BASTOCK, Mr Ashley, General Manager Agriculture and Water, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania HALL, Ms Jo, Manager Agriculture Policy, AgriGrowth Tasmania, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania [14:15] ACTING CHAIR: I now welcome representatives of the Tasmanian government. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. I invite you to make an opening statement, and once you've done that we'll go to questions from colleagues. Mr Bastock : We'll touch on a few of the issues that were made in the government's submission. It starts with the fact that the Tasmanian government has always endeavoured to be a strong supporter of a developing industrial hemp industry in Tasmania. My understanding is we were the first jurisdiction, in 2015, to formalise an industrial hemp act, with the intent of having a simple licensing system that sets the right settings for growers and experts to innovate, value-add and develop a prosperous, sustainable and valuable industry. I'm sure some of the people that you've already spoken to have referred to the fact that the government, through our department, did a review of the Industrial Hemp Act which concluded in 2024. The key point from that was the intent was to respond to industry's desire for greater whole-of-plant use. So, in addition to some clarifying amendments to the act and the regulations for improved transparency and efficiency, and the complementary updates to streamline and simplify licence conditions, the updated act now provides a new licence purpose for horticultural use. This is to explicitly enable our hemp growers to supply bulk hemp straw bales to licensed persons to use as horticultural mulch in orchards and vineyards and as composting material, as a potential value-add pathway for a harvest by-product that might otherwise be wasted. That has converted itself into some trials, including trials on at least five vineyards at the moment. That's something we're happy to go into in a little bit more detail. Importantly—as I note the hemp association referred to—the Tasmanian government has provided $700,000 since 2017-18 for industry support and development, including research funding. Further details of that are in our submission. There are also no licence fees to apply for a Tasmanian industrial hemp licence. The industry data, updated from our original submission for 2025-26, notes that there are 60 licence holders, which includes 17 active growers with 373 hectares under cultivation—and, of course, we've got five participants in that horticultural mulch pilot I referred to. I'm sure this has been raised before: the activity for industrial hemp peaked in 2019-20, when we had 1,500 hectares under cultivation and Tasmania produced around 30 per cent of Australia's total industrial hemp crop, which at that time was valued at a farm-gate value of around $5 million. We want to reinforce two matters, which are particularly relevant to the committee's terms of reference, that arose through our Tasmanian act review. We would consider and support industry where there is potential scope for reform at the national level. The first is hemp as animal food and livestock fodder. Industry stakeholders locally and around Australia have certainly identified the potential opportunities for hemp as an animal food and/or livestock fodder. We note that this is primarily a matter for the APVMA, if not FSANZ, depending on the issue. We understand that the regulatory settings for hemp raw material to be used as livestock fodder need to be informed by that further research into bioaccumulation of THC and the appropriate withholding periods, as well as any considerations for export-market access and consumer confidence. We also note that current registration requirements and future regulatory pathways for any animal or pet-food product containing cannabis or cannabinoids is currently the subject of ongoing discussions between the APVMA and industry measures. That's the first one. The second issue, which came up very strongly through the review of our act, was non-medicinal extracts. Our submission notes that there is currently no pathway that allows non-medicinal extracts of industrial hemp. We certainly understand and share industry's desire that there be a variety of value added industrial products that could be produced from non-medicinal extracts or resins, including such things as glues, insecticides, bioplastics, adhesives, putty, industrial gels and lubricants. I'm sure that you've heard many examples in the last two days. As the Office of Drug Control points out in its submission, policy and legislative reform are required to unlock this opportunity for the industrial hemp industry, and we would fully concur with that and would be seeking national leadership in that. I won't go through some of the details which you've no doubt been briefed on in relation to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Poisons Standard et cetera, except to make it clear that the Tasmanian government's position in response to industry submissions for our review was that it supports 'a coordinated, industry led approach at the national level to advocate for a pathway for non-medicinal extracts or resins from industrial hemp' within the existing drug control