Annotation for FYI.org.nz: Official Information Request – Medsafe’s Role and Oversight in Industrial Hemp Regulation (H2025068833)
On 19 June 2025, I submitted an OIA request to the Ministry of Health (Manatū Hauora) seeking detailed information on Medsafe’s role in regulating industrial hemp (iHemp), cannabidiol (CBD), and low-THC cannabis. The request, made under the Official Information Act 1982, comprised four parts: (1) all documentation (including internal policy documents, guidelines, briefing papers, risk assessments, and legislative advice) since 1 January 2018 outlining Medsafe’s regulatory, compliance, or quality assurance functions; (2) interagency communications with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), or Ministry for the Environment (MfE) regarding overlapping roles, shared responsibilities, duplicated processes, or regulatory uncertainty; (3) contracts, operational procedures, or consultation reports describing joint involvement in product testing, compliance, licensing, or shared/duplicated oversight; and (4) reviews, evaluations, or assessments since 1 January 2018 on the effectiveness, efficiency, or appropriateness of Medsafe’s role, including redundancies, inefficiencies, or jurisdictional confusion. I requested the information in electronic format and reasons for any refusals under the OIA.
The Ministry’s response, dated 18 July 2025, was provided within the 20-working-day timeframe (by 17 July 2025) and partially fulfilled the request. However, it contains significant deficiencies, including obfuscation, misleading statements, potential misinformation, and misdirection, which undermine the OIA’s principles of transparency and accountability (Section 4). Below, I outline the response for each part, highlight failures, and identify relevant OIA sections, laws, policies, and procedures breached.

Part 1: Regulatory Role

Request: All documentation since 1 January 2018 outlining Medsafe’s regulatory, compliance, or quality assurance functions for industrial hemp, CBD, or low-THC cannabis, including internal policy documents, guidelines, briefing papers, risk assessments, or legislative advice.
Response: The Ministry interpreted this as relating only to industrial hemp, stating: “I understand you are referring to the regulation of industrial hemp and therefore in responding to this request, we have not separately searched for information in relation to CBD or low-THC cannabis.” They provided links to:
• Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Regulations 2006 (www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2006/0163/latest/whole.html).
• Ministry of Health’s industrial hemp licensing page (www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/industrial-hemp/industrial-hemp-licensing). No internal documents were provided, and no reasons for their absence were cited.
Failures and OIA Breaches:
• Misleading Interpretation and Obfuscation: The exclusion of CBD and low-THC cannabis is a significant misrepresentation of the request, which explicitly included these substances. Medsafe regulates CBD as a prescription medicine under the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and low-THC cannabis falls under its oversight for medicinal cannabis schemes (Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Regulations 2019). By unilaterally narrowing the scope, the Ministry avoided addressing a core component of the request, breaching the OIA’s principle of making information available unless a valid reason exists (Section 5).
• Failure to Provide Internal Documents: The request explicitly sought internal policy documents, briefing papers, risk assessments, and legislative advice. The Ministry’s failure to provide these or explain their absence (e.g., under Section 18(e) for non-existence or Section 18(f) for substantial collation) violates Section 19(a)(ii) of the OIA, which requires agencies to state reasons for refusing information.
• Potential Misinformation: The response implies Medsafe’s role is limited to industrial hemp licensing, omitting its broader regulatory functions for CBD and medicinal cannabis products, which are detailed in Medsafe’s guidelines (e.g., www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/riss/Cannabidi...). This omission misleads researchers about Medsafe’s full scope of responsibilities.
• Policy/Procedure Breached: The Ministry’s OIA handling procedures (as per the Ombudsman’s guidelines, “Making Official Information Requests: A Guide for Requesters”) require accurate interpretation of requests and clear justification for refusals. The failure to address CBD/low-THC cannabis or internal documents suggests non-compliance with these standards.
Utility for Researchers: The provided links offer a starting point for understanding Medsafe’s licensing role under the 2006 Regulations, but they are publicly available and lack depth on CBD/low-THC cannabis regulation or internal processes. Researchers should seek additional OIA requests for Medsafe’s CBD and medicinal cannabis guidelines or internal policy documents.

