Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and everyone who has been working on this bill. The Greens will be supporting it. I am going to keep it brief or I will end up echoing everything that Ms Finlay has just said. However, I am no less enthusiastic to be talking about the prospects of enabling the expansion of this important industry for Tasmania. As has been pointed out, this state has proudly led the country in the hemp industry. That is thanks to the empowering state government legislation put in place some years ago. As the industry expands, ongoing amendments to the Industrial Hemp Act to facilitate Tasmania’s continuing innovation in this space are welcome.
Hemp is an extraordinary, versatile product and plant, and its value to the globe, particularly in a time of climate and biodiversity crisis, cannot be overstated. Its long-lasting fibres used, for example, in clothing, can help minimise waste. The strength of hemp fibres for the use of ropes and other heavy-duty products can create goods with a far longer life span. The fast-growing nature of hemp crops means it has a high-yielding turnover and does not require vast amounts of land clearing or other forms of possible environmental destruction. There are also numerous health benefits, which we have heard about today, from consuming hemp products such as seeds and oil. Those include things like reducing inflammation, boosting heart health and improving a variety of skin conditions.
Hemp being a regulated product, as we have heard today, is impacted by two other pieces of legislation in this state, those being the Poisons Act of 1971 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001. Future industry growth will require all three pieces of legislation to be assessed against global movements in the hemp business to ensure that Tasmania does not fall behind. As the minister pointed out, the Competitiveness of Tasmanian Agriculture for 2050 white paper states the ambition to work with the hemp industry to explore options to support future growth and streamline regulation. These amendments are a step in the right direction for streamlining regulation through introducing a range of refined measures determining who is a fit and proper person to be granted a licence. The amendments have generally tidied up the legislation very well.
However, as Ms Finlay has pointed out, amendments to this act can, and should, go further to build the industry and assist with more value-adding opportunities. This is a sentiment shared by various associations, community advocates and groups, some of whom made submissions on these draft amendments. None of the handful of submissions received opposed the amendments, but all had concerns that it did not go far enough and that Tasmania is at risk of losing its nation-leading status if we do not go further.
It is tremendous that these amendments are enabling principal, whole-of-plant uses. This does mean that Tasmania’s hemp industry is going to go further and be truly sustainable as a player with the ability for hemp byproducts to be used for horticultural products such as mulch. We need to see and encourage all industries to be looking at holistic product uses to minimise waste byproducts and to move towards a sustainable, circular economy.
However, some states, such as New South Wales, have been more advanced in enhancing their high-value export opportunities, and a lot of that is through the hemp leaf extract products – restrictions that should be considered for removal within the Tasmanian legislation in the future as well. That would enable our state to create even more sustainable products, including bio‑insecticides, health product additives – that is more towards the health and wellbeing benefits that we have already noted – and beer and tea products as well.
I would like to read in some of the Australian Hemp Industry Association submission, because it does go further to clarify exactly what hemp is, and that seems to be the greatest hindrance that we currently have. The Australian Hemp Industry Association noted that the industrial hemp industry has been stifled for over 100 years by the confusion around the meaning of the word ‘cannabis’. Hemp and cannabis are both terms used to describe a plant of the genus cannabis. However, industrial hemp is a plant with very low levels of the psychoactive substance THC – I will not try to read the whole word.
My sole question is echoing that from Labor and Ms Finlay – why did the bill not go further? There was expectation from the various community groups. Is it the century‑long stigma around hemp and cannabis that it is holding us back and making us slightly risk averse. What more do we need to do to help break down that stigma to progress this industry so that we ensure that Tasmania is absolutely nation leading?
I was also going to read into the Hansard that older Tasmanian Hemp Association submission, which has kindly already been done on my behalf, but I will just echo that final comment from the Tasmanian Hemp Association:
Unfortunately, a failure to take the necessary bold steps now means an opportunity to truly make a difference is being lost.
Before closing, was it not wonderful to hear today of the late Fran Bladel, who led the inquiry into the medicinal uses of cannabis many years ago? That is testament to how Tasmania has really led the way for a variety of uses on the hemp front.
There is absolutely no doubt that the Tasmanian government will continue to support and grow the hemp industry in our state, as is outlined in their 2050 white paper. Hemp can be a huge economic contributor to our agricultural sector, but as the various associations and stakeholders have articulated, we must be far bolder if Tasmania is to keep its nation-leading reputation. The Greens support the bill.
