Dear Ministry for the Environment,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information concerning the Ministry for the Environment’s involvement in the industrial hemp (iHemp) sector:

1. **Environmental Role and Responsibilities**
All documents or communications outlining MfE’s role in supporting or regulating industrial hemp, including but not limited to areas relating to environmental impact, sustainability, climate mitigation, or emissions reduction.

2. **Interagency Communication and Duplication**
All internal or interagency communications (including emails, reports, minutes, or briefings) between MfE and the following agencies:

* Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI),
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE),
* Ministry of Health (Medsafe),
that refer to shared responsibilities, overlapping functions, or duplicated regulatory roles related to industrial hemp policy, implementation, or oversight.

3. **Policy and Efficiency Reviews**
Any policy papers, reviews, or briefing materials identifying concerns, risks, or evaluations regarding:

* duplicated administrative or regulatory processes across agencies,
* inefficiencies in interagency collaboration,
* environmental oversight gaps specific to the industrial hemp sector.

4. **Funding, Contracts, and Programs**
Details of any MfE-administered funding, contracts, pilot programs, or research initiatives directly related to industrial hemp, including projects on sustainability, climate-smart agriculture, or carbon sequestration through hemp cultivation.

I respectfully request the information be provided in electronic format where possible. If any part of this request is likely to be withheld, please specify the grounds for refusal under the provisions of the Act.

I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as required.

Yours faithfully,

SPENCER JONES

Subject: Acknowledgement of Extension – OIA Request #31349 (OIAD 1653)

Kia ora Lachlan Brown and the MfE Ministerial Services Team,

Thank you for your letter dated 17 July 2025, confirming an extension under section 15A(1)(b) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) due to the need for inter-agency consultation. I acknowledge the revised deadline of 1 August 2025, and appreciate the clarification.

Given the scope of this request—including potential overlaps between MfE, MPI, MBIE, and Medsafe—I understand that further consultation is required to make a proper decision. I trust that your response will include all reasonably available records, including any environmental assessments, interagency briefings, or policy reviews related to regulatory duplication in the industrial hemp sector.

Please ensure that, where any information is withheld, the grounds for such decisions are clearly stated in accordance with sections 18 or 9 of the OIA.

I look forward to your substantive reply on or before 1 August 2025.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
(via FYI.org.nz)

To: Ministry for the Environment (MfE) – OIAD-1653
To: Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) – OIA23-2974

Subject: Request for Clarification and Procedural Review Under the Official Information Act 1982

Thank you for your responses dated 30 July 2025 to my Official Information Act (OIA) requests (#31349 to MPI and OIAD-1653 to MfE) concerning the environmental oversight of industrial hemp and interagency duplication.

I acknowledge receipt of your replies but remain seriously concerned about the adequacy and legality of the responses provided. Both agencies have refused my multi-part requests in full under section 18(e), asserting that no relevant documents could be found. This blanket refusal appears implausible and procedurally deficient given:

1. Lack of Transparency Around Search Efforts: Neither MPI nor MfE have explained which units, databases, or staff were consulted; nor whether key record types (e.g., emails, strategy papers, draft notes, industry workshop summaries) were considered. This is essential to demonstrate “reasonable efforts” under s18(e).

2. Failure to Address Each Request Part Separately: My request clearly outlined distinct categories (e.g., environmental roles, duplication reports, MOUs, internal emails, interagency agreements). The failure to address each separately prevents meaningful review and may constitute non-compliance with OIA best practices.

3. Missed Opportunities for Transfers and Assistance: These matters fall within a multi-agency regulatory framework. If information is better held by MoH, MBIE, or ESR, you were empowered under section 14 of the OIA to transfer the relevant parts. Moreover, I was not offered the opportunity to refine or narrow my request, as required under section 13.

4. Extension Justification Not Reflected in Final Response (MfE): MfE’s 7 July 2025 extension cited interagency consultation, yet your final response does not indicate whether such consultations occurred, nor their outcome. If external agencies confirmed they held records or refused cooperation, this should have been disclosed.

5. Public Interest Not Considered: Hemp’s potential role in carbon mitigation, regenerative agriculture, and circular bioeconomy initiatives makes this request clearly in the public interest. Neither agency addressed this factor when withholding all information.

For these reasons, I request the following:
- A breakdown of what was searched and by whom;
- Confirmation as to whether any records exist across the five (MPI) or four (MfE) categories;
- Clarification as to whether consultation with other agencies occurred, and if transfers under s14 were considered;
- A renewed offer to refine the request scope, should record identification remain an issue.

If this clarification is not satisfactorily addressed, I reserve the right to lodge a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, citing a failure to meet duties under sections 13, 14, 18(e), and the overall spirit of the OIA.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
(via FYI.org.nz)