Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information in relation to the regulation and administration of industrial hemp (iHemp) in Aotearoa New Zealand:

1. **MPI’s Role in Industrial Hemp Oversight**
All documents outlining MPI’s role in industrial hemp licensing, enforcement, monitoring, and compliance since 2018. This includes internal guidelines, ministerial briefings, staff training material, and operational workflows.

2. **Interagency Roles and Responsibilities**
Copies of any memoranda of understanding (MOUs), delegations of authority, joint taskforces, or collaborative agreements between MPI and:

* Ministry of Health (including Medsafe),
* Ministry for the Environment (MfE),
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE),
specifically relating to oversight, regulation, compliance, policy development, or standard setting for industrial hemp.

3. **Concerns about Duplication or Inefficiencies**
Any internal or interagency communications, consultation documents, or briefing papers that raise concerns about duplication of roles, redundant regulatory processes, or inefficiencies in the current industrial hemp regulatory model.

4. **Examples of Functional Overlap**
Any evidence, analysis, or correspondence identifying instances where the same regulatory function (e.g. testing standards, compliance checks, licensing assessments, policy oversight) has been undertaken by more than one agency.

5. **Cost and Administrative Impact**
Any impact assessments, cost-benefit analyses, or reviews conducted by or provided to MPI regarding administrative overhead, duplicated effort, or regulatory burden arising from multi-agency involvement in hemp sector governance since 2018.

I am particularly interested in how overlapping responsibilities across MPI, MoH, MBIE, and MfE may affect efficiency, transparency, and cost within the hemp licensing and compliance system.

If any part of this request is unclear or would benefit from refinement, I am happy to clarify. I respectfully request a response by electronic means within the timeframe set by the Act.

Yours faithfully,

SPENCER JONES

Subject: OIA25-0439 – Offer to Refine Scope and Request for Status
⸻
Kia ora MPI OIA team,

Thank you for your 18 July 2025 response extending the timeframe for OIA25-0439 to 14 August 2025.

I appreciate the acknowledgement that the volume of material involved requires additional time. I would like to assist your team by offering to refine or prioritise the scope of the request, if that would help reduce the burden and avoid any future refusal under section 18(f).

In particular, I would be happy to prioritise the following categories of information:
• Any Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or interagency agreements between MPI and other departments (e.g., Ministry of Health, MBIE, or MfE) concerning industrial hemp regulation.
• Any impact assessments, costings, or internal reviews of MPI’s regulatory role in the hemp sector since 2022.
• Internal or interagency correspondence discussing duplication, overlap, or coordination issues, even if limited to specific projects or years.

If partial release or staged delivery is feasible, I’m open to that as well. I note that the breadth of the original request reflects the fragmented nature of industrial hemp oversight in New Zealand, but I am happy to work with your team to focus on the most accessible and relevant material.

Could you also please confirm:
1. Whether MPI has begun internal collation or cross-agency consultation?
2. Whether a narrowed or prioritised scope would materially assist your processing of the request?

I look forward to your reply and remain available to discuss scope refinement if needed.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
[email address]

Thank you for your reply.

I note that the Ministry for the Environment has refused this Official Information Act request in full under section 18(e), stating that the requested information either does not exist or could not be located despite reasonable efforts. However, this response appears to apply a blanket refusal across all four distinct components of the request, which relate to:

1. MfE’s roles or responsibilities in the industrial hemp sector (especially in environmental or climate mitigation contexts);
2. Internal or interagency communications with MPI, MBIE, or MoH regarding overlapping responsibilities;
3. Any internal assessments or concerns regarding duplicated regulatory oversight or cost inefficiencies;
4. Involvement in hemp-related funding programs, ESG initiatives, or climate adaptation projects.

Given the wide scope of this request and the inter-ministerial nature of environmental and agricultural policy, it is highly unlikely that no relevant documents exist across any of these domains. For example, industrial hemp is frequently cited in climate mitigation discussions, and it would be reasonable to expect MfE to have at least engaged with other agencies (such as MPI or MBIE) at some point on related matters.

Furthermore, no assistance was offered under section 13 of the OIA to refine or redirect this request, nor was there any attempt to transfer the request to other agencies under section 14. Both omissions are procedurally concerning and inconsistent with the good faith obligations expected under the Act.

I therefore respectfully ask the Ministry to:

• Clarify which components of the request were searched and yielded no results;
• Identify which roles or business groups conducted those searches;
• Advise whether any part of the request can or should be transferred to another agency (e.g. MPI, MBIE, MoH) with overlapping responsibilities.

If no further assistance is offered, I will consider submitting a formal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman under sections 13 and 18(e) of the Official Information Act.

Yours sincerely,

SPENCER JONES