Sugar code remains stuck in bitter political limbo

Senator Leyonhjelm launched the controversial motion last month, sparking a bitter war of words with Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen who demanded it be withdrawn for fear of sparking the sugar cane industry’s “death-knell”, if successful.

One Nation leader and Queensland Senator Pauline Hanson has also bought into the public row claiming her party has been standing up for sugar farmers against the monopoly influence of multinational sugar miller Wilmar, while accusing Labor of being “grossly irresponsible” for supporting the disallowance motion vote.

This week, CANEGROWERS urged federal Senators to reaffirm their support for the code.

They’re angered by Senator Leyonhjelm targeting the industry code was instigated in April to end a protracted disagreement with Wilmar over disputed sugar marketing contractual arrangements.

CANEGROWERS said Senators from all political ranks must speak up now and back the legislated protections for family farmers, to help maintain stability for the $2.5 billion export industry.

CANEGROWERS Chairman Paul Schembri said there was widespread support for the code in federal parliament which was “a vital safety net” for his group’s sugarcane farming members” and ”must not be stripped away”.

Mr Schembri said Labor, the Liberals, Nationals and Greens had already acknowledged the need for a code through a Senate Committee investigation into Australian sugar marketing arrangements.

He said a sole recommendation from the 2015 Rural and Regional Affairs Committee inquiry, Chaired by WA Labor Senator Glenn Sterle, was to develop and implement a sugar industry code.

“We need all parties to reinforce their support and defeat Senator Leyonhjelm’s misinformed attempt to confuse the issue and put misguided ideology ahead of what is needed in the real world,” he said.

But as CANEGROWERS prepare to visit Canberra again next week to double-down on lobbying efforts ahead of a potential vote on the disallowance motion, Senator Leyonhjelm said he was undecided on an actual date, to decide its fate.

“I’m still thinking about whether to bring it on next week or sooner than later,” he said.

“I’m keeping my powder dry while working out what the optimum timing is for a vote and I have until early November to decide when that will be.”

Senator Leyonhjelm said he needed more time for talks with other crossbench Senators like the Greens to decide whether they supported his move.

He said he also wanted further discussions with sugar farmers - following initial meetings this week - to give them an opportunity to explain why they should be allowed to have a say, in terms of marketing arrangements with sugar millers, as set out in the code, over something they’ve sold but is no longer legally their property.

“You don’t get to sell your wool to the wool processing company then tell that company how it can sell your wool and then get to take back some of the profits, if they sell the lanolin,” he said.

“And it’s the same for wheat farmers, who can sell up front or into a grain pool.

“Technically they don’t own the product any longer so they don’t get to demand some of the profits back from the wheat milling company, if they sell off the wheat huskings.”

Senator Leyonhjelm said he had the Labor Party’s support for his disallowance motion.

“They’re on side and they agree with me,” he said.

However, despite Senator Hanson demanding Labor confirm if it planned to torpedo the sugar industry’s hard-fought safeguards, Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declined to comment.

Senator Leyonhjelm said he was unsurprised One Nation and the Nationals opposed his disallowance motion but was unsure where the Greens stood on it.

With One Nation and the Greens on-side, the government would have 40 votes and be able to vote-down the disallowance motion, regardless of Labor’s position in the Senate.

Labor has also indicated it plans to oppose the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) enabling legislation that recently passed the Lower House and is now before the Senate.

Both the RIC bill and the sugar code could see the Greens play a similar role to last year’s vexed backpacker tax negotiations where they came in at the last minute to rescue the government’s position.

Labor has expressed concerns with the standard of governance measures underpinning the RIC’s implementation which Agriculture and Water Resources Minister Barnaby Joyce has announced will be set up at Orange in Regional NSW by mid-2018, forming a core Coalition agricultural election policy commitment, made last year.

Greens agriculture spokesperson Janet Rice - who has been leading the charge for her party in pushing parliament to pass same sex marriage laws - said they were likely to decide this week which way to vote, on the sugar code disallowance.

