Sugar Industry (Real Choice in Marketing) Amendment Bill 2015

Introduced and moved the bill to give growers a real choice in who markets their sugar. Argued the bill is pro-competition, not re-regulation, and cited Queensland Law Society support for the bill's approach.

“This bill is about millers being able to mill—that is what they normally do. Growers grow and QSL markets the sugar. What this bill does is give a choice to growers in who they want to market their sugar.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill with LNP amendments, arguing that without real choice the market fails and that growers are logistically locked into supplying monopoly mills with no free market alternative.

“Market competition is vital for every industry. Without real choice, the market fails.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill as committee chair, citing the Productivity Commission's finding that there was no market failure and the bill's arrangements would cost up to $1.5 billion to implement.

“The regulatory impact assessment found that there was no market failure in the sugar industry and no case for regulatory intervention.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill in principle as Leader of the Opposition, arguing it does not re-regulate but creates an environment that makes deregulation work by ensuring balance and grower choice.

“By and large, what this legislation and the proposed enhancements do is create an environment that makes deregulation work.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, acknowledging grower concerns about transparency but arguing this legislation is not the right way for government to re-enter the sugar marketing chain at a time when innovation and investment are needed.

“I would suggest that this legislation is not the right way for the government to once again enter into the sugar marketing chain.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Strongly supported the bill as the member for Australia's largest sugar-producing region, arguing growers deserve a fair go and a choice in marketing their share of sugar rather than being locked into monopoly mill marketing.

“All the growers are seeking is a fair go and a fair return from their share of what is produced as a result of their investment.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Passionately supported the bill as the member for Mackay, arguing that canegrowers must have choice in sugar marketing and that multinationals like Wilmar should not be allowed to hijack the industry.

“I say to Wilmar: if your marketing operation is so good, let the farmers come to you, but do not come here and change the culture of our industry.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, warning it would devastate MSF Sugar's investment in Maryborough, turn the mill into a toll manufacturer, and jeopardise commitments for cogeneration, biofuels and a particleboard plant.

“If this bill passes tonight there will be dark clouds over Maryborough city.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill with significant LNP amendments, acknowledging the original KAP bill had problems but arguing the amendments address concerns about expropriation, grower economic interest, and dispute resolution.

“Those amendments are around four articulated principles: avoids the expropriation of property rights, maintains reference to cane supply agreements where grower economic interest is recognised, does not prescribe pre-contractual arbitration but rather a mechanism for dispute resolution, and allows growers choice of who markets their sugar through cane supply agreements.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, noting the risk of re-regulation is too great, that the industry was deregulated at great expense to the taxpayer, and that some growers have already signed commercial agreements with Wilmar.

“In my mind the risk of regulation to this industry is too risky. It was deregulated for good reason and at great expense to the taxpayer and I therefore will not be supporting this bill.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill in principle, acknowledging the complex issue but arguing the grower's longstanding economic interest in raw sugar justifies offering a degree of choice and transparency, honouring the LNP's election commitment.

“Practically obliged to enter into such a transaction, this bill offers a degree of fair and reasonable assistance to growers allowing them to exercise a degree of choice and observe a degree of transparency with respect to the transaction that occurs involving the raw sugar owned by the miller but in which growers have a vested, legitimate economic interest.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Expressed deep concern about multinationals like Wilmar treating sugar farmers unfairly and sympathy for growers' position, but also acknowledged the legal argument that mill owners own the sugar and growers have never owned the finished product.

“My position with regard to this legislation is that I am deeply concerned about what will happen to canegrowers once Wilmar gets a firm footing in the industry.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing the industry is in danger of stagnating if re-regulation is introduced and that a commercial agreement between growers and millers can be reached without legislation.

“The industry is in danger of stagnating if reregulation is introduced in the form of this bill. A commercial agreement between growers and millers can be reached.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill, arguing it preserves existing arrangements rather than changing them, addresses a clear market imbalance where growers are locked into monopoly mills, and gives growers a seat at the negotiating table.

“All we can achieve with this bill is getting the growers back to the table at best. It does not deliver them any excess power. At best it can take them back to a level or near to a level platform with the mills.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing the LNP's support for re-regulation betrays their economic legacy and that $444 million of taxpayer money was spent to deregulate the industry, which should not be unwound for short-term political advantage.

“If this legislation is passed, it will send a terrible signal overseas—a signal that Queensland changes the rules if it does not like what is happening.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill as Minister for Trade, warning it would introduce sovereign risk, damage Queensland's reputation as an investment destination, and potentially trigger investor-state dispute mechanisms under free trade agreements.

“If this bill is passed, there is the potential for any or all of these companies to approach their national government and seek to initiate the investor-state dispute mechanism under the provisions in the free trade agreements between their country and ours.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, acknowledging the motivations but arguing it carries great risk of hindering the industry's future growth and damaging Queensland's reputation as a desirable investment destination.

“I am certain that the intentions behind this bill stem from a desire to help the sugar industry, but it carries with it a great risk that it will not only hinder the sugar industry's future growth but risk damaging Queensland's reputation as a free economy.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, citing the Queensland Productivity Commission's conclusion that retaining the existing regulatory framework provides the greatest net benefit to Queensland and that the bill would unwind decades of reform.

“The Decision RIS concludes that retaining the existing regulatory framework—with no additional regulation—will provide the greatest net benefit to Queensland.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Supported the bill and amendments, arguing it gives canegrowers real choice in marketing, provides more robust competition and transparency, and restores balance to an uneven playing field.

“This bill gives the canegrower a real choice in the marketing of their share of sugar. They can go to the mills, QSL or whoever they choose as a matter of free choice.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill as Treasurer and sugar seat MP, arguing it would introduce sovereign risk, put billions of dollars of investment at risk, and that commercial solutions are possible under current arrangements as demonstrated by recent Burdekin grower agreements with Wilmar.

“Enacting this bill would put at risk billions of dollars' worth of investment and wind the clock back unnecessarily.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill as Minister for Agriculture, arguing it would take the industry back to the uncompetitive 1990s and that re-introducing precontract arbitration was previously removed because it cost money and was slow. Accused the LNP of abandoning its economic principles.

“This bill will take the business environment of the sugar industry back to where it was in the 1990s—uncompetitive, on the verge of collapse and viewed unfavourably by investors.”— 2015-12-02View Hansard