George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013, the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 and the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013. These bills seek to consolidate the research and development processes of the Australian sugar industry. These bills wind up the Sugar Research and Development Corporation and also BSES Ltd. The assets of both those organisations and their research and development functions will be transferred to the industry owned Sugar Research Australia. That is a single research and development body that will deliver greater efficiencies and better outcomes for the sugar industry, both growers and millers.

As it stands in the sugar industry today, we have a number of smaller organisations conducting research for the sugar industry. That means there is a lot of duplication in those processes. The duplication of administration alone is a vast waste of resources. By the time these smaller organisations have been set up and are fully operational, much of their funding is exhausted. This single R&D body, an industry owned research and development company, will be funded by a statutory levy of 70c per tonne of sugarcane processed or sold for processing. The levy will be paid equally by the grower and the miller. Under current arrangements, R&D bodies are funded through a statutory levy of 14c per tonne and a number of voluntary contributions, including 55c per tonne for the BSES and an estimated 5c per tonne for the research elements of Sugar Research Ltd activities. I note, though, that, as with all voluntary payments, some of those voluntary contributions do not happen. Obviously, it throws those organisations and the good work they do into jeopardy when they are unsure about the financial investment they are likely to get.

These bills put into action a proposal contained in a report conducted by the Australian sugar industry. For more than two years, more than 100 written submissions were gathered and more than 200 meetings were held right across the industry, including a public roadshow early last year that saw 1,000 growers turn up to offer their views. The resulting proposal aims to modernise the industry with a strong organisation, Sugar Research Australia, which will be able to attract and retain the best researchers and staff while also raising investment in cane farming. This single research organisation will bring together the activities of the three current sugar industry organisations—that is, the BSES, the government industry entity called the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, and aspects of the sugar-milling research agency, Sugar Research Ltd. The single entity, Sugar Research Australia, can balance the need for a secure funding base and the need for a reasonable and affordable levy to be imposed on the industry. As a result, more money will be available for research—and that is the key thing here. There will be more money available for research, more money available for different varieties and more money available for biosecurity because overheads will be reduced. Industry stakeholders, who will be the owners of Sugar Research Australia, will see their funds further leveraged with the Australian government actually matching funding for R&D every year at 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. That is a very welcome initiative from the government.

This proposal and these bills come before us after this extensive consultation with the industry, and, as a result, the bills have extensive industry support. I am aware, though, that there are some concerns about the legislation from some sectors of the industry, notably the Australian Cane Farmers Association. And while I think there is generally a high level of support throughout my electorate, there are some organisations with concerns. They are not concerned enough to say that they do not want this to go ahead, but just some concerns about how Sugar Research Australia will operate. One of those concerns is that one-on-one extension will be abandoned, though the reality is that the extension process, which allows that one-on-one service to individual cane growers in North Queensland, is actually occurring outside of the current R&D framework, as it will carry on outside the new R&D framework.

Growers have got together and established their own networks of extension services such as those in the Mackay area—the Mackay Area Productivity Service. There are various extension providers that are mainly organic. The organic network of these extension services has popped up to fill the gap that the BSES was once involved in and has gradually pulled away from as their resources have dwindled. There is nothing in this legislation that will prevent that organic grower-controlled and local extension network from continuing on.

The proposal to move towards a single body acknowledges the need to maintain and even enhance, I suppose, that extension network. I am sure there will be linkages between Sugar Research Australia and these local extension offices. I have received a letter from the Australian Sugar Industry Alliance which outlines their view on the benefits of the move towards a single R&D body for the industry. The Sugar Industry Alliance outlined four main elements to the reforms, including a transition program to strengthen the skill set of the network of local sugar extension providers to provide one-on-one advice to cane producers. So I am reasonably certain that the issue of extension is sorted out and will be sorted out by Sugar Research Australia and there will not be a problem in the industry with that.

The other concern that I thought was of note, and it was certainly raised by the Australian Cane Farmers Association, is that there are a range of different grower organisations that fall outside the umbrella of Canegrowers, the peak body, or the Australian Sugar Alliance. That does not just apply to the Australian Cane Farmers Association. As I said, there are smaller independent organisations within my own electorate—Pioneer Cane Growers, Kalamia Cane Growers and, recently, Invicta Cane Growers. So there are a number of different organisations that feel they could be left out of discussions and consultation with the new body. I do share that concern, but I see from the legislation, particularly from the proposed constitution of Sugar Research Australia, that that body will be compelled to consult with all stakeholders, not just the Australian Sugar Alliance, although that will be one of the main consultative bodies they approach.

