Skip to content

Senate Inquiry Submissions

Status: Draft
Source file: 02 Secondary Research/Market Analysis/senate-inquiry-submission-mining.md
Sensitivity review: Completed for public-source material only
Purpose:

This page records an initial targeted mining pass of submissions to the Senate inquiry, *Opportunities for the development of a hemp industry in Australia*.

The inquiry and submissions are useful for two separate purposes:

  • identifying market-validation leads that can be tested later; and
  • tracking sentiment and lived experience that may help explain industry barriers, stakeholder motivation and the possible emotional case.

The submissions are stakeholder evidence. They are not treated as final proof of market demand.

Current Review Status

The inquiry was referred on 23 July 2025. Submissions closed on 12 September 2025. The reporting date is 30 July 2026, so the final committee report is not yet available.

The submissions page lists 71 submissions. This first pass prioritised submissions with apparent relevance to growers, processors, plant protein, building materials, supply-chain bottlenecks and lived experience.

Usable Market Leads

Lead Source IDs Current interpretation
Domestic hemp protein processing exists. S104 Food Frontier identifies Hemp Harvests as operating a dedicated hemp facility producing protein concentrate, oil and hearts. This is a strong lead for processor validation.
Mara Seeds provides concrete grower and processor evidence. S106 Mara Seeds reports 15+ years growing hemp, 20-120 ha cropped annually, breeding activity and grain processing using soybean facilities.
Planting seed may be a practical bottleneck. S106 Suitable commercial planting seed supply should be tested before assuming expansion is easy.
Fibre and hurd processing is a repeated bottleneck. S105, S106, S109, S110 Multiple submissions point to local decortication and freight limits as key constraints.
Plant protein and hemp seed food demand is plausible but not yet bankable. S103, S104, S106 The evidence supports further validation, not a market conclusion.
Construction and hempcrete demand has strong sentiment but needs standards, certification and procurement evidence. S105, S108, S110, S111 The submissions strengthen the case for building-material pathway testing.

Sentiment Themes

Repeated themes include:

  • frustration with hemp being treated like drug cannabis;
  • desire for hemp to be recognised as an ordinary agricultural crop;
  • concern that farmers and regions are missing value because processing infrastructure is absent;
  • pride in Australian-grown housing materials and regional manufacturing;
  • concern that Australia will be left behind while overseas industries scale;
  • lived experience of small operators carrying education, stigma and market-development costs;
  • practical grower caution that hemp needs water, nutrients, machinery, skill and a focused market.

Evidence Use

The submission evidence is useful for Phase 3 design. It should generate direct questions for growers, processors, buyers, builders and regulators.

It should not be used as a final business-case conclusion until claims are triangulated with:

  • price schedules;
  • contract terms;
  • buyer specifications;
  • processor capacity and intake requirements;
  • freight analysis;
  • independent market data;
  • grower budgets and local agronomic evidence.