reduce drug cultivation. No major scope changes are known, though the inaccessibility of the current text means any amendments could not be verified."},"complexity_factors":["Actual legislative text was unavailable — analysis is based on general knowledge only, introducing uncertainty","Dual regulatory purpose (retail licensing AND drug enforcement) creates layered obligations","Licensing regime requires understanding of what constitutes 'hydroponic equipment' — definitions matter significantly","Interaction with broader criminal law (drug offences) and police powers adds jurisdictional complexity","Record-keeping obligations create ongoing compliance burden for retailers","Potential privacy implications for buyers whose details are recorded","Enforcement powers (inspections, audits) require understanding of administrative law principles"],"plain_english_summary":"The Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009 regulates the sale of hydroponic equipment in South Australia to curb its diversion to illegal drug cultivation. It requires licensing of sellers, buyer records, and gives police and inspectors powers to audit and investigate, with offences where equipment is sold knowing it will be used to grow drugs.\n\nIt affects hydroponic retailers, their customers, and lawful hobby growers by imposing compliance obligations, record‑keeping and potential monitoring."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act, as presented, remains focused on its original stated purpose — controlling retail sales and supply channels for certain hydroponic equipment to prevent criminal misuse (long title; Parts 2–4). The legislative history shows limited amendment (notably 2013 changes to directors' liability and minor redesignation of section 33); those amendments clarified enforcement and liability but did not expand the Act's subject-matter beyond regulating licences, approvals, identification and record-keeping for prescribed hydroponic equipment (see Legislative history; sections 31, 33). The principal scope (licensing, employee approvals, ID, records, enforcement powers and regulatory delegation) is unchanged."},"complexity_factors":["Act length and structure: 38 substantive sections organized into 5 Parts with multiple Divisions (Parts 1–5).","Defined terms: key definitions in section 3 (eg. 'prescribed equipment', 'hydroponic equipment', 'criminal intelligence', 'licence', 'authorised officer'), which determine scope.","Delegated detail: heavy use of regulations to specify core operational matters (what equipment is prescribed, ID standards, record-keeping formats, fees, codes of conduct) (section 38).","Broad executive discretion: Commissioner and Minister have wide powers to grant/deny licences and exemptions and to classify 'criminal intelligence', with limited required disclosure (sections 5, 7, 9, 11).","Cross-references to other Acts and external instruments: refers to Police Act 1998, Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 and allows incorporation of external codes/standards (sections 5, 11(4), 38(2)(d)).","Conditional secrecy and evidentiary rules: confidentiality of criminal intelligence and special court procedures for classified material (section 7); evidentiary presumptions in prosecutions (section 36).","Multiple penalty levels and enforcement paths: varied penalties (up to $20,000 for principal offences, smaller fines/expiation fees for administrative defaults), director liability rules (section 31), appeals to District Court (section 20).","Technological specificity risk: regulation-making power to mandate electronic transfer and even \"a particular application, software or device\" (section 38(2)(a)) creates potential complexity in compliance and procurement."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does (mechanics)\n\n- Requires a licence to carry on a retail business selling certain hydroponic equipment (a \"hydroponic equipment dealer's licence\") (see sections 10–11).  Licence applications must follow forms and fees set by the Commissioner of Police and may require photographs and fingerprints (sections 11, 12).\n\n- Requires approval for people who perform specified duties in selling that equipment (\"hydroponics industry employees\"); applicants for approval also apply to the Commissioner, pay fees and may be fingerprinted (sections 15–19). Temporary approvals are available while applications are decided (section 16).\n\n- Stops retail sales of \"prescribed equipment\" unless the purchaser produces identification that meets regulatory requirements (section 21). The Commissioner issues identity cards to licensed dealers, identified directors and approved employees; card-holders must carry and produce the card on request (section 22).\n\n- Requires licence holders to keep detailed records of prescribed transactions and staffing, and to transfer prescribed particulars to the Commissioner (section 23–24). Regulations can require electronic transfer and can specify technical formats or particular software to be used (section 38(2)(a), 23(4)).\n\n- Grants inspection, entry and seizure powers to authorised officers (people authorised by the Minister or police) for premises suspected of retailing prescribed equipment; warrants or occupier consent are required for residential premises except in specified circumstances (section 25–26).\n\n- Gives the Commissioner (the Police Commissioner) and the Minister broad powers to refuse, suspend or revoke licences and approvals. If decisions are based on information classified by the Commissioner as \"criminal intelligence\", the Commissioner need only state that granting or continuing the licence or approval would be contrary to the public interest and need not disclose further reasons (section 7, 11(3)–(5), 13, 19).