QUEENSLAND Nationals MP George Christensen has taken a major swipe at NSW Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm for his political manoeuvre to try and remove the federal government’s sugar marketing code of conduct.
The code was introduced in April to help break the long-running stalemate between sugar cane farmers and foreign owned marketer Wilmar on contractual arrangements for marketing this year’s crop.
But as revealed by Fairfax Agricultural Media, Senator Leyonhjelm’s disallowance motion that he put to the senate this week, will reignite wounds and extend the battleground until September, at the earliest, and says it has the support of Labor.
Sugar cane farmers are angered, saying they’re “affronted” by Senator Leyonhjelm’s move; without visiting their farming region of Queensland to hear their views first hand.
Mr Christensen said if the industry code was re-registered it would be “the beginning of the end for the sugar industry” and he’s also challenged Labor Senators to back his stance, to support the legislation that he says enhances competition.
“David Leyonhjelm is as far removed from the sugar industry as one can possibly be,” he said.
“The first thing I’d say to him is he should come up here and talk to some sugar cane growers to get a real world perspective; rather than one that sits in the fantasy land of libertarian, economic text books which is the world view that David subscribes to.
“The reality on the ground is completely different and what David Leyonhjelm proposes to do is to put the interests of a foreign multinational company before the interests of Australian farmers.
“He’s supporting a monopoly company from basically exercising its undue market influence over the rights of growers to actually have some competition within the marketing component of their industry.
“In a way this regulation is seeking to enforce competition within the sugar market and is certainly not imposing upon competition; it’s promoting it.”
Mr Christensen said the issue was now in the hands of the Senate and support to block the disallowance, from influential crossbenchers and minor parties, was unclear.
“I’ve got to say, I’ve just got off the phone from senior representatives of the cane growing community in QLD and they’re very, very worried,” he said.
“Obviously there’s a range of views in certain quarters are on this that are unknown.
“We don’t know what the views of the Greens are or independent Senators Derryn Hinch, Cory Bernardi and Lucy Gichuhi.
“We do know what the view of the Coalition and One Nation is and I believe we know the view of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), given I’ve spoken to Nick Xenophon in the past and he’s been quite supportive of the sugar industry code of conduct.”
Mr Christensen said together, the Coalition, One Nation and the NXT wasn’t enough to defend against the disallowance motion which required at least three or four others from the crossbench and Greens.
“This throws the whole situation, which was resolved back in April, into an area of chaos,” he said.
“I think David Leyonhjelm as a Senator who comes from a different state to where the sugar industry has its main basis, in Queensland, given he has little interest in that area, should seek to withdraw his disallowance motion because it is going to cause untold damage and heartache up and down sugar growing communities.”
Mr Christen said if the disallowance succeeded and the code “falls over”, it would trigger a clause in all Wilmar’s contracts with growers that says ‘if the state marketing legislation or the federal code of conduct is overturned, then Willmar has the right to invalidate all contracts’.
“Therefore we go back to the drawing board basically and we have a situation where a monopoly, foreign owned multinational milling company can basically lord it over growers and present them with take it or leave it contracts,” he said.
“Basically we’ll be spelling the death-knell of the sugar industry in Queensland if that happens because many growers will not be able to stomach it and will walk away from the industry.
“They’ll lose money for a couple of seasons and then go into alternative crops but there goes the critical mass that you need for sugar mills and I’ve got to say, it’ll be the beginning of the end for the sugar industry, as far as I can tell.”
Challenged about his extreme reasoning, Mr Christensen said it was “an honest appraisal based on what growers have told me”.
“In the very long time that it took from the beginning of negotiations to the point where we instituted the code of conduct, which triggered Wilmar doing a deal with growers, many growers had already opted out, like some in the Burdekin who said they’ll go and grow rice,” he said.
“It’s possible for some, who have the capital, to change directions of their farm but it’s not possible for everyone.
“Those who don’t have capital up their sleeves don’t want to be forced into a situation where they basically become surfs controlled by the landlord mill, which is what it’ll become if we don’t have the protections that this code provides.
“There are many, many farmers who just ride by the seat of their pants in the sugar industry and get by on a year by year basis and they don’t have the capital to pursue other operations.
“My point is, with all of this, when the critical mass is lost, and the whole thing comes crashing down, they’ll be the casualties because they’ll have no other place to go and Wilmar will just close its operations up in Australia and focus on their other overseas operations; it’s no skin off their nose.
“I don’t know the cost in dollar terms but it will have a real human cost and a cost to communities.”
Why is a libertarian arguing against competition?
Mr Christensen said farmers were “seeing the control of their farms and industry whittled away before their very eyes” due to the dispute.
“And these are family operations that have been in family hands for generations,” he said.
“They can see it’s all going to come to a crashing halt very soon unless the industry is protected from monopolistic anti-competitive practices which is what the code of conduct seeks to do.
“I don’t know why a libertarian would be actively arguing against a code of conduct that seeks to encourage competition in the sugar industry.”
Mr Christensen said four QLD Labor Senators who supported the disallowance motion had their reputations and conscience on the line over the issue.
“They can do the party machine thing and just vote the way their party says to vote or they can take an active stance here and advocate within their party and vote on the floor of the parliament for Queensland farming families,” he said.
“Or they can choose to side with a foreign multinational mill that hasn’t paid tax in Australia for quite a number of years.
“Queensland farming families will be watching very closely to see which way they do vote.”
CANEGROWERS Chairman Paul Schembri said Senator Leyonhjelm had never contacted his group or sought to understand why the code was important to its members.
He said the code sets out a framework for a fair process when commercial contract negotiations between grower representatives and large milling companies fail to reach an agreed outcome.
“Millers have a monopoly when it comes to processing the cane our members grow because transport economics lock them into only supplying their local mill,” he said.
“This Code prevents mills from abusing that monopoly position in negotiations.
“It keeps the parties on track and negotiating fairly and provides a mechanism to break deadlocks.
“The Code lays the foundation for stability and confidence in the industry.
“This attempt to strike it down is an attack on Queensland farmers and an attempt to undermine a valuable Queensland export industry.”
Mr Christensen said Senator Leyonhjelm’s view on the motion would benefit from visiting sugar cane farming regions.
“He calls cane farmers ‘socialists’ and he says their arguments for a right to a say over who markets their sugar are ‘piss-weak’,” he said.
“Senator Leyonhjelm also demonstrates his profound ignorance of the sugar industry by stating that if cane farmers don’t like the marketing option being offered by a Wilmar mill they can ‘hire a truck and send their crop 300 kilometres down the road’.
“He should come to Queensland and sit down and listen to cane farmers.
“If he did that, I think he would, and he should, withdraw his disallowance motion.
“But if Leyonhjelm does not do that, then the so-called ‘rowdy’ sugar growers should phone the offices of Queensland Labor senators and ask them to support Queensland cane farmers over a foreign multinational.”