Industrial hemp sits in a wierd place in Australia: it’s extensively described as a professional agricultural and industrial crop, but it’s nonetheless typically regulated, perceived, and “dealt with” as if it have been the identical factor as high-THC hashish. That stress is on the coronary heart of the present Senate inquiry into Australia’s hemp trade—and it’s why the general public listening to held in Longford final week has individuals throughout farming, processing, development and manufacturing paying shut consideration.
What the Senate is investigating
The inquiry is formally titled “Alternatives for the event of a hemp trade in Australia” and is being run via the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. The scope is broad by design: it asks what hemp might contribute to farming methods, manufacturing (together with textiles and bio-based plastics), the round economic system, and the development sector—plus jobs, exports, and regional growth.
It additionally explicitly asks what analysis and growth is required, and what rules (federal and state/territory) are limiting manufacturing, processing, and entry to home and export markets. In different phrases, the inquiry is not only about rising hemp—it’s about whether or not Australia can construct an end-to-end trade from paddock → processing → merchandise at scale.
Key course of factors that matter for timelines:
- The inquiry was referred on 23 July 2025, submissions closed on 12 September 2025, and the committee’s reporting date is 30 July 2026.
- As of the submissions web page captured by Parliament, there are 71 public submissions listed.
What occurred in Tasmania
The inquiry held a public listening to in Longford on 25 February 2026 (listed as a previous public listening to by Parliament). On the time of writing, the official transcript for that day is marked “not but obtainable” on the Parliament hearings web page, however the listening to will be adopted via official committee listings and recordings.
Native reporting offers helpful on-the-ground context. Protection of the listening to describes a recurring theme: the hemp trade’s “ongoing battle” with hashish stigma and restrictive classification by nationwide regulatory frameworks. It additionally studies that the listening to was preceded by a full-day tour of hemp farms and companies supposed to indicate senators the real-world provide chain—from fibre processing to meals merchandise—already working in Tasmania.
That tour issues as a result of one of many trade’s core arguments is “whole-of-plant utilisation”: if a farmer grows hemp for seed, the trade needs the fibre/hurd streams to be usable too—so the economics enhance and fewer biomass is wasted. This level was additionally explicitly famous by Richard Colbeck (described in reporting as appearing chair for the listening to), who mentioned it was necessary to have the ability to absolutely utilise the plant—for instance, utilizing fibre when hemp is grown primarily for seed.
The largest fault line: hemp as an “agricultural crop” vs hemp underneath “drug frameworks”
A big share of the inquiry dialogue (and plenty of submissions) revolves round a easy sensible query:
If industrial hemp is low-THC and non-intoxicating, why is it nonetheless regulated via frameworks designed for managed medicine?
This query comes up repeatedly as a result of hemp in Australia intersects with a number of regulatory methods that weren’t designed round trendy hemp provide chains:
- The Therapeutic Items Administration maintains the nationwide Poisons Normal (SUSMP), which is then applied via state and territory laws.
- The Workplace of Drug Management describes how hashish seems in Schedule 9 (prohibited substance) with exemptions for sure hemp-derived merchandise (e.g., processed hemp fibre and hemp seed oil assembly specified THC situations), illustrating how “hemp exemptions” exist inside a broader controlled-substance framework.
- State businesses that license industrial hemp typically nonetheless depend on “defences” or carve-outs from common drug legal guidelines (which means the trade operates by exception), relatively than hemp being handled as a standard agricultural commodity by default.
This isn’t only a philosophical argument. It has direct knock-on results for funding, processing, and product growth. A recurring level in each media protection and submissions is that “drug framing” will increase perceived regulatory danger—making financiers, councils, insurers, and main consumers much less keen to again scaling initiatives.
What the trade is asking authorities to repair
Throughout commentary across the inquiry, a number of “reform packages” present up repeatedly. They’re value understanding as a result of they map carefully to the obstacles the Senate is investigating.
A nationally constant definition and clearer line between hemp and high-THC hashish
In reporting on the Longford listening to, Andi Lucas argued that industrial hemp’s low THC stage (underneath 1%) will not be adequately recognised in nationwide settings, and that this misclassification impacts funding and the trade’s skill to increase into further product streams.
In earlier inquiry protection, Charles Kovess (quoted as president of the Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance) and Tim Schmidt described the purpose as making a legislated hemp definition (generally framed as hashish <1% THC), and eradicating hemp from poisons scheduling so it’s administered like a standard crop relatively than underneath drug settings.
Much less fragmentation throughout jurisdictions (licensing, compliance, and “what you’re allowed to do”)
It’s true that many Australian jurisdictions use 1% THC in leaves/flowering heads as the important thing threshold for “industrial hemp / low-THC hemp,” with licensed seed typically anticipated to supply vegetation at or under 0.5% THC—however the sensible guidelines nonetheless differ throughout states and territories (licence constructions, sampling regimes, what plant components will be processed, and what end-uses are permitted).
A concrete instance of “fragmentation in follow” reveals up in submissions: one submission argues that state-by-state licensing duplication creates uncertainty and investor hesitation, and requires harmonised licensing, clearer pathways in development requirements, and aligned export requirements.
