BERESFORD, Ms Samantha, General Manager, Levied and Emerging Industries, AgriFutures Australia [by video link] BURSLE, Mr Guy, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Agvet Chemicals, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry HANSEN, Mr Scott, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority METCALF, Mrs Lee, Executive Director, Veterinary Medicines, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority CHAIR: Welcome. Senators have resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a state shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of officers to superior officers or a minister. This resolution does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Do any of you have opening statements you wish to make? Mr Bursle : If it assists the committee. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Bursle : The department welcomes the committee's focus on the opportunities for development of an industrial hemp industry in Australia. The Australian government supports the growth of the industry with investment in research and development via AgriFutures Australia. AgriFutures Australia has a unique role among RDCs to invest in research and development for rural industries that do not have their own dedicated RDC, including new and emerging rural industries. AgriFutures is provided with an annual appropriation from government to support this important work. AgriFutures has developed the Australian Industrial Hemp Strategic RD&E Plan, which sets out priority activities that support the growth of the industry. Under this plan, a $2½ million research program aims to establish industrial hemp as a profitable agricultural industry. Appearing today, as you're aware, is Ms Samantha Beresford, from AgriFutures, who will be able to provide further information to assist the committee. Regulation of industrial hemp in Australia is shared across the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. At the production level, growers must hold licences issued by states and territories with strict limits on THC content to distinguish industrial hemp from medical cannabis. At the Commonwealth level, DAFF is responsible for export and import regulation focused on both market access and biosecurity. On exports, the department works with industry to ensure the industry can meet importing country requirements. Where required, this includes issuing export permits, facilitating inspection and certification, and, where appropriate, providing phytosanitary certification documentation. In some cases, hemp products may also require additional licensing outside the regulatory remit of DAFF—for example, through the Office of Drug Control—before an export can occur. On imports, the department manages biosecurity risks associated with hemp seeds and plant material. The department has set clear conditions for the importation of hemp seeds that are calibrated to meet Australia's appropriate level of protection. This includes requirements for permits inspection and treatment and testing to manage risks from pests, diseases and weeds, while enabling trade to continue where those risks can be appropriately mitigated. In instances where hemp derived product may be used in therapeutic products for animals, the APVMA also has a role. This ensures that hemp derived products used in veterinary applications are safe, are effective and do not compromise trade. The CEO and the executive director from the APVMA are also appearing here today and can speak further to the APVMA's regulatory role. CHAIR: Anyone else? Mr Hansen : Yes, if I can. I'll be brief so we can get to questions. There are two roles that we're keen to make sure are framed up in terms of what the APVMA can do and assist with in regard to the hemp industry. The first is the one that was just referred to—our role as the regulator of veterinary medicine products. The second one hasn't been referred to yet today, from what I've seen—our role in issuing variations to labels of existing registered agricultural chemical products that are used to protect crops from disease, pests or weeds, or issuing a minor-use permit to allow registered products to be used on hemp as a crop. They're the two key framings around our discussions today. CHAIR: I will offer Senator Whish-Wilson the call. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could I start with you, Mr Bursle. One thing that's become pretty clear to us over numerous hearings is that the hemp industry is fairly fragmented. It has a number of different state based bodies. There's discussion around a national body. What's DAFF's view on that, and is there any role you can play in terms of unifying the industry or helping them provide a united front in terms of what they need from the department and the parliament? Mr Bursle : In a principled sense, advocacy is assisted by a single unified voice. To the extent the industry is able to speak with one voice, that always helps in making compelling advocacy to the department and to government. In terms of the department's role in facilitating that, it's not a role we would traditionally play. We will speak to industry. If it's speaking to us with many voices, we will speak to many voices. If it's speaking with one, we will speak to one. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Even that statement is useful, because the industry is listening. Are there examples of other commodity industries that you could provide to the committee where they have unified bodies, in terms of advocating for what they want from government? Mr Bursle : Apologies; I'm not an expert in many of the commodities that deal with the department. It's probably fair to say that, across our varied agricultural sector, there are some industries with multiple industry peaks and others that are more unified—so there's diversity. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Is there a gold standard that you could recommend the industry looks at, like the cotton industry or others, in terms of representation? Mr Bursle : Ultimately, it's up to industry to decide how they're going to provide advice to government. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Another thing that's fairly consistent is that they've argued that the regulation of their industry is very complex. We've gone into some of those complexities with the Office of Drug Control, FSANZ, state based regulations and territory based regulations. Does DAFF agree with that assessment broadly, and are there any areas where you would disagree with that? Mr Bursle : There are regulatory frameworks that apply to this industry. I can't speak to the pros and cons, or the appropriateness, or whether there are better ways to structure that. I note there are risks associated with this particular crop or commodity that need to be managed; I think it's not alone in that. Also, what I would say is that the regulatory frameworks that DAFF is responsible for, including agrichemicals and pesticide management, apply equally across the sector; they're not specific to the hemp industry. Senator WHISH-WILSON: In terms of AgriFutures, what was DAFF's role? AgriFutures made their decision to put some money into providing a plan for the industry some years ago, and there were a number of recommendations in that. What's DAFF's role in overseeing that and in whether any of those recommendations get implemented? Mr Bursle : Obviously, we have a role in working with AgriFutures, but AgriFutures runs its own prioritisation process in terms of how it supports emerging industries. Perhaps colleagues from AgriFutures could speak in more detail about the support that's provided in the— Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes, okay—in particular, what assumptions underpin their projections for growth, which look, obviously, quite handsome, on the face of it. If you'd like to speak to that, that'd be great. Ms Beresford : We monitor probably over a hundred emerging industries across the board, so you can imagine the breadth and width in the number of emerging industries there are in Australia in agriculture, and, potentially, coming into Australia. We do a bit of a targeted assessment. We do a very detailed look at each industry. We look at a number of factors, from their market access right through to what's currently in the country and what's currently available. Really, for us, hemp was just identified because of its mixed use cases, and its strong viability in Australia, and that's why we decided to put such a substantial investment into hemp. That started with a $1.5 million investment into different types of variety trials, and that has extended into a $2.5 million program of research, over time—and we've invested programs of research into other commodities as well, not just hemp. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I attended the trials that you did down in Tasmania a few years ago; they had a field day down there. Is AgriFutures able to do a regulatory assessment for the industry? Obviously, you're looking at cultivars and quite specific agricultural research there, but are you able to do policy research as well? It seems to us that a lot of the constraints on the industry are regulatory, and there are a lot of very consistent recommendations across the submissions about the need for regulatory simplicity and changes. Ms Beresford : It's something that we could definitely look at in the future—absolutely. At the time when we set up the program of research, that wasn't a major concern for industry. We were talking about very basic sorts of agronomic, growing, types of research, to underpin what the industry could look like for growers. That doesn't mean that, over time, as the program finishes and as we do reviews of it, we couldn't look to doing some sort of policy support for the industry, going forward. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Mr Hansen, I will ask some questions about this at estimates, and I put some questions on notice to you in recent times about this as well. If the government wanted to expand the use of hemp-derived materials in animal feed, what changes would be required in the APVMA's framework to allow that to happen? Could you talk us through that. Mr Hansen : I guess the challenge is always when we're talking about an industry, as opposed to individual products, and our legislative framework is set to consider— Senator WHISH-WILSON: Individual products. Mr Hansen : individual products, even when it comes to: 'What things can we exclude from our regulatory framework? What things can we say we're not going to treat as veterinary chemical products?' Only one of the five tests is actually what the ingredients are, and the rest centre around the labelling claims, the packaging—and so, in all of the conversations we have, it's always hard to reflect on an industry-wide piece, as opposed to from an individual product perspective. To that end, obviously, the more we have individual products come forward to get themselves registered as veterinary chemical products, you get a body of evidence and a dataset that others can then rely upon at a point in time in the future, that allows the building of a suite of products being registered, where, obviously, there's a need to register them because they meet the definition of a veterinary chemical product. Where there's not and where they fall outside—either because they're not considered at all by our regulatory scheme or they are considered, but, because they meet all the tests to be an excluded nutritional and digestive product, are therefore excluded from our regulatory scheme under that remit—is