\n\n- Enables the Minister to grant exemptions (with conditions) from parts or all of the Act, and to vary or revoke those exemptions after consulting the Commissioner (section 9).\n\n- Creates criminal offences and civil-style penalties for operating without a licence, employing unapproved staff, failing to produce ID, failing to keep or transfer records, providing false or misleading information, and hindering authorised officers. Penalties vary (for example, many primary offences carry fines up to $20,000; other fines and expiation fees are specified) (sections 10, 14, 21, 23, 28, 26(6)).\n\n- Provides for director liability where a corporate licence-holder or other corporate offender is prosecuted (section 31), limits the admissibility of self‑incriminating material in certain circumstances (section 32), and preserves appeal rights to the District Court's Administrative and Disciplinary Division against Commissioner decisions (section 20).\n\n- Leaves detailed operational matters to regulations (section 38). Regulations may specify what equipment is \"prescribed equipment\", the form and content of records and ID requirements, fees, codes of conduct, and technology standards (sections 3 definition of \"prescribed equipment\", 23, 38).\n\n\nWhy the law says it exists (claimed purpose)\n\n- The Act is framed as a protective measure aimed at \"preventing criminal infiltration of the hydroponics industry\" and \"preventing misapplication of certain types of hydroponic equipment\" by monitoring sales and supply. Sections setting licensing, employee-approval, ID, records and police powers implement that objective (long title; Parts 2–4).\n\n\nHow this changes behaviour and who pays/decides\n\n- Who decides: the Commissioner of Police (with delegated senior officers in limited cases) and the Minister hold decision‑making power over licences, approvals, exemptions and authorised officers (sections 5–6, 9, 11, 17, 25).\n\n- Who pays: businesses and individuals trading in or staffing retail sales of prescribed hydroponic equipment bear the costs — licence and approval fees, compliance costs for record-keeping and reporting, the administrative burden of identity cards and fingerprinting, and potential legal costs for appeals (sections 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 38(2)(e)).\n\n- Behaviour changes induced: sellers must formalise operations (licence, staff approvals, identity cards), collect and retain transaction and staffing data, verify purchaser identity before sale, and be prepared for inspections and data transfer. Some businesses may avoid carrying prescribed items, change distribution channels (e.g. move to wholesale-only, online or interstate suppliers), or exit the market if compliance costs or risks are too high (sections 10, 15, 21, 23, 26, 27).\n\n\nPractical trade-offs, incentives and implementation risks (mechanisms, not judgements)\n\n- Administrative discretion and confidentiality: the Commissioner can classify information as \"criminal intelligence\" and rely on it when refusing or revoking licences without disclosing reasons beyond a public-interest statement; courts are directed to protect the confidentiality of such material (section 7). This speeds enforcement where intelligence is sensitive, but it reduces the detail given to affected applicants and increases reliance on internal police assessment.\n\n- Delegation and ministerial control: the Commissioner is subject to the Minister's direction for this Act (section 5) and the Minister can authorise officers and grant exemptions (sections 25, 9). This concentrates decision authority in executive offices and allows policy-driven exceptions but also creates points where political or administrative priorities can change regulatory application.\n\n- Regulatory detail deferred: the Act delegates many substantive choices to regulations (including what equipment is covered, identification standards and electronic transfer protocols, even naming specific software or apps) (sections 3 definition of \"prescribed equipment\", 21, 23(4), 38(2)(a)). That means operational rules can change without amending the Act, but operators must track regulatory updates and may face vendor lock‑in if regulations specify a particular application or technology.\n\n- Compliance costs and market effects: licence and approval requirements, mandatory record-keeping and data transfers and ID checks raise fixed and ongoing costs for retailers and their employees (sections 11, 17, 22, 23). Those costs are concentrated on licensed retail sellers and their staff; benefits (information for law enforcement) are concentrated for regulators. Smaller or low-margin retailers are more likely to find these costs material, which can affect competition and market entry.\n\n- Privacy and data risk: requirements for fingerprints, identity cards and transfer of transaction particulars to the Commissioner create personal data flows controlled by police (sections 12, 18, 22, 23). The Act provides limited statutory protections (for example limiting admissibility of self‑incriminating material in some prosecutions (section 32)), but administrative handling and retention of sensitive personal data remain implementation concerns.\n\n- Enforcement choices and substitution effects: powers of entry, inspection and compulsion (sections 26, 27) increase the state’s ability to monitor compliance, but they may also shift some activity out of regulated retail channels into online, interstate or informal markets if enforcement is uneven or compliance costs are high.