Unlocking “whole-of-plant” markets—particularly animal feed and sure processing pathways
That is the place the coverage turns into very tangible.
Some jurisdictions and regulators explicitly prohibit hemp plant components or makes use of that may in any other case underpin whole-of-plant economics. For instance:
- Agriculture Victoria states that hemp is at present not allowed for use as inventory feed in Australia on account of issues about THC switch, and specifies that hemp leaves, flowers and complete hemp seeds can’t be fed to livestock (with restricted allowances for sure processed/denatured merchandise).
- A truth sheet from Division of Pure Assets and Atmosphere Tasmania explains that THC is handled as a contaminant with a “most residue stage” of zero in animal merchandise for human consumption—which means producers should keep away from THC contamination, which acts as a sensible barrier with out additional regulatory change and supporting residue information.
- AgriFutures Australia notes that, underneath present settings, THC can’t be current in animal merchandise until a protected allowable stage is ready, and that to this point a most stage for THC in animal merchandise has not been established—citing restricted information as a key constraint.
- Within the Northern Territory, the Hemp Trade Rules 2020 embrace a provision {that a} licensed individual should not course of hemp leaf or unfertilised hemp flower heads—an instance of how plant-part restrictions will be “hard-coded” into rules.
In plain language: if a processor can solely simply commercialise seed and stem, the trade leaves worth on the desk—particularly in years when seed worth is weak or crop outcomes range. That’s the reason “complete plant utilisation” surfaced within the Longford listening to and in a number of submissions.
Why this inquiry issues economically and environmentally, not simply politically
The inquiry’s phrases of reference explicitly join hemp to farming methods, manufacturing, round economic system objectives, and development supplies. These should not summary classes—they map to areas the place hemp might present measurable advantages, if the regulatory and infrastructure bottlenecks are solved.
Farming methods and water use
Peer-reviewed analysis evaluating fibre crops has discovered hemp can have decrease water necessities and a decrease water footprint than cotton, although the magnitude varies by area, manufacturing system, and assumptions. For instance, a 2023 comparative evaluation synthesising prior revealed sources reported considerably decrease water metrics for hemp in contrast with cotton, and a 2025 scoping evaluation equally describes hemp water use as considerably decrease than cotton within the literature it assessed.
Authorities-facing steerage additionally frames hemp as a probably “inexperienced” crop in comparison with some options. As an illustration, a NSW Division of Main Industries and Regional Growth web page describes low-THC hemp as having benefits together with decrease irrigation water and agricultural chemical use than different fibre crops (as a common declare to be evaluated in native situations).
Development supplies and embodied carbon
Hemp-based development merchandise (particularly hemp-lime/hempcrete) are regularly mentioned within the inquiry context as a result of they join agriculture to manufacturing and housing. Submissions to the inquiry argue that hemp-based supplies are being held again by code recognition and requirements pathways, relatively than purely technical feasibility.
On the proof facet, life cycle evaluation (LCA) analysis more and more evaluates hemp-based constructing supplies for carbon footprint and carbon storage potential:
- A 2024 examine in Cleaner Engineering and Know-how examined hempcrete mixes by way of cradle-to-gate LCA to evaluate carbon-negative potential, emphasising that outcomes rely upon combine design (e.g., hemp-to-binder ratios) and system boundaries.
- A 2023 open-access LCA examine assessing hemp-based constructing supplies in Western Australia analysed carbon footprint utilizing ISO LCA approaches and highlights region-specific influences (inputs, productiveness, vitality combine).
Coverage and requirements pathways have additionally moved internationally. The Worldwide Code Council contains an “Appendix BL” for hemp-lime (hempcrete) development within the Worldwide Residential Code digital code library—one thing Australian stakeholders cite as a mannequin for the way code recognition will be dealt with.
What occurs subsequent and what to observe for
The formal “subsequent milestone” is the committee’s report, due 30 July 2026. Between every now and then, the committee will weigh written submissions, proof from hearings (together with Longford), and the sensible feasibility of suggestions throughout agriculture, well being/drug scheduling, development requirements, and commerce.
A couple of sensible issues to watch because the inquiry progresses:
- Listening to proof and transcripts: the Longford transcript is at present listed as not but obtainable, however this usually updates as committee publications are processed.
- Whether or not the committee leans towards “harmonisation” (decreasing state-by-state variations) as a core suggestion, as requested in a number of stakeholder submissions.
- Whether or not animal feed turns into a precedence R&D + regulatory reform observe, given the express constraints in present authorities steerage and the information gaps famous by AgriFutures.
- Development code pathways: building-sector submissions argue for streamlined recognition via Australian requirements and the Nationwide Development Code framework—look ahead to the committee’s strategy right here.
The quick model is that this: the inquiry is a uncommon likelihood to determine whether or not industrial hemp is handled primarily as a restricted “danger to handle,” or as a climate-smart, innovation-enabling crop that Australia helps with coherent guidelines, infrastructure, and market growth. That selection will form whether or not hemp stays area of interest—or turns into an actual regional manufacturing and farming story over the subsequent decade.