On the RIC bill and sugar marketing, Senator Rice said “We’re still looking very closely at both of those – certainly, talking with the government and a whole range of stakeholders”.

“We’re talking with Labor, talking with sugar growers, talking with Wilmar and talking with the government,” she said.

“The sugar bill disallowance I think is coming before the parliament next week so our party room will be making a decision on it this week.”

The Nick Xenophon Team’s three Senators said they won’t be supporting the sugar code disallowance motion in the Senate when it comes up with leader and SA Senator Nick Xenophon “right behind the local growers on this matter”.

Mr Schembri said distance and the perishable nature of cut cane, meant growers had no choice but to supply their local mill, which gave the mill owner a regional monopoly.

He said the code prevented millers from abusing monopoly power in supply contract negotiations with growers and their collectives and provided a mechanism for arbitration should there be a deadlock.

The code is something parliament has dealt with and resolved through the Committee system, he said.

“The code was put in place in April 2017 - we have moved on and are busy generating wealth for the Australian economy,” he said.

“We are about half-way through the 2017 sugarcane harvest which will see 32.5 million tonnes of cane cut and crushed into raw sugar with 80 per cent of it to be exported.

“CANEGROWERS members have $11 billion invested in this industry and our farms underpin an export product that secures the prosperity of regional communities along 2100 km of Australia’s east coast.

“As the only sugar industry in the world that operates without price supports or subsidies, and with grower incomes directly linked to export sales, we need the stability and confidence that the code provides and so do the many businesses and jobs that rely on us, something the union movement is recognising.

“This code doesn’t kick in until there is a problem – it is a safety net in a situation where one side of the negotiating table holds a lot more power than the other.

“We’ve written to Senator Leyonhjelm inviting him to Queensland to meet with growers to hear how important this Code is but, as yet, he has not made any contact with grower representatives while pursuing this disallowance motion.”

In a statement last week, Senator Hanson expressed concerns Labor was planning to vote with the Liberal Democrats and remove the code which regulated the conduct of sugar cane growers, mill owners and marketers.

“This is typical of the Labor party - they have refused to step in and assist the cane farmers and their communities,” she said.

“They are nothing but talk when it comes to protecting Australian industry and business.

“One Nation fought alone for this code of conduct and now Labor is set to destroy the sugar cane industry because they would rather do the bidding of Wilmar’s lobbyists than listen to the needs of our cane growers.

“This is grossly irresponsible of Labor.

“They need to clear this up and end the uncertainty they continue to inflict on Australia’s sugar cane growers

“The idea that any Australian political party would put the interests of foreign owned multinationals ahead of Australian farmers is simply disgusting.”

But Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan said Senator Hanson and her One Nation colleagues were “nowhere to be seen” when the sugar code was developed, for adoption by the federal government.

Senator O’Sullivan said the code was completely developed and in draft legislative form before either Pauline Hanson or any of her colleagues were even elected to parliament last year.

“This is revisionist politics on steroids,” he said of Senator Hanson’s claims of credit for developing the code.

He said the code resulted from the Senate Committee inquiry with a draft taken to government before the last election where One Nation had four Senators elected.

“The Nationals took this to the last federal election as a campaign commitment,” he said.

“This inquiry was jointly proposed by NSW Senator John Williams and myself with strong input from George Christensen the member for Dawson.

“I can promise you that Pauline Hanson was nowhere to be seen of or heard as this and other significant reforms proposed for the sugar industry were crafted.

“In fact, even though I am no fan of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Glen Sterle played a significant role in chairing the References Committee which made the recommendations.

“The recommendation to introduce a code was a bipartisan decision and supported by Labor.

“Pauline and her crew need to be very careful with their language in this space as there are 4000 family farms in this state who are in sugar production and tens of thousands of others who rely on this industry for their jobs and income and they all deserve total honesty from their politicians.

“Arriving late at the wedding and trying to take credit for how beautiful the bride looks is not the approach she should take here.”