\n\n- Appeal and review paths: affected persons can appeal Commissioner decisions to the District Court (section 20) and the Minister must commission a formal review of the Act after three years (section 37). Those mechanisms provide legal and policy oversight, but appeals may be constrained where reliance on criminal intelligence limits disclosure of reasons (section 7).\n\n\nKey sections to note (quick reference)\n\n- Licensing and offences: sections 10–14.\n- Employee approvals and temporary approval: sections 15–19.\n- ID and identity cards: sections 21–22.\n- Records and data transfer: section 23 (and 38(2)(a) for technical standards).\n- Commissioner secrecy and use of criminal intelligence: section 7.\n- Powers of entry and inspection: section 26.\n- Ministerial exemptions and discretion: section 9.\n- Director liability: section 31.\n- Appeals: section 20.\n\n\nBottom line (neutral, practical):\nThe Act creates a licensing-and-recording regime for retail sales of equipment that can be used for hydroponic cultivation. It places decision‑making power and operational discretion with the Police Commissioner and the Minister, requires identity checks, staff approvals and detailed transaction records (including electronic transfer), and equips authorised officers with inspection powers. Those mechanisms are designed to provide law enforcement with visibility and control over the supply chain; they also impose administrative, privacy and compliance costs on businesses and employees in the regulated parts of the hydroponics supply market (see sections cited above)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation appears consistent with its original intent as stated in the long title: preventing criminal infiltration of the hydroponics industry and monitoring equipment sales. The 2013 amendments (Statutes Amendment (Directors' Liability) Act 2013) were technical amendments standardising director liability provisions across South Australian legislation, not an expansion of substantive scope. The Act retains its original focus on licensing, monitoring, and enforcement within the hydroponics retail sector."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping approval schemes (dealer licences vs employee approvals) with similar but distinct requirements","Extensive delegation of substantive powers to regulations (prescribed equipment, prescribed offences, prescribed duties, prescribed fees, electronic transfer requirements)","Complex conditional logic for offences (e.g., s.15(3) creates liability for both licence holders and employers with a specific defence in s.15(4))","Nested exceptions and carve-outs (e.g., s.31 creates director liability with different tests for different offences, plus exceptions to those tests)","Special procedural rules for 'criminal intelligence' that override normal administrative law requirements for reasons (s.7) and affect court procedures","Presumptions and reverse onus provisions (e.g., s.4(2) creates a presumption of possession for sale; s.31 requires directors to prove due diligence)","Cross-references to external legislation (Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 for control orders; Police Act 1998 for delegation limits)","18 defined terms in the interpretation section, several with nested definitions (e.g., 'director' includes shadow directors; 'sell' includes 4 distinct modes of disposal)"],"plain_english_summary":"This South Australian law regulates the sale of hydroponic equipment (like grow lights and irrigation systems) to stop criminals from using it to grow illegal drugs, particularly cannabis.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Retailers** who sell hydroponic equipment (they need a special licence from the Police Commissioner)\n- **Employees** who work in hydroponics shops (they need individual approval)\n- **Wholesalers** who supply equipment to retailers\n- **Customers** buying this equipment (must show ID)\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Licensing system:** Anyone selling certain hydroponic equipment by retail must get a licence. The Police Commissioner decides who gets a licence based on whether they're a \"fit and proper person\" (basically, whether they have a criminal history or suspicious associations). The Commissioner can take fingerprints and can refuse or revoke licences based on secret \"criminal intelligence\" (police information about suspected criminal activity).\n- **Employee approvals:** Shop staff need individual approval to work there, with similar background checks.\n- **Record keeping:** Shops must keep detailed records of all sales and purchases, and report transaction details to the Commissioner.\n- **ID requirements:** Customers must show identification when buying prescribed equipment.\n- **Enforcement:** Police and authorised officers can enter business premises to inspect records and equipment, sometimes without a warrant if they suspect criminal activity.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThe law treats hydroponics retailers similarly to pawn brokers or second-hand dealers—industries vulnerable to criminal exploitation. It creates a paper trail for equipment that can be used to grow illegal crops, while giving police broad powers to monitor the industry and exclude people with organised crime connections."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009","history":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009/history","analysis":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/hydroponics-industry-control-act-2009/documents"}}