Bickering escalates over sugar industry code of conduct's future

Senator Leyonhjelm angered sugar cane farmers in Queensland when he put forward a disallowance motion in the Senate last week to try and remove the sugar industry code of conduct that was registered in April settling a long-running dispute between growers and sugar miller Wilmar.

That has now reignited tensions with the issue entering a new state of flux for several more weeks, ahead of a debate and potential vote in the middle of next month in the Senate.

Mr Christensen said if the code was removed it would trigger a clause which would give sugar milling company Wilmar the right to invalidate all of its contracts with growers.

He also urged Senator Leyonhjelm to withdraw his disallowance motion.

“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,” he said of the contract dispute potentially going back to the drawing board.

“David Leyonhjelm is as far removed from the sugar industry as one can possibly be.

“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.”

But Senator Leyonhjelm said he’d scheduled a debate to disallow the federal regulation for September 12 and maintained his stance, despite Mr Christensen’s criticisms and demands which were also echoed by the sugar industry.

“A number of Queensland canefarmers have complained that my move is interference from across the border,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.

“They seem to ignore that the code of conduct I’m trying to block is interference from across the border.

Getting Canberra out of the politics of sugar is what I’m trying to do.”

Senator Leyonhjelm said the federal code required millers to give canegrowers a say over who markets sugar, “but the simple fact is the millers own the sugar, not the canegrowers”.

“If millers can’t make their own arrangements to sell their own sugar, why would anyone invest a cent in a miller?” he said.

“You don’t invest in a business that isn’t in control of its own sales.

“It’s not in the interests of canegrowers for the mills to decay, to never expand and to never innovate.

“And given that mills employ people, pay taxes and generate essential products, it’s not in the interests of the rest of us either.”

Senator Leyonhjelm said canegrowers can collectively bargain and those of a region can present a united front when dealing with the local mill.

“It’s true that the canegrowers need the mill, but the mill also needs the canegrowers,” he said.

“There is no case for government to interfere in commercial dealings by regulating in favour of one side.

“Politicians who make false promises that they can regulate to ensure better prices are doing a disservice to canegrowers.

“The truth is, the only way to boost the profitability of growing sugar cane - and the best path for workers in the industry, consumers and taxpayers - is for small, high‑cost canegrowers to make way for consolidated, large, low‑cost canegrowers.”

But Mr Christensen said the difference was Canberra was reacting to the overwhelming wishes of the sugar industry, by implementing the code.

“The invitation for Senator Leyonhjelm to visit North Queensland and speak to growers remains open,” he said.

“I hope he takes up on the offer because I'm sure he would withdraw his disallowance motion if he simply understood what was going on up here.”

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 and lays the foundation for industry stability and confidence.