Row over conduct code

CANE growers and millers need each other to exist and have plenty in common.

But when it comes to sugar marketing, that’s where the similarities end.

A review is being done into the Sugar Code of Conduct to determine its effectiveness and whether changes are needed.

After a long- running and at times bitter dispute between growers and millers, the code was introduced in 2017 to regulate the conduct of growers, mill owners and marketers in relation to contracts or agreements for the supply of cane or the on- supply of sugar.

A large number of cane growers made submissions to the review, saying removing the code was not an acceptable option.

Brandon cane grower Clive Williams, who has been in the industry for 60 years, said he saw the code as a “safety net” because it would mean all commercial discussions would be done fairly.

“As a grower, I realise there are other factors that affect the sugar industry,” he said.

“Weather, the effect of international crop volume on sugar prices and other factors are things that I can’t control.

“What growers should be able to control, however, is who markets the economic interest that I have in the raw sugar product that determines the payment for the sugar cane I supply to the sugar mill.

“This is equally, if not more, important in bad years than in good.”

Although more than 20 growers supported keeping the code in their submissions, the majority of the submissions had been written from a templated letter.

The Australian Sugar Milling Council, which represents millers like Wilmar, had the opposite view to all growers.

“The Sugar Code of Conduct has added uncertainty, complexity and cost to sugar industry operations,” the submission said.

“It has deterred investment, and undermined competitiveness.

“Unless repealed, the code will continue to limit investment, innovation and growth, and negatively impact the economic and social contribution of Australia’s second largest agricultural export industry.

“Of greatest concern are the provisions in the code imposing mandatory and enforceable pre- contract arbitration on growers, millers and marketers. This runs counter to a key objective of sugar industry deregulation in 2006.”

The council, which repre- sents Wilmar, the company that owns the region’s mills, claims the code was introduced for “political expediency, and without due process or consultation with all affected stakeholders”.

A submission by the Australian Competition and Consumer Competition said before the code there was 21 industryrelated complaints – 48 per cent alleged conduct directly impacting sugar cane growers.

Since the code began the ACCC has received eight sugar industry related complaints – they all relate to allegations a miller has breached the code.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said they considered the code to be an appropriate vehicle to address the issues and the code should remain in place.