The Senate Has Put Hemp on the National Agenda. What Happens Next?

Australia now has 14 recommendations for turning hemp from a promising crop into a coordinated national industry. The hard part is turning those recommendations into standards, infrastructure, markets and real reform.

Margaret River Hemp Co  •  August 2026  •  Part 1 of the Australia's Hemp Opportunity series

Earlier this year, we wrote that Australia was finally asking the right question about hemp. The Senate inquiry was still underway, the hearings were exposing the barriers, and the industry was waiting to see whether those concerns would make it into the final report.

Now we have the answer. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has released Opportunities for the development of a hemp industry in Australia: a 147-page report shaped by 71 public submissions, three public hearings and evidence from growers, processors, researchers, builders, manufacturers and industry groups.

Its 14 recommendations cover national regulation, export rules, government procurement, construction standards, fire and carbon testing, research, processing infrastructure, and the treatment of legal hemp businesses by advertisers and payment providers.

The report is not reform itself. It is a map of where reform needs to happen.

For those of us who have worked in this industry for decades, that distinction matters. The report does not change a law, build a processing plant or put hempcrete into the National Construction Code overnight. What it does is place many of the industry's long-standing problems—and several practical solutions—on the national record.

The next question is whether governments, regulators and industry are prepared to follow through.

A national framework instead of a state-by-state patchwork

The report begins with the problem that sits underneath almost every other problem: Australia still regulates hemp through overlapping federal, state and territory systems.

The committee recommends considering a Commonwealth definition of industrial hemp, simplifying licensing obligations, reducing duplication between agencies, removing the export-licence requirement for hemp food products, and recognising state and territory licences across jurisdictions. It also recommends a national taskforce to develop a coordinated hemp framework.

That does not mean every detail has been settled. The report deliberately asks government to consider the downstream effects of a national definition, and several recommendations still require consultation and legislative work. But the direction is clear: an industry cannot scale nationally while growers and processors face a different operating environment every time they cross a state border.

The five shifts behind the 14 recommendations

The report understands that regulation is not the only problem

One of the most valuable parts of the report is its honesty about the industry's commercial reality.

The committee describes a chicken-and-egg problem: growers are reluctant to dedicate land to hemp without viable processors and end markets; investors are reluctant to fund processing without guaranteed crops and buyers; and manufacturers cannot develop products without a dependable supply of processed fibre and hurd.

That is why the report does not stop at licensing. It calls for more specialised processing research, a new AgriFutures research and development plan, and deliberate market development. It also recognises that regional processing matters because bulky hemp straw is best processed close to where it is grown.

This is an issue we know firsthand. Margaret River Hemp Processing was established because raw crops do not become building materials, textiles, boards or other finished products without the machinery and local capability to separate and prepare the fibre, hurd and fines.

Our own evidence to the inquiry called for stronger market development, modernised machinery and support for processing plants. The report reflects that broader industry message: Australia does not simply need more hectares of hemp. It needs a connected value chain.

Government can help build demand—not just write rules

Recommendation 7 may be one of the most practical in the entire report. It asks the Department of Finance to establish a process for explicitly considering hemp-based products in government procurement policies and plans.

The committee gives a concrete example: hemp-based sound attenuation barriers used in major highway projects. The same principle could extend to boards, insulation, modular housing and other public construction applications where a hemp product can meet the required performance standard.

Procurement matters because it creates something the industry urgently needs: dependable demand. A government contract does more than buy a product. It gives growers, processors and manufacturers the confidence to invest in the supply chain required to deliver it.

This is not about giving hemp a free pass. Hemp products should still be tested, specified and compared on performance, cost and whole-of-life value. It is about ensuring they are considered rather than excluded before the comparison begins.

Hemp construction has moved from side note to national priority

Four of the 14 recommendations relate directly to building materials. The committee recommends a building standard for hemp products, formal fire testing, measurement of carbon-carrying capacity, and a best-practice standardisation process that could lead to hempcrete being recognised in the National Construction Code.

That is significant. The report identifies construction as one of hemp's most promising near-term opportunities, while also acknowledging the barriers that builders, certifiers and insurers face when products are approved case by case.

For Hemp Homes Australia and other builders working with hemp-based materials, formal standards would not merely improve awareness. They could reduce uncertainty, improve consistency and make it easier for designers, councils, certifiers, insurers and clients to assess projects on a common basis.

Again, the recommendations are not the finished result. Hempcrete has not suddenly been added to the Code. Testing, standards development and government action still have to occur. But the committee has clearly identified the pathway.

The whole-plant question is recognised—but not resolved

The report also records a problem that goes to the heart of circularity: Australian businesses cannot always use every valuable part of a compliant hemp crop.

It cites our estimate that restrictions on hemp leaf, root and flower can remove up to 50 per cent of a crop's potential value. That affects competitiveness, product development and the ability to build a genuinely low-waste industry.

The report recognises the issue, but its final list stops short of a standalone recommendation explicitly authorising whole-plant use. Broader recommendations to simplify regulation may create a pathway for future reform, but this remains unfinished work.

That is worth saying plainly. A strong report should be welcomed, but it should also be read critically. The industry still needs clear, evidence-based rules that allow more of a legal crop to be used safely and commercially rather than destroyed or left without a market.

A legal industry should be treated like a legal industry

The final recommendation addresses a barrier that can sound trivial until it happens to your business: payment providers, advertisers and online platforms restricting hemp businesses because an automated system misunderstands the word “hemp”.

The committee's position is direct: hemp is a legitimate and legal product, and businesses should not be prevented from operating or advertising because of misunderstanding and stigma.

For an industry trying to educate new customers, attract investment and compete with imported products, access to ordinary commercial services is not optional. Recommendation 14 is important because it acknowledges that modern regulation is not limited to government. Private platforms can create their own barriers, even when the underlying business is lawful.

So, what happens next?

The first step is to remember what a Senate committee report is—and what it is not.

The recommendations do not implement themselves. Government departments must respond. Some changes may require legislation, intergovernmental agreement, technical testing, budget decisions or new standards. Industry will also need to do its part by presenting clearer priorities, building credible data and working with a more coordinated voice.

The report itself warns that fragmented industry representation makes it harder for government to identify the most urgent needs. That is an uncomfortable point, but a fair one. A national framework will only work if the industry can help shape it constructively.

The areas to watch are now clear:

• whether the Australian Government formally responds to the 14 recommendations;
• whether a national hemp framework and cross-jurisdiction licence recognition progress;
• whether procurement rules begin to create real demand for Australian hemp materials;
• whether fire, carbon and product testing leads to construction standards;
• whether the next research plan invests beyond agronomy and into processing and markets; and
• whether online platforms and payment providers actually change their treatment of legal hemp businesses.

A report worth acting on

After more than 30 years working with hemp, we do not need another round of vague praise for the plant's potential. We need the systems that turn potential into farms, processing capacity, products, buildings, jobs and regional value.

The Senate report is encouraging because it understands that the industry is not being held back by one problem. Regulation matters. Processing matters. Standards matter. Demand matters. Research matters. Fair access to basic business services matters.

Most importantly, those pieces have to work together.

Australia has now put hemp on the national agenda. The next test is whether we are prepared to build the industry described in the report.

At Margaret River Hemp Co, we will keep doing what we have always done: growing, processing, making, building, educating and showing what a connected Australian hemp industry can look like in practice.

NEXT IN THE SERIES
Australia Does Not Have a Hemp-Growing Problem. It Has a Processing Problem.

Source and further reading

• Read the Senate inquiry and report
• Read our pre-report analysis: Australia Is Finally Asking the Right Question About Hemp
• Explore our farm-to-finished hemp story
• Learn about Margaret River Hemp Processing
• Learn about Hemp Homes Australia