framework. It has certainly been suggested we should go it alone, but Tasmania, and hence Australia, has an international reputation as a reliable producer of licit poppy material owing to our longstanding industry, our regulatory environment and our long history of compliance with the UN convention. Tasmania takes that responsibility to be consistent with the single convention very seriously. We know Australia is required to seek annual endorsement on the estimate of production of narcotic drugs, including the annual poppy cultivation estimates. I realise licensed poppy cultivation is not what you're here to talk about, but it illustrates the point about the need for that national consistent reform when it comes to extracts for industrial hemp. The poppy industry in Tasmania, depending on the year, is worth between $30 million to $50 million just at the farm gate. We have four local senators here, and you would appreciate the flow-on effects and employment and processing that also occurs in our state. We have no desire to create an inconsistency with an international drug control framework which may create a reputational commercial risk for Tasmanian industry. So, rather than taking unilateral action on this issue, we're advocating a considered, coordinated, industry led approach at the national level. Through our review—and we can explore this if required—we are aware that if we went alone on non-medicinal extracts a range of issues may arise for the industry that may cause some issues with exporting products, potential offences under the Criminal Code and the Commonwealth, and also inconsistencies with the Industrial Chemicals Act and the like. My last point is that, like the regulation of industrial hemp in food, which we are proud to say was led by Tasmania—and some of my colleagues in the department were able to change that at national level in 2017—we believe this issue has to be addressed nationally to avoid creating more barriers for industrial hemp growers in, for example, trade and product registration and to get back to that principle we're trying to meet, which is enabling farmers to get more value from the plants they produce. ACTING CHAIR: The first point that I made when jotting some notes about questions for you was the national implications of leading. From what you've just said, there's not necessarily an issue with leading, as long as the process culminates in a national approach that fits within the existing frameworks. There was some discussion this morning in evidence in relation to the way that the single convention is interpreted. Is that an issue? Are people changing the way it's interpreted, or are we better off to be maintaining our interpretation of the framework and having our standards set to fit within that process and alignment? I'm trying to say the same thing that you were explaining with respect to the poppy industry, because I think four of us sitting at this table understand the importance of the development of that industry and its contribution to the economy locally, both behind the farm gate and for downstream process. Ms Hall : The first answer to that question is that the Office of Drug Control really should provide you with an answer because they are the interpreters of the single convention for Australia. ACTING CHAIR: We'll put that on our list. Ms Hall : And, as Ashley has pointed out, we really are very concerned about being consistent with that. ACTING CHAIR: Because we have more at stake than just this particular— Ms Hall : And poppy farmers are also hemp farmers, so they grow both. Mr Bastock : It's on the record—and we're happy to assist your secretariat—we deliberately sought submissions from the ODC for our own review and for our parliamentary process to be clear about what their position was on this matter. They were pretty crystal clear in their interpretation that the concerns are about being out of sync and that there is no pathway for non-medicinal. In my understanding, the fact that there's just not a pathway is the argument. It's not that it's either excluded or not excluded; there's not a pathway to navigate your way through it, if that makes sense. ACTING CHAIR: Does that come down to definitional issues—the way that we define hemp as a product? Ms Hall : It's actually more to do with extracts of cannabis. If you go back to the single convention, schedule I states that extracts of cannabis are a drug, and that's where you end up with— ACTING CHAIR: So it doesn't matter whether it's THC, CBD or any of the other acronyms that I'm not going to be able to remember today; they are an extract of a drug and therefore defined that way? Ms Hall : That's where they sit under the single convention. That's as far as we can go. Mr Bastock : It almost strikes me as slightly odd that it's, 'If it's medicinal, knock yourself out'—there are pathways and processes for that. We're talking about the non-therapeutic, non-medicinal approach, and there actually just isn't a pathway that satisfies it. It does, as Jo said, lead us back to the definition of cannabis and the like. ACTING CHAIR: In the context of utilising the plant, as may occur in other jurisdictions, is it being managed in a different way, say, in Canada? Ms Hall : I couldn't speak to the detail of Canada's regulation, but