The Senate Hemp Inquiry: Why the Longford Hearing Matters for Industrial Hemp in Australia

Industrial hemp sits in a strange place in Australia: it’s widely described as a legitimate agricultural and industrial crop, yet it is still often regulated, perceived, and “handled” as if it were the same thing as high-THC cannabis. That tension is at the heart of the current Senate inquiry into Australia’s hemp industry—and it’s why the public hearing held in Longford last week has people across farming, processing, construction and manufacturing paying close attention. 

What the Senate is investigating

The inquiry is formally titled “Opportunities for the development of a hemp industry in Australia” and is being run through the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. The scope is broad by design: it asks what hemp could contribute to farming systems, manufacturing (including textiles and bio-based plastics), the circular economy, and the construction sector—plus jobs, exports, and regional development. 

It also explicitly asks what research and development is needed, and what regulations (federal and state/territory) are limiting production, processing, and access to domestic and export markets. In other words, the inquiry is not just about growing hemp—it’s about whether Australia can build an end-to-end industry from paddock → processing → products at scale. 

Key process points 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 page captured by Parliament, there are 71 public submissions listed. 

What happened in Tasmania

The inquiry held a public hearing in Longford on 25 February 2026 (listed as a past public hearing by Parliament). At the time of writing, the official transcript for that day is marked “not yet available” on the Parliament hearings page, but the hearing can be followed through official committee listings and recordings. 

Local reporting provides useful on-the-ground context. Coverage of the hearing describes a recurring theme: the hemp industry’s “ongoing battle” with cannabis stigma and restrictive classification by national regulatory frameworks. It also reports that the hearing was preceded by a full-day tour of hemp farms and businesses intended to show senators the real-world supply chain—from fibre processing to food products—already operating in Tasmania. 

That tour matters because one of the industry’s core arguments is “whole-of-plant utilisation”: if a farmer grows hemp for seed, the industry wants the fibre/hurd streams to be usable too—so the economics improve and less biomass is wasted. This point was also explicitly noted by Richard Colbeck (described in reporting as acting chair for the hearing), who said it was important to be able to fully utilise the plant—for example, using fibre when hemp is grown primarily for seed. 

The biggest fault line: hemp as an “agricultural crop” vs hemp under “drug frameworks”

A large share of the inquiry discussion (and many submissions) revolves around a simple practical question:

If industrial hemp is low-THC and non-intoxicating, why is it still regulated through frameworks designed for controlled drugs?

This question comes up repeatedly because hemp in Australia intersects with multiple regulatory systems that were not designed around modern hemp supply chains:

• The Therapeutic Goods Administration maintains the national Poisons Standard (SUSMP), which is then implemented through state and territory legislation. 
• The Office of Drug Control describes how cannabis appears in Schedule 9 (prohibited substance) with exemptions for certain hemp-derived products (e.g., processed hemp fibre and hemp seed oil meeting specified THC conditions), illustrating how “hemp exemptions” exist inside a broader controlled-substance framework. 
• State agencies that license industrial hemp often still rely on “defences” or carve-outs from general drug laws (meaning the industry operates by exception), rather than hemp being treated as a normal agricultural commodity by default. 

This isn’t just a philosophical argument. It has direct knock-on effects for investment, processing, and product development. A recurring point in both media coverage and submissions is that “drug framing” increases perceived regulatory risk—making financiers, councils, insurers, and major buyers less willing to back scaling projects. 

What the industry is asking government to fix

Across commentary around the inquiry, several “reform packages” show up again and again. They are worth understanding because they map closely to the barriers the Senate is investigating.

A nationally consistent definition and clearer line between hemp and high-THC cannabis

In reporting on the Longford hearing, Andi Lucas argued that industrial hemp’s low THC level (under 1%) is not adequately recognised in national settings, and that this misclassification affects investment and the industry’s ability to expand into additional product streams. 

In earlier inquiry coverage, Charles Kovess (quoted as president of the Australian Industrial Hemp Alliance) and Tim Schmidt described the goal as creating a legislated hemp definition (commonly framed as cannabis <1% THC), and removing hemp from poisons scheduling so it is administered like a normal crop rather than under drug settings. 

Less fragmentation across 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 key threshold for “industrial hemp / low-THC hemp,” with certified seed often expected to produce plants at or below 0.5% THC—but the practical rules still differ across states and territories (licence structures, sampling regimes, what plant parts can be processed, and what end-uses are permitted). 

A concrete example of “fragmentation in practice” shows up in submissions: one submission argues that state-by-state licensing duplication creates uncertainty and investor hesitation, and calls for harmonised licensing, clearer pathways in construction standards, and aligned export standards. 

Unlocking “whole-of-plant” markets—especially animal feed and certain processing pathways

This is where the policy becomes very tangible.

Some jurisdictions and regulators explicitly restrict hemp plant parts or uses that would otherwise underpin whole-of-plant economics. For example:

• Agriculture Victoria states that hemp is currently not allowed to be used as stock feed in Australia due to concerns about THC transfer, and specifies that hemp leaves, flowers and whole hemp seeds cannot be fed to livestock (with limited allowances for certain processed/denatured products). 
• A fact sheet from Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania explains that THC is treated as a contaminant with a “maximum residue level” of zero in animal products for human consumption—meaning producers must avoid THC contamination, which acts as a practical barrier without further regulatory change and supporting residue data. 
• AgriFutures Australia notes that, under current settings, THC cannot be present in animal products unless a safe allowable level is set, and that to date a maximum level for THC in animal products has not been established—citing limited data as a key constraint. 
• In the Northern Territory, the Hemp Industry Regulations 2020 include a provision that a licensed person must not process hemp leaf or unfertilised hemp flower heads—an example of how plant-part restrictions can be “hard-coded” into regulations. 

In plain language: if a processor can only easily commercialise seed and stem, the industry leaves value on the table—especially in years when seed price is weak or crop outcomes vary. That is why “whole plant utilisation” surfaced in the Longford hearing and in multiple submissions. 

Why this inquiry matters economically and environmentally, not just politically

The inquiry’s terms of reference explicitly connect hemp to farming systems, manufacturing, circular economy goals, and construction materials. Those are not abstract categories—they map to areas where hemp could provide measurable benefits, if the regulatory and infrastructure bottlenecks are solved. 

Farming systems and water use

Peer-reviewed research comparing fibre crops has found hemp can have lower water requirements and a lower water footprint than cotton, though the magnitude varies by region, production system, and assumptions. For example, a 2023 comparative analysis synthesising prior published sources reported substantially lower water metrics for hemp compared with cotton, and a 2025 scoping review similarly describes hemp water use as significantly lower than cotton in the literature it assessed. 

Government-facing guidance also frames hemp as a potentially “green” crop compared to some alternatives. For instance, a NSW Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development page describes low-THC hemp as having advantages including lower irrigation water and agricultural chemical use than other fibre crops (as a general claim to be evaluated in local conditions). 

Construction materials and embodied carbon

Hemp-based construction products (especially hemp-lime/hempcrete) are frequently discussed in the inquiry context because they connect agriculture to manufacturing and housing. Submissions to the inquiry argue that hemp-based materials are being held back by code recognition and standards pathways, rather than purely technical feasibility. 

On the evidence side, life cycle assessment (LCA) research increasingly evaluates hemp-based building materials for carbon footprint and carbon storage potential:

• A 2024 study in Cleaner Engineering and Technology examined hempcrete mixes via cradle-to-gate LCA to assess carbon-negative potential, emphasising that results depend on mix design (e.g., hemp-to-binder ratios) and system boundaries. 
• A 2023 open-access LCA study assessing hemp-based building materials in Western Australia analysed carbon footprint using ISO LCA approaches and highlights region-specific influences (inputs, productivity, energy mix). 

Policy and standards pathways have also moved internationally. The International Code Council includes an “Appendix BL” for hemp-lime (hempcrete) construction in the International Residential Code digital code library—something Australian stakeholders cite as a model for how code recognition can be handled. 

What happens next and what to watch for

The formal “next milestone” is the committee’s report, due 30 July 2026. Between now and then, the committee will weigh written submissions, evidence from hearings (including Longford), and the practical feasibility of recommendations across agriculture, health/drug scheduling, construction standards, and trade. 

A few practical things to monitor as the inquiry progresses:

• Hearing evidence and transcripts: the Longford transcript is currently listed as not yet available, but this typically updates as committee publications are processed. 
• Whether the committee leans toward “harmonisation” (reducing state-by-state differences) as a core recommendation, as requested in multiple stakeholder submissions. 
• Whether animal feed becomes a priority R&D + regulatory reform track, given the explicit constraints in current government guidance and the data gaps noted by AgriFutures. 
• Construction code pathways: building-sector submissions argue for streamlined recognition through Australian standards and the National Construction Code framework—watch for the committee’s approach here. 

The short version is this: the inquiry is a rare chance to decide whether industrial hemp is treated primarily as a restricted “risk to manage,” or as a climate-smart, innovation-enabling crop that Australia supports with coherent rules, infrastructure, and market development. That choice will shape whether hemp stays niche—or becomes a real regional manufacturing and farming story over the next decade.