As the representative for Australia's largest sugar growing region, if I am here after 14 September, I will be ensuring through the different functions I have—I am a member of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture—that Sugar Research Australia actually does consult with all groups, especially those smaller groups, including the Australian Cane Farmers Association. I note the shadow agriculture minister has said that he also sees that as a legitimate concern, but he believes that it can dealt with in the funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and Sugar Research Australia. I impress that upon the parliament secretary, who is present, to ensure that that consultation is right across the industry when they are doing the funding arrangements with Sugar Research Australia.

The Liberal-National coalition has conducted extensive consultation with industry to establish a firm position on this proposal. That is because we act in the best interests of the industry, the individuals in the industry and all of the stakeholders. That high level of consultation will continue. Through that extensive consultation with us it has become quite evident that these bills have widespread support within the industry. Canegrowers CEO Steve Greenwood, in supporting the move to a single R&D body, said this: 'Growers in the industry have had their say and it's clear that there is very strong support for the proposed new body, Sugar Research Australia. A robust, stable and well-funded research and development system is essential to the Australian sugar industry's competitiveness on the global stage.'

Likewise, BSES supported the move, with a reassurance that the best outcome for the industry and for the BSES would be the migration to a single body. Their chairman, Paul Wright, said in July last year:

All BSES directors support these important changes and want to see the Sugar Poll vote succeed. The Industry is working together to establish Sugar Research Australia, backed by a stable statutory levy at reasonable levels for growers and millers in order to sustain vital research. This is the best direction for the industry, and for transition of BSES the company, its research activities and its 145 staff and associated casual workforce.

There was a sugar poll, which Mr Wright made a comment on in the above quote. It was an industry-wide poll. It was administered by the Australian Electoral Commission in August last year. Of the 76 per cent of the industry that voted in that poll, 84 per cent voted in favour of creating Sugar Research Australia, the model as proposed by the Australian Sugar Industry Alliance. Prior to the start of voting in the sugar poll, a collection of industry leaders submitted messages of support for the yes case. I note that Mackay grower and then local Canegrowers chairman and the vice chairman of the Canegrowers organisation, Paul Schembri, who most recently was elected the new chairman of Queensland Canegrowers, said that we must take this opportunity for change. That is how growers are seeing it.

Mackay grower and the new Mackay Canegrowers chairman Lawrence Bugeja: 'One new industry company with a compulsory levy will be efficient. You won't be subsidising non-payers.' That is an important point. Actually, I have that wrong: Lawrence Bugeja is the vice-chairman of Mackay Canegrowers; Kevin Borg is the chairman. He is a Plane Creek grower in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker. He said, 'I'm voting yes to form Sugar Research Australia as a high performance, energised and industry owned company with secure funding.'

Mr Borg, in his new role as the Mackay Canegrowers chairman, wrote to me outlining the support that Canegrowers had for these bills and also a preferred timetable for the bills to be passed. In his letter, Mr Borg said 'Industry has prepared all the ground for start-up and a new board of directors to be in a position to commence the vital work once the legislation has been passed through both houses of parliament.' He went on to say, 'We're hopeful that the legislation can be introduced to and passed in the House by 6 June. We are hopeful that the legislation can be introduced to and passed in the Senate in the period from 17 June to 27 June.' Mr Borg and others in the industry have voiced their concerns about the urgency of the legislation. They have wanted the bill to come before this place for a long time.

Knowing that the government will soon go into caretaker mode and parliament will cease within a week, the industry has become anxious about the bills' speedy passage through the parliament. It is vitally important that these bills are voted upon and go through the Senate before its rising. It is a bit of a shame that the bills have been only been brought before the House at the last minute. Given that there is support for them from both sides of the chamber, this is something that should have been done a while ago. If it is not done by the end of this parliamentary sitting, there are going to be sugar research and development staff left in limbo. I know that there are people in the Mackay BSES who are desperately worried because the BSES is dying financially. It simply does not have enough funding to keep going. Talented staff with experience and expertise and much to offer the industry feel that there is no future for them or for staff of other smaller organisations. Some of the best and the brightest minds that we have within the sugar industry are right now weighing up options because they do not have certainty. We in this place must act now in the interests of the sugar industry. I believe that the bills have broad support in this place and I urge the government to grant swift passage of this legislation to give those best and brightest research minds the certainty that they need.

Since I am the last speaker on this—other than the parliamentary secretary's summing up—I would suggest it might be a good time for the parliamentary secretary to put to the Manager of Government Business that we get this voted on this week, and I hope that can happen within the remaining sitting period.

Without the certainty or prospect of a stable funding foundation for the industry collected under one roof, you will find that many of those are indeed people who will vote with their feet if this is left until after the election. They will move overseas. They will take up research jobs with our competitor countries, and that will be a serious blow for the industry. If this is not passed—and passed expediently—the sugar industry will lose those key people overseas, which will place Australian exporters at a disadvantage and will create an advantage for our competitors. So I do urge the parliamentary secretary to impress upon his government colleagues to get this voted on as soon as possible in this place.

See this speech in context