I think they have very different interests in terms of other competing industries. They don't have a problem with it, I think, which is the issue. ACTING CHAIR: So, if we're talking about any form of medicinal extraction from a plant, it therefore falls under Australia's interpretation of the convention? Ms Hall : This, again, goes to the Narcotic Drugs Act, the Commonwealth act. I'm not the expert in that, but my understanding of the Narcotic Drugs Act is that it maps directly back to the single convention, which defines extracts of cannabis as a drug. It doesn't matter what extract we're talking about. It's any extract. Medicinal, non-medicinal—it's all defined under the drug control framework. ACTING CHAIR: I don't think I'm getting any further by going further down that path. In terms of your comments in respect to the utilisation of products, what conversations have you had with, for example, APVMA and particularly FSANZ—which I am familiar with—where you do have a seat at the table in respect of changes that might be required in those regulatory frameworks? Ms Hall : With respect to FSANZ, on the minimum residue levels in milk and meat, for example, which other witnesses have spoken to—and which, of course, is of concern to the Tasmanian government as well; we want to make sure that we're not inconsistent with anything to do with that—my understanding is that there just needs to be more evidence in order to make any setting other than zero minimum residue levels in milk and meat for THC. ACTING CHAIR: In that sense, for the record, our requirements are very much driven by our global requirements, particularly for those products that we export a lot of: milk and meat. Ms Hall : Yes, exactly. ACTING CHAIR: We need to be able to guarantee that we meet the MRLs that are set by our trading partners for other markets. Ms Hall : Yes. My understanding is that, because there's no safe maximum— ACTING CHAIR: There's no MRL set. Ms Hall : Yes. Because there's no MRL set, it has to be zero. ACTING CHAIR: If there's no MRL set for something, it is automatically zero. Ms Hall : Exactly. And, because there hasn't been a body of research to demonstrate what a safe level might be, it's hard for the regulator to move on that. We're suggesting that that's something that should continue to be looked at. With the pet food issue, which is where you're doing more of a processing thing—and it's not so much livestock fodder; we're talking more about the real value-add stuff for the multibillion dollar pet industry—APVMA are really the key regulators in that space. We've heard today that they're moving on some of their settings, and we would continue to be going, 'Yes, please.' ACTING CHAIR: But you would be participants in that process, I would have thought. Ms Hall : The Tasmanian government as participants in that process? ACTING CHAIR: Well, it's a national regulatory framework, and the Tasmanian government has a role in managing the application rather than the regulation. Mr Bastock : I think what Jo's indicating is that we might not be directly involved, in AgriGrowth and NRE Tas, but certainly the government is. In my experience previously, no doubt we would be working—if it's FSANZ—with the Department of Health, who may be the lead on that. That would be my suspicion. So, yes, we would be involved— ACTING CHAIR: But, for animal products, would it not fall within your portfolio? Mr Bastock : and then potentially with Biosecurity Tasmania when it comes to our primary produce safety approach. So, yes, the government would. Jo and I just personally aren't. That's all we're reflecting. But, yes, we would certainly have an interest, and we do work with our colleagues in those other agencies on this matter, particularly through the review of our act. When this was a hot topic, 12 or 18 months ago or a touch longer, we were certainly engaged in trying to understand if there was anything we could do in relation to this MRL and the feeding of hemp to livestock. Our chief vet ultimately gave us some strong advice through that approach as to where that zero lands. At the moment, until there is something, we just can't go there if it's going to enter the food chain. Senator TYRRELL: Can I ask one question? We can put lipstick on a pig that has hempseed oil in it, but we can't put it on me. Is that right, or is it the other way around? Ms Hall : Extracts of hempseed oil are absolutely fine and wonderful. It's extracts of other fractions of the plant. Senator TYRRELL: We'd have to harvest a whole paddock of fibre hemp to possibly get an illegal amount of—whatever the ABC is. I'm a little bit confused. It sounds like we're holding back an industry because of a definition which the federal government is controlling, or has influence on, but the state government is investing a significant amount of money in hemp trials and trying to expand and grow the business. It feels like you're punching against each other. You probably can't comment on that, but I've said it out loud now. There's a three-letter acronym I want to throw out there, but I'm not allowed to because Hansard cannot cope with that. That was more of a statement than a question, but I'll shut up now. ACTING CHAIR: We'll go back to the other end of the table, and I'll take that as a statement in true style from a TV program I like. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I have a quick question. I know this is something obviously the committee is going to look at when we visit other states, but how is Tasmania's regulatory framework different to the other states? Do you have collaborative approaches? Obviously there's National Cabinet and other ways to work together on a number of issues, but how are you collaborating nationally? Mr Bastock : Jo, before I let you loose on that one, there is a national regulators forum on hemp, where we get together and in a practical sense share ideas and experiences. As the first, I think we've been looked at quite a lot, as a state. That's applied elsewhere, how we apply it, in other states. But, Jo, I know you're itching to answer that question about how we stand. Ms Hall : We have very collaborative relationships with the regulators interstate. A lot of them are going through their own reviews or have been through their own reviews of their legislation. In Victoria, of course, they're just establishing their own standalone act, and they're on the phone to us saying, 'How do we navigate that issue?' In Victoria, they're coming from a misuse of drugs act application, which is probably more where we were prior to 2015. So it's just nice to be able to lend some real-world experience, also from the maturity of the industry here and the experience of what is a very light touch regulatory environment here in Tasmania. Mr Bastock : I think that's the key point, isn't it, Jo? Relatively, we're very simple. We're through a review outcomes based legislation, whereas others are perhaps going more down a prescriptive path. We've tried to keep ours relatively simple. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could I ask why? Is this because we've had experience with the poppy industry, for example, and you're familiar with— Ms Hall : It's more of an enabling environment. I think 'How do we make the settings right so that industry can actually do this thing?' rather than 'How do we stop this thing from happening?' is the motivation of the government. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'm proud that Tasmania has been very progressive on this issue, as we have been with medicinal cannabis as well. What was the origin of this? Was it industry that came to you, to the Tasmanian government? Obviously there are political overlays to this that you don't need to get into, but what drove the Tasmanian government, including giving grants of $700,000 to the Tasmanian Hemp Association and others, to— Mr Bastock : If I remember my history correctly, it was probably around 2012 or thereabouts that there was a parliamentary inquiry into the hemp industry in Tasmania at the state level. That, at the time, was in response to growing interest from innovators. We've heard their names today. I can recall Mr Reader at the time and Mr Schmidt and others were very keen to try and progress something, and it did get picked up as an inquiry at that time. I'll just qualify that—I'm testing my memory banks. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I do remember an inquiry. Mr Bastock : Yes, and it had, if I recall, good support through the Tasmanian parliament, which then led to, upon a change of government in 2014, that desire to then legislate and create the Industrial Hemp Act. That obviously went through in 2015. The impetus came from industry. I want to be really clear about that environment at the time. But then it did get that support. I think it was mentioned here earlier that it got quite a lot of support from all sides of parliament at that time to have an enabler. And, yes, you're correct; there was that thought about: 'Well, we've done it on poppies. It makes sense to do it on hemp.' And there was a lot of interest there at the time. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Are there any other examples that you could point the committee to? Industrial hemp is obviously very small scale in Tasmania and in Australia. Are there any other examples of cottage industries that have grown in Tasmania from small scale to being larger industries—any case studies? Mr Bastock : Perhaps in a similar vein, a recent experience that almost follows the path of industrial hemp has been our seed industry in Tasmania—pasture and vegetable seeds and those sorts of things. So it was always here. I know there are people behind me that understand that much better than me. But in terms of where government was coming from, almost in parallel to how we encourage the development of the hemp industry, there was work where the government looked at other jurisdictions like New Zealand again for more opportunities. My point being that, similar to the path of the Hemp Association, we were able to invest in the establishment of the Tasmanian Seed Industry Group and help fund them to do an industry plan—very similar model—to try and really help develop that industry. We had various individual parties or commercial entities and helped them come together as an industry sector. It's a very similar model. We've been able to incentivise them to have an industry group and to develop their own industry plan. We don't pretend to understand how the industries work, the commercial