Part 2: Interagency Duplication or Role Clarity

Request: Communications (emails, meeting minutes, reports, discussion papers) with MPI, MBIE, or MfE regarding overlapping roles, shared responsibilities, duplicated processes, or regulatory uncertainty in hemp regulation.
Response: The Ministry stated that industrial hemp is regulated under the 2006 Regulations, and other legislation (e.g., Food Act 2014 for hulled seeds) involves “different functions and not considered to be overlapping or duplicated.” This part was refused under Section 18(g)(i), claiming the information is not held and may align with another agency, without specifying which agency.
Failures and OIA Breaches:
• Misdirection and Obfuscation: The refusal under Section 18(g)(i) (information not held, held by another agency) is vague and misdirected. The OIA requires agencies to transfer requests to the relevant agency (Section 14) or explain why no transfer was made. The Ministry’s failure to identify the agency (e.g., MPI, which regulates hemp seed food products under the Food Act 2014) or initiate a transfer breaches Section 14 and the Ombudsman’s guidance on proper request handling.
• Lack of Search Evidence: The response does not confirm whether a search for communications was conducted, despite known interactions between Medsafe and MPI (e.g., MPI’s food safety oversight vs. Medsafe’s licensing). This lack of transparency suggests potential obfuscation and violates the OIA’s expectation of diligent searches (Ombudsman’s “Good Decision Making” guide).
• Misleading Claim of No Overlap: The assertion that there are no overlapping functions ignores potential discussions about regulatory clarity, as MPI and Medsafe have distinct but related roles (e.g., MPI’s Food Standards vs. Medsafe’s medicinal product oversight). The request sought communications on perceived overlaps or uncertainty, which the Ministry dismissed without evidence, potentially misrepresenting the situation.
• Policy/Procedure Breached: The Ministry’s OIA policy (aligned with the Public Service Commission’s model standards) requires clear communication and transfer of misdirected requests. The failure to do so undermines accountability.
Utility for Researchers: The response confirms a division of roles (Medsafe for licensing, MPI for food safety) but provides no communications or evidence of coordination. Researchers should submit targeted OIA requests to MPI or MBIE for interagency correspondence and consider requesting Medsafe’s internal records on regulatory discussions.
Part 3: Shared Oversight Responsibilities
Request: Contracts, operational procedures, or consultation reports describing joint involvement in product testing, compliance, licensing, or shared/duplicated oversight of industrial hemp or hemp-derived compounds.
Response: The Ministry stated: “There are currently no shared oversight responsibilities, or joint involvement in product testing, compliance activities or licensing between Medsafe and other agencies.” This part was refused under Section 18(g)(i).
Failures and OIA Breaches:
• Obfuscation and Lack of Transparency: The blanket claim of no shared responsibilities does not address whether operational procedures or consultation reports exist to clarify this separation, which was part of the request. The failure to confirm a search for such documents violates the OIA’s requirement for reasonable efforts to locate information (Section 17).
• Misapplication of Section 18(g)(i): This section applies when information is held by another agency, but the Ministry’s assertion that no joint activities exist suggests Section 18(e) (information does not exist) would be more appropriate. This misapplication misleads requesters about the refusal’s basis and breaches Section 19(a)(ii) for clear reasoning.
• Ignoring Hemp-Derived Compounds: The response does not address hemp-derived compounds like CBD, where Medsafe’s regulatory role (Medicines Act 1981) may intersect with MPI’s food safety oversight. This omission is misleading and fails to address the full scope of the request.
• Policy/Procedure Breached: The Ministry’s internal OIA procedures, guided by the Ombudsman’s “Open and Transparent Government” principles, require thorough searches and accurate refusal grounds. The lack of search evidence and incorrect section citation suggest non-compliance.
Utility for Researchers: The response clarifies that Medsafe claims no formal joint oversight, but researchers should verify this by requesting MPI’s procedures for hemp seed products or Medsafe’s internal guidelines on coordinating with other agencies.

Part 4: Performance Reviews or Evaluations
U
Request: Reviews, evaluations, or assessments since 1 January 2018 on Medsafe’s role in hemp regulation, including redundancies, inefficiencies, or jurisdictional confusion.
Response: The Ministry interpreted this as relating to the “overarching regulatory framework of industrial hemp” (excluding internal process reviews) and stated: “No reviews or evaluations in relation to the performance of the industrial hemp framework have been conducted by Medsafe since the implementation of the legislation.” This part was refused under Section 18(g)(i), with a referral to the Ministry for Regulation’s ongoing review (www.regulation.govt.nz/news/industrial-hemp-regulations-to-be-reviewed/).
Failures and OIA Breaches:
• Misleading Interpretation: The narrow focus on the “overarching framework” excludes internal assessments of Medsafe’s processes, which the request explicitly included. This restrictive interpretation is obfuscatory and breaches the OIA’s requirement to address the full scope of a request (Section 5).
• Inconsistent Refusal Grounds: Refusing under Section 18(g)(i) (information held by another agency) is incorrect, as the claim that no reviews exist aligns with Section 18(e) (information does not exist). This misapplication violates Section 19(a)(ii) for accurate refusal reasons.
• Lack of Search Evidence: The response does not confirm whether a search for internal assessments was conducted, undermining transparency and the OIA’s expectation of diligent searches.
• Misdirection via Referral: While the referral to the Ministry for Regulation’s review is helpful, it does not address Medsafe-specific evaluations, which was the request’s focus. This misdirection partially sidesteps the question.
• Policy/Procedure Breached: The Ombudsman’s guidelines require agencies to interpret requests broadly and provide clear refusal reasons. The Ministry’s narrow interpretation and incorrect section citation fail to meet these standards.
Utility for Researchers: The response suggests no Medsafe-led reviews exist, but the referral to the Ministry for Regulation’s review offers a lead. Researchers should request internal Medsafe assessments or contact the Ministry for Regulation for updates on their review.
Overall Assessment
The Ministry’s response is partially fulfilled but riddled with obfuscation, misleading interpretations, and potential misinformation:
• Part 1 is partially fulfilled with public links but fails to address CBD/low-THC cannabis or internal documents, breaching Sections 5 and 19(a)(ii).
• Parts 2 and 3 are not fulfilled, with vague refusals under Section 18(g)(i) lacking transfers (breaching Section 14) or search evidence, and misleading claims of no overlap.
• Part 4 is partially fulfilled by stating no reviews exist, but the narrow interpretation and incorrect refusal grounds (Section 18(g)(i) instead of 18(e)) breach Sections 5 and 19(a)(ii). The response meets the OIA’s 20-working-day deadline and electronic format requirement but violates the Act’s principles of transparency (Section 4) and the Ministry’s OIA policies (aligned with Ombudsman guidelines).
Recommendations for Researchers
• Use Provided Links: The 2006 Regulations and licensing webpage are useful for understanding Medsafe’s industrial hemp role but lack depth on CBD or interagency dynamics.
• Submit Targeted OIA Requests: Request Medsafe’s CBD/low-THC cannabis guidelines, internal policy documents, or MPI communications on hemp regulation.
• Contact Ministry for Regulation: Follow up on their hemp regulations review for broader context (