Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Committees

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Report

4:46 pm

Photo of Barry O'SullivanBarry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

by leave—I return to speak on the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport References Committee into the current and future arrangements for the marketing of Australian sugar. I am very conscious that there are other senators here who want to make contributions on other reports, so I will truncate my contribution early so that they all have an opportunity to submit reports.

I want to congratulate Senator Sterle of the opposition, who chaired this committee. I had the privilege of being a participating member and travelling with the committee during the course of its hearings in my home state, and I have to say that Senator Sterle did a sterling job—if I might use the pun—in operating the committee. One thing that became very evident to all of those who participated in the committee was the very high degree of anxiety amongst people in the sugar industry, including but not limited to millers, who have got hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in infrastructure and assets in the industry, and, importantly, some 4½ thousand families, many of their communities and many tens of thousands more who have an interest in maintaining and supporting stability in the marketing arrangements in this great industry in my state.

The report furnished recently has recommended in part that we develop and implement a mandatory industry code of conduct, with appropriate consultation mechanisms before that is adopted. There was a task force also established by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Small Business to look at the very same question, and between the Senate committee and the task force there was very broad consultation. I doubt that there was anybody in Australia with an interest in this matter who did not either submit or present themselves to one of the inquiries. In the case of the task force, they then went on to consult after they had formed a view in relation to what should happen next.

It is no accident that both the task force, whose work was completely independent of the work of the Senate references committee, and the committee arrived at the conclusion that to restore stability into the industry—the stability that they have had for over 100 years with current marketing arrangements—there was a necessity for the government to consider regulating an industry code of conduct. The Senate inquiry itself did not recommend a specific code, in terms of the detail, whereas the task force did draft a code, after consultation with all of the stakeholders. I understand that if it has not already happened, that report will be presented in the other place.

I also want to acknowledge the input by two members from the other place: Mr George Christensen and Mr Keith Pitt. Both are very proud representatives of two very big sugar seats in my home state of Queensland, where the bulk of the industry is, with the exception of some stuff in northern New South Wales. Mr Christensen chaired the task force, and Mr Pitt brought great industry experience to that task force. He and his family have been involved in the production of sugar for a very long period of time. They both made, in their own ways, very valuable contributions.

In my time here am very proud, on occasions, to be involved in processes that seem to work. We cannot say that about every process, and we cannot say that about every process every day. But on this occasion, independent of each other, the Senate inquiry and the task force arrived at what appeared to everybody to be the appropriate natural conclusion, and that was to bring in this mandatory industry code of conduct to restore stability to a very important market. In recognising the effort and the stewardship of Senator Sterle and the stewardship of Mr Christensen and the contribution of Mr Pitt, I commend this report to the Senate.