largely at an individual product level and hard to do at an industry-wide level. Senator WHISH-WILSON: It's hard to ask a question about those individual products, given the complexities. How do you generally distinguish between an animal feed or supplement versus a chemical product? What kind of test would you apply in the case of hemp? There's been some criticism from the industry around this issue. Mr Hansen : I've had numerous meetings with the industry to talk about some of the complexity. There is a problem for us whenever we talk generically about the industry, because then we have to build in worst-case scenarios. You start talking more conservatively in your language than when you're looking at an individual product. But, in general, we don't regulate stockfeed. That's dealt with by other regulation. When we're looking at, say, hemp oil, we run through a test that asks in the first instance if it is intended to be consumed by an animal. It's therefore not by an application but by a consumption test. If that's a yes, then we look at whether the ingredients of that product include some things that we would be concerned about if they were in the mix—hormones, antibiotics, things that are scheduled in the poison schedule. If they contain any of those, then they do get picked up by our legislation. We regulate them. Senator WHISH-WILSON: The poison schedule is basically the issue then, more or less. Mr Hansen : Yes, although the poison schedule predominantly picks up antibiotics in this case. It actually limits our consideration of the poison schedule to antibiotics in the poison schedule. But then we run down to whether it's a plant, of animal origin or an edible grain. There are a series of tests that we run through, and then we get all the way down to how it's manufactured. Is it manufactured under a QA scheme? Does the label tell the consumer what they need to know about the product? We have a set of things that the labels have to follow for them to be able to be excluded from our regulatory remit. Then we get down to whether they make therapeutic claims. They can make therapeutic claims, provided that claim is backed either by the direction of a vet or they can point to either published scientific papers or a paper that's worthy of publishing that backs up those therapeutic claims that they make. If they can meet all of those things, they're excluded. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Do you provide clear regulatory guidance to them on those things? Mr Hansen : All of that's up on the website for people to find. The key thing for us is that we put the onus back on the owner of the product to take their product through that checklist and work out whether they make the decision to be in or out. We put the onus on them to make sure that, if they're going to say, 'My product is excluded,' they've checked that they've done all these things. Then they are excluded from being described as a veterinary chemical product and they fall outside of our remit. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Are you able to give us any examples of where the industry has raised concerns about misclassification or changes to classification? How frequently is this occurring? Mr Hansen : I think we had a period between the end of 2023 and the start of 2024 in which there was confusion about what kind of evidence you need to make a therapeutic claim or whether or not you're allowed to make a therapeutic claim. That led to some people making a claim and then putting on the label, 'This is not a therapeutic claim.' It was that confusion at that period in time. Hopefully—in the meetings, the conversations and the advice that's been provided since that is more targeted to the individual applicants as they raise their hands and come forward—we've seen a clarification of that. But, again, if there's more that you think we can be doing, I'm keen to hear it. Senator WHISH-WILSON: In terms of the evidentiary standard, for example, I can buy hemp products now that may make general claims about protein levels, health, anti-inflammatory qualities and those kinds of things. That's different to the medicinal cannabis scheme, which takes it to the next level. I as a human can go and buy those products now. Supermarkets sell them, for example. Would those products be available for pets right now, or would they need to go through clinical trials to prove that, for example, hemp oil had an anti-inflammatory quality for a dog's arthritis? How does that work? Mr Hansen : This again is where we put the onus back on the applicant and say: 'You know what's in your product and you know what claim you're making. If we come and ask you, you need to be able to show us what you're relying upon to be able to make that claim.' The typical thing we've found where people have tripped up on this is where they're obviously making claims of zero THC or zero CBD components, but then they're using scientific papers about CBD as a constituent being beneficial in these areas and therefore translating those claims across to the labels. It's in those areas where we most get the confusion about. As I'm sure you've heard, hemp is not hemp is not hemp; it's very different depending on the cultivar that's been grown and how it's been processed. There's a lot of risk. If seeds aren't cleaned well before pressing for oil, then you can get a lot of cross-contamination from other parts of the plant that can influence the chemical composition. Senator WHISH-WILSON: If you get time, Chair, I'll come back. CHAIR: We'll get time. Absolutely. Senator COLBECK: I'm just trying to work out the next extension of where Senator Whish-Wilson was with respect to that. So the issue for you comes where there's a claim of it being a supplement or something of that nature, or having some sort of therapeutic benefit. There are requirements for you to undertake an assessment to determine whether that therapeutic claim or supplementary claim is actually verified as a part of the oversight of a veterinary chemical or veterinary product. Mr Hansen : In most cases, that's an accurate statement. There are, however, pathways through that excluded nutritional and digestive product path that actually allow people to make a therapeutic claim. If they can pass all the other tests to get to there, they can make a therapeutic claim, and we won't assess that claim, because the actual owner of the product will have themselves assessed that they know the reliable science that they are relying upon to make that claim for that product. If they're doing that, then we don't assess that unless it's raised with us by someone to challenge it. Senator COLBECK: The threat to that claim comes if they don't have the information to back up the claim that they're making. Mr Hansen : That's right. The challenge we have is we can't just talk about a product, because that product then has to meet all the other bits about its labelling, its manufacture and so forth to be able to be excluded, and therefore we need to talk at a product level rather than just at the ingredient level. Senator COLBECK: Okay. So there's a pathway there, and either a self-assessment or a formal assessment process that flows from looking at the steps within that path. Mr Hansen : That's correct. Senator COLBECK: I just want to go back to AgriFutures. In terms of where we are through the five-year plan at the moment—effectively year 4 of a five-year process—what is the way now that AgriFutures looks to set its next level of priorities in terms of where we're at with the industry? In terms of the elements you look at, are you restricted, as some other RDCs are, to looking at product to farm gate rather than commercial production of things after farm gate, which is a different matter? Are there any constraints with respect to how you apply the support for the industry that you provide? Ms Beresford : Yes. To answer the first part of your question, we've just undertaken a mid-term review of the program of research now, to look at other areas that we might want to pivot or invest into, to make sure that we're meeting industry's needs. Then, at the end of the program of research, we'll do a similar impact assessment, to see how the bucket of research has gone and the impact and outcomes that we've made. From our perspective, the limit is probably in the advocacy and also in the marketing space. We just can't cross that line into marketing threshold, but we can do other bits of analysis that might help the industry find a market. We just have to be quite strategic in the way that we do that. Senator COLBECK: So if the industry were looking for support in those areas, they would need their own structures to do that or a different vehicle to do that. Ms Beresford : Yes. You were talking about a united industry to help propel the industry forward. Those types of things would be more than helpful for the industry. They can also start to look at, once they grow and are more established, some sort of voluntary levy or, potentially, a legislated levy. That's later down the track, but they can look at that pathway to get matching funding to help propel them to do the research to move forward. Senator COLBECK: In terms of AgriFutures, how many of the many industries or ag sectors that you're working with have a voluntary levy—or a levy? Ms Beresford : We currently have 13 levied industries. None of the emerging industries have a voluntary levy as yet, but we are working with multiple industries to look at potentially having a voluntary levy. That's in our emerging industries space. We have targeted probably six big major emerging industries where we've invested, like hemp, into these programs of research, with the aim that they could potentially then grow to a stage where they become a bit more self-sufficient and can look towards a levy process. What that would be needs to be up to industry, to drive and really talk to DAFF about. That's something that they need to lead themselves. Senator COLBECK: Do you have any criteria that you look at to make decisions around that process? We've already mentioned a single national body or a unified sector, as a part of our evidence so far, but are there other criteria that you look at in that sense? Ms Beresford : Certainly. The main criterion for us is they have to lead it themselves, as I just said. So it would really be up to DAFF to look into that. They make an application via that process. AgriFutures really steps back at that point and lets industry lead the levy process themselves. It really has to be industry led if they're going to go down the levy process. Senator COLBECK: Within that, is there a process to appropriately determine what the research priorities are? Ms Beresford : Yes, absolutely. Just like we've done with them right now, we sit down and develop really detailed research, development and extension plans. We set clear priorities for them and try and work with them in the most targeted approach, I suppose, to really get the best use of that levy fund, to have the biggest impact. But it's really industry led when you get to that point, and they set the priorities. We do everything with them in consultation, hand in hand with them. Senator COLBECK: So those 13 that do have a levy have a compulsory levy that they've voted on as a sector. Is that then matched dollar for dollar by Commonwealth R&D funding? Ms Beresford : Eventually, over time, it ends up at dollar-for-dollar matching, but it's matched 50c to the dollar. Senator COLBECK: To start with. Ms Beresford : To start with. Senator COLBECK: What's the incremental process to get up to matching funding? Ms Beresford : It's how the funding comes in. It might be better for DAFF to explain this to you, but, basically, say I invest $100,000—I get $150,000 back. Then, the next year, you get the matching on that $150,000 as it keeps being spent. So it's over time that it incrementally, a bit like compounding interest, gets to the dollar for dollar matching. Senator COLBECK: In terms of your assessment of where GVP will be, you've indicated about $10 million this year. We've seen, through the evidence, there've been some ups and downs. There've been some periods of oversupply, which have led people to step back from growing. How are we going this year in terms of where your assessment of the industry might be? Ms Beresford : We have commissioned CSIRO to do some work for us on potentially looking at the investments that we've made in our emerging industry space so far, and they have looked at GVP. I don't have it off the top of my head, but I know that it hasn't substantially grown since about the $10 million mark. We will have that published information soon. Senator COLBECK: In terms of the, let's say, varied regulatory framework that the industry operates within across the country, has there been any work done in relation to working with the various jurisdictions around harmonisation of that? Ms Beresford : Not specifically in our program of research. I would say that AgriFutures is probably a place where everyone comes and meets in the middle to work together for the industry. It's not without its challenges—dealing with multiple different industry associations, multiple different jurisdictions—but we're trying to manage that. I suppose we're at the point where we ourselves have to manage different jurisdictions when we're talking about putting seed in different states or different areas. So it's not without its challenges, but I would say we're trying to be that coordinator in the middle to help industry to navigate. Senator COLBECK: So, even in the work that you're doing, you're experiencing those variations in regulatory frameworks. How would you suggest that we might recommend that some of that variability be managed? Obviously, a united drive from the industry would be part of that. How could the Commonwealth help in that space? Ms Beresford : It's a really great question. I wouldn't have all the answers, but what I would say is what we're trying to do is provide the evidence to help the Commonwealth, in the form of a program of research and all the work that we're doing for them. But it's really probably not up to us to advocate on what industry should be doing or what government regulation should be doing to help them. We just provide informed evidence to help support industry in growth. Senator COLBECK: Apart from, say, the ag ministers forum, are you aware of any groupings that might be useful for some of these variabilities to be put forward and then potentially discussed and managed? Ms Beresford : I'm sure that they have good dialogue with DAFF. That would be a really good place to put some of their industry concerns forward. They can always come through us, and we can provide things back to the department on their needs and what they're seeking. However, it's really not our role to advocate. We have to stay the line. We can't cross that line into the advocacy point. But I do take your point on the different types of forums and things that they could advocate in to help them going forward. Senator COLBECK: So to the department? Mr Bursle : I take your point. It's a difficult one because the regulatory framework differs between jurisdictions. In some states it'll be health regulations, and others cross into primary industries. In the agvet chemicals space, we have a subcommittee within the Agriculture Senior Officials Committee that looks at control of use functions in the agvet chemicals regulatory framework. Having watched some of the evidence today and reviewed submissions, it's probably not necessarily a neat fit within that committee, but, certainly, we can look to raise harmonisation with some of these regulatory frameworks with our jurisdictional colleagues through our agvet chemicals framework. CHAIR: We'll come back to Senator Dolega. Senator DOLEGA: Government questions have been covered. CHAIR: Done. Back to you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Just as a matter of interest—I don't know whether Samantha or Guy might want to comment on this—we heard today from the industry associations today that the cotton industry in particular is quite interested in diversifying into hemp, whether it's for a rotational crop or for other benefits. Are you able to corroborate that? Is that something that you are aware of or have factored into the industry's development? Ms Beresford : We haven't had any discussion directly with Cotton Australia on those types of research opportunities, but we're more than happy to. We do see hemp as fitting into farming systems and production cycles where it could complement cotton, absolutely. That's something that we could look at with them in the future. Senator WHISH-WILSON: In terms of export development, I know there's extra regulation. I understand from the DAFF submission that, because hemp is recognised as a narcotic and requires an export licence and permit from the narcotics controlled section within the ODC, it needs to be inspected by the department. Were export markets included in AgriFutures's projections for future growth for the industry, or was it all pretty much domestic growth? Ms Beresford : Yes, they do take that into account in their projections. I've just got this here for you. Currently, CSIRO's estimate on the GVP of the industry is between $5 million to $15 million. That'll give you a ballpark, but that's more the Australian domestic GVP size. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Does DAFF see export potential for Australian hemp products? We heard some examples of hemp fibre exports to China and the EU today. Is this part of the potential of the industry? Mr Bursle : I'm not particularly well placed. My typical responsibility is in the agvet chemicals regulatory framework. I think, in a principle sense, yes. As AgriFutures has identified, there are potential export markets. But ultimately that's a matter for the industry, really, to consider its marketing and consider those export opportunities in consultation with AgriFutures. As reflected in their evidence, a single voice and some unified prioritisation around how to explore those opportunities would be of assistance. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Apart from the export example I gave, where there's liaison with the Office of Drug Control, what other overlaps—whether it's with APVMA, or, I suppose, FSANZ, which slightly outside the purview—do you have with the narcotics regulations? Mr Bursle : We're probably not terribly well placed to comment on the health department's regulatory frameworks. I can speak in generalities to the export control framework that DAFF is responsible for, but the narcotics legislation is managed by the health department. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Do you have any direct overlap with him yourself, Scott? Mr Hansen : With TGA and through the poison scheduling, yes, we do. We try to work collaboratively together on that front. For example, part of those label requirements that you must meet—if you're going to get yourself green ticks and get yourself as an excluded product and not treated as a veterinary chemical product—is that you have to use the signal headings that are required for that schedule in the poison schedule, which is done by TGA. I forget the actual words for Schedule 8—because it'd be a Schedule 8—but they have to be on the packaging. We try to cross-reference and work together on that. That's about the remit. Senator WHISH-WILSON: As a matter of interest, are any of the hemp oil products grown from industrial hemp to your knowledge, or is it on a smaller scale? The kinds of products that you've been looking at, regarding the classifications and your discussions with hemp industry, do they come from industrial hemp per se or low THC hemp? Mr Hansen : The conversations we've had so far have been with those growers who are growers of industrial hemp, but I'm sure that there's a range. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Does it include imports as well? Have you had registrations for any imported products? Mr Hansen : No, we haven't. It wouldn't be precluded, but we haven't. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Interesting, because we certainly get them in the medicinal cannabis space in a big way—especially a large amount of them from Canada. Here's a general question to Guy and then Samantha. What do you see as the advantages of hemp as a crop—for us to have a National Plan and develop the industry—what do you see as the advantages of hemp? Mr Bursle : It's probably not really my place to offer an opinion about that, Senator. I think in general— Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'm not looking for an opinion, but some expertise. Mr Bursle : I think, ultimately, it's in the economy's interest to have a diverse agricultural sector, but it's up to individual growers to make their own choices about what the highest and best use of their land is, and what the opportunities are for them to have an integrated and diverse farm business. So I think as a general principle, diversity is good, but, really, it's up to growers to make decisions that best serve their interests. AgriFutures may have views. Senator WHISH-WILSON: True, but we also have overlays around what's in the national interest and what's in the interest of the environment. There are lots of advantages to hemp, but that's not a consideration. The DAFF like the amount of water it uses, the amount of chemicals it uses, that they self-pollinate and don't require bees. There are lots of advantages to hemp, but you don't think that, given future projections of changing climate and putting carbon back into the soil so it could feed into—we talked a little bit about carbon offsets today and the advantages in those markets. Hemp could sit up there with forestry in terms of its ability to offset carbon pollution. These aren't considerations that are being considered by the department? Mr Bursle : Again, it's not my area of direct expertise. There is policy work that the government is doing in terms of the food security plan that considers these kinds of issues, but, in a specific to industrial hemp context, no, I don't think so. Other than saying that a diverse economy is good and that it's up to individual growers, I don't think we'd offer a view. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Have you got anything to add to that, Samantha? Ms Beresford : I would just say I've been amazed, in the time that I've been in AgriFutures, at the growth potential of the industry. When we started the program of research, it was really around oil and seed and that type of commodity. We see the industry quickly pivoting into building and construction materials like hempcrete, which is super exciting. We're potentially talking about feedstock as well, so you've hit the nail on the head about the number of things that we can do with this product—its sustainability credentials as well as its water usage. That's a big theme of the program of research: actually putting some evidence behind that for the industry so that they can propel forward. One of the main reasons why we made this investment was because of all those different opportunities—its short life cycle too. But I would say there are some basic things we need to get right. Through our program of research, we're finding germination rates that are only at 30 per cent, and that's just not good enough for the Australian market. This is why we're trying to invest in such practical things for growers to help propel them forward. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'm sorry, I didn't follow up on the cultivar study you did in Tassie. With the genetics and all of that, there are so many combinations, and so little is known about this plant. Where did you land with that? Has it been published, and is it publicly available? Ms Beresford : It's been published only in the last month or so. What we're rolling out is a big extension program for those variety trials. We want to give growers a really practical toolset—something that they can log on and say, 'This is the area that I'm in; this is the type of variety that I could grow,' and giving them that really practical offering. We've had some really good results to date, but there needs to be more investment into things like plant breeding, especially for the Australian climate and the Australian market. That's where this next stage of the program and research will really help that and build upon those variety trials and the varieties we've currently got in Australia. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I don't want to get too parochial, but are we anywhere near working out where in the country is the best place to grow it? We heard— CHAIR: New South Wales. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Apart from New South Wales. We heard earlier today that it wasn't suitable for the Northern Territory. I don't know if I heard that correctly. No? I must have misheard that. Can it be grown anywhere, or is it better suited to certain climates and soil types et cetera? Ms Beresford : Yes—to begin with. But we are working on dry land varieties that we have tried to grow in Katherine, in the Northern Territory. We're not saying you can't do it; it's just that we need to get all those agronomic tools around it correct to be able to do it. But there's definitely been that heavy focus in those southern areas to begin with. The great thing about these variety trials and the locations that we've spread across Australia is that we've actually got some good datasets around that, and we're having a red-hot crack at growing this variety in different regions. Senator WHISH-WILSON: If that's going to be published shortly, how far away do you think we are from being able to give—we've heard from the industry associations today that they do field days, they do a lot of advocacy and they talk to a lot of growers. They've had a lot of farmers interested and farmers that have made inquiries. How far away do you think we'd be from having a toolkit for farmers that has AgriFutures or the department's fingerprints on it? Ms Beresford : We're definitely nearly there. As I said, we've got that first round of published data. For this next round of program research, we're trying to create that next stage of a tool in our hemp grow product. But, absolutely, we've got published data ready to go to help the industry. It's now on us to build really good extension opportunities to get it out there to growers through things like field days that we actively sponsor and are actively part of. Our industry associations are such a big help with spreading the word, because they have those connections for us. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'll put my other question on notice, Chair, but I've got one other one. One of the consistent barriers to entry into the market that's raised as a risk to farmers is getting the one per cent threshold right and growing the plant correctly so it's not too stressed or its nitrogen levels don't distort that one per cent. Are you aware of proposals that the committee has looked at about verification for seeds and, in particular, getting the seeds right? We've heard today that some of them are imported from China and some of them are propagated here. Is that an issue that AgriFutures is looking at? If we could get a verification process on seeds, that could end up reducing the risk for the Office of Drug Control as well. There could be an independent process to get the right seed genetic material so those THC levels wouldn't exceed one per cent. Ms Beresford : Yes, absolutely, and this is probably what we're doing in the next stage of our program of research, but I suppose that's a little bit on suppliers, too, to get that right from their end. As you said, there are so many different factors that increase THC levels—for example, if you put it in a drought setting and it gets too much heat, that can spike THC levels. So this is what we're trying to do, not even in the seed quality but also looking at the different varieties, to say, 'Here are some other factors that can blow that out.' Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you. CHAIR: In all of this, it's still an agricultural product, and I'm getting back to that, but you said 30 per cent germination rates, I think, Ms Beresford. Are we finding any other stuff in normal pests in Australia—varietals, any other diseases—that we haven't seen in the rest of the world, in plants? Ms Beresford : In hemp specifically, I'm not aware of any that we're not seeing around the world. CHAIR: What are we doing on germination rates? Is it just varietal, or are we trying different sources? What are we doing? It's just varietal? Ms Beresford : Yes, varietal, a different type of conditions, watering, depth of planting of seeds, soil quality—all those things—to try to get that germination up. As I said, that's just not going to be acceptable to growers in the longer term if we don't shift the dial on that. That's what I would really like to advocate, and say that they're the types of things where we can help, that are really practical and that can help the industry propel forward, if we can just get those germination rates correct. CHAIR: Okay. Great. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: On the agronomics—and I'll go to you, Mr Hansen, on that—are there any particular actives required or being utilised for hemp that have required off-label or minor-use permits or special elements that you've had to manage as an approval process for these crops? Mr Hansen : I think we have nine current minor-use permits for the hemp industry. They are largely to allow the replication of use patterns that are used for other broadacre crops for pest control, weed control or disease control, to allow the hemp industry to utilise those products, because they're not on label. We have nine active ones at the moment. Senator COLBECK: So they're approved for another crop, but provided with an off-label extension, if you like, for utilisation on a hemp crop? Mr Hansen : And probably the majority of the types of minor-use permits we get are requirements for a small industry to be able to have a use pattern on a chemical that hasn't undertaken the full-blown efficacy trials, safety trials or residue trials for that crop to be on the label. So they come to us, usually in partnership with Hort Innovation Australia or AgriFutures, in supporting some data to assist us in considering it and granting a minor-use permit so they can use that chemical safely and efficaciously without trying to wait until a chemical company does the work to put it on the label. Senator COLBECK: Would those minor-use permits then replicate things like withholding periods and elements of that nature in the way they would apply to that particular use? Mr Hansen : They can, but normally we will look specifically for the residue evidence to work out whether it needs to be treated differently, given the type of product it's being applied to. They're not carbon copies, because we do the individual assessment for that crop for that use, and then we apply it appropriately. Senator COLBECK: Do any of those applications potentially impact opportunities for export? Are there restrictions on utilisation of certain actives in relation to what trading partners might accept? Mr Hansen : Trade is actually one of the criteria that we have to consider. The question we have to ask on that front: is would the use of this product in the way it's described unduly impact trade with another country? As a result, we consider that before we issue the permit. Senator COLBECK: Okay. On trade, I'll flip again to the department and perhaps AgriFutures. There have been a couple of conversations in relation to trade and trade restrictions around plant material. I would assume that, wherever it might be proposed to send it, it would have to comply with that particular jurisdiction's phytosanitary requirements if they were in force. Mr Bursle : That's right. In our role as an export regulator, we really look to the importing country requirements and then work with industry to make sure that they're able to satisfy them and, if necessary or required by the importing country, for us to certify that a product meets their requirements. Senator COLBECK: Is it a process of having a phytosanitary agreement, for example, with a particular jurisdiction? Mr Bursle : It will likely depend on the individual product and the individual market, but in some cases, or in many cases, a phytosanitary certificate will be required. Senator COLBECK: So, in that circumstance, they would have to get on the merry-go-round and/or waiting list for the negotiation of that process to enable a product to be moved? Mr Bursle : Potentially. But I can take that on notice. I'm not an expert in the export country requirements and the prioritisation processes with other countries. Senator COLBECK: The next question in that series—there are two elements of the plant. For example, this morning we heard discussion about fibre from hemp going into China for integration in fabric. Does that vary based on the level of processing that a product might have undertaken, or does that, again, depend on the market? Mr Bursle : Yes, again it would depend on the market and the importing country requirements and what's been set. Where those requirements are known, the department has a database called Micor, the Manual of Importing Country Requirements, that would set those out. Senator COLBECK: Thanks. CHAIR: Anything more? We may have an early mark. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I might make a quick statement, Chair. CHAIR: Okay, I'll indulge you. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you to AgriFutures for the work they've done so far and to the department for overseeing that. This is an industry that's been around for thousands of years, and a product and a plant that's been around for thousands of years, but it's still fledgling in 2026 because governments sat on this all around the world because of its association with cannabis. It's really only been in the last 10 years that we've been able to unshackle it and start looking into its potential. Other countries are more advanced than we are. But I do feel that morally the government's got a role to try and help it get back on its feet, given that it's been the heavy overburden of government regulation over many years that's stymied its growth. It's got enormous potential for the environment and a whole range of other things. That's just me making a quick statement. CHAIR: Well done. Good question! That concludes today's hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses who appeared. Thank you to Hansard, Broadcasting and the secretariat. Thank you to my fellow senators for having a lovely, well-held meeting. Committee adjourned at 15:14