side of it and all those sorts of things in any detail compared to sectors. The best thing we believe we can do in a small state is try and empower the industry to do their own industry plan and support them where we can, of course, with regulation, advice or whatever it might be. That's probably another good example. Some of the history of that was that, at that time, there were increasing concerns about the poppy industry in the sense of what happened in the US and the like. There were some market downturns. We're pleased that has actually turned around. Our industry, in the last few years, has grown quite significantly. That's when, as a government and as a department, we were really looking for what else we could help incentivise, particularly on the back of the irrigation investment, and what else we could be doing to exploit that opportunity. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Looking at some of the consistent recommendations we've had from stakeholders, I'd be interested in, for example, how the nationally legislated definition of hemp being 'cannabis with less than one per cent THC' would affect any operations in Tasmania. Would it have any impact from your point of view as state regulators? Mr Bastock : I think we would look to any national developments to see if that required any changes to our state legislation. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Same for hemp being removed from the national poison schedule? Ms Hall : Our department of health colleagues would probably have a view on that. Again, that maps back to a national standard and back to the single convention. Senator WHISH-WILSON: I'm interested as to whether you're aware of whether DAFF being the manager of this rather than the ODC would make things easier as a state. Mr Bastock : Yes, with all the usual qualifications of understanding that. From our perspective—and our government's been clear in what they've asked us to do as a department—anything we can do to enable the industry is something that we would look on favourably. I think that goes to your question about how we created an outcomes based legislation initially to try and make it simple rather than prescriptive and other things we're trying to do, like the fact that we've raised the issues that we have after our review about where there needs to be, we suggest, national reform to give growers more options. Again, if there were something that enabled this to be considered differently, we would look at that favourably. Our experience in developing the act and also the review is—and I really appreciate the views of THA earlier—that we can go so far whilst it's essentially listed and prescribed the way it is when it comes to the cannabis plant. We're trying to do everything we can to make it as straightforward within that. You can read into that. I'm sure we'd be happy to look at any opportunity to promote the industry. ACTING CHAIR: I was going to go to that same point with respect to a definition. It would have to be nationally agreed definition, I would have thought, because of hemp being a product with less than one per cent THC. It still doesn't remove the interpretation of the convention with respect to anything active distilled from a hemp plant. Am I getting it now? Ms Hall : That's my understanding. ACTING CHAIR: So the creation of a national definition of industrial hemp being a product with less than one per cent THC is one thing. Then there is the recognition of that within the interpretation of the convention being another phase of a potential process. Ms Hall : Yes, I think you've just gone to the gap, in that every state and territory that has a hemp act has the same definition for industrial hemp. We all have the same definition of less than one per cent THC. We've got a nationally consistent definition for industrial hemp. Where it sits in the Narcotic Drugs Act and the single convention is where the gap exists. ACTING CHAIR: So everybody's interpretation nationally of industrial hemp is that it's less than one per cent. Ms Hall : Up to. ACTING CHAIR: Up to one per cent? Ms Hall : Yes. It used to be slightly different in Victoria, but they've recently come in line. ACTING CHAIR: So we have a nationally— Ms Hall : It's nationally consistent from an industrial hemp regulator's point of view. ACTING CHAIR: From a regulator's perspective? Ms Hall : Yes. ACTING CHAIR: The point is the continued recognition by the Office of Drug Control and, of course, the Office of Drug Control's interpretation of the single convention. Ms Hall : Yes. ACTING CHAIR: Other steps— Ms Hall : Are missing. There's a gap, yes. ACTING CHAIR: There's a gap in who is making the interpretation and how that fits into our obligations and compliance with our obligations under the single convention, which we have signed up to comply with. I don't have anything further. If something comes up later, we can write you a note on notice. But you have given us some places to go and look for some information, so we very much appreciate that. Thank you for your submission and for appearing before the committee. If there's anything that you've taken on notice, could you please give that back to us by 27 March. That concludes today's hearing. Thank you, colleagues. Committee adjourned at 14:47