Policies & issues

CANEGROWERS is well known for bringing pressure to bear when it counts - lobbying industry and government on behalf of members, to secure sustainable, profitable and productive agriculture in Australia.

Some of the big issues on the boil now:

Our policies 


Alternative products policy

Issues

Diversification of income is a vital strategy for the sustainability of the industry by reducing our reliance on the world sugar market and increasing industry income. Sugarcane is a crop with one of the highest rates of conversion of sunlight into biomass and will play a major role as a feedstock in any industry based on fermentation of biomass.

Diversification of industry income into ethanol and other fermentation products should provide the Australian community with a number of benefits including:

  • Economically stable, vibrant, diversified regional communities
  • Improvement in air quality through use of ethanol in petrol
  • Substitution of a stable source of locally produced fuel for imported products
  • Use of renewable feedstocks for fuel, reducing dependence on limited fossil fuels and reducing contributions to the greenhouse effect.

Diversion of significant areas from sugar cane production across a region could threaten mill viability. However, diversification of crops on spare land, marginal land and fallow does not.

Objective

In order to increase industry income and reduce risk a significant proportion of the income stream from sugar cane should come from ethanol and fermentation products and other crops grown on spare, marginal and fallow land.

Policies

  • Support for activities that improve consumers’ acceptance of ethanol as a safe, viable component of the fuel supply.
  • Support for programs to encourage diversification of on farm production on spare land, marginal and fallow
  • Support for research and technology development to improve the efficiency of production of sugarcane biomass and the conversion of this biomass to ethanol and other fermentation products
  • Support for government action to recognise the community benefits of a biofuels industry through appropriate taxation and incentive arrangements that encourage investment in fuel ethanol production within a current time frame, which should include the adoption of a mandate for inclusion of biofuels in the fuel supply
  • Support for actions that promote grower ownership of ethanol and fermentation industries
  • Support for proper recognition of the value of sugarcane when used as a feedstock for ethanol and other fermentation industries.


Ethanol

Ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) is known as ‘ethanol’, or simply ‘alcohol’, and is a colourless liquid with a faint odour.  In Queensland, it is made from sugarcane molasses. It can also be made from wheat and other crop residues.

The story of ethanol

Australian motorists are worried about ethanol. Motorists are saying, “I understand the importance of ethanol for the environment, but I am not sure what it will do to my engine...”

There are no mysteries surrounding the use of ethanol as a fuel overseas. In Australia, the mystery is why isn’t it being used in fuel as a matter of every day life?

Damaging media statements have promoted negative views about ethanol, causing confusion and uncertainty in the community. So here is some helpful information:

  • Ethanol by itself burns with 30% less energy than petrol, BUT the extra oxygen it carries makes an ethanol-petrol blend deliver more energy to an engine than petrol alone. A CSIRO study has identified that E10 delivers approximately 97% of the power of standard Unleaded Petrol.
  • Ethanol effectively adds more oxygen to the fuel combustion process to produce a cleaner, faster burn.
  • Ethanol burns 100% to water and CO2 and leaves no residue or deposits.
  • Many high-powered engines use E10 Unleaded because it keeps the engines cooler.
  • 10% ethanol blend in cars is completely safe and has been approved for use in new cars by most manufacturers.
  • There is no difference in how an ethanol blended fuel interacts with your car. Ethanol will be more likely to clean up old deposits in your engine and improves the nation’s balance of trade and GDP.

Ethanol keeps fuel systems clean and eases cold weather starting

Why do we need it?

Air quality and health issues

The major factor now influencing the introduction of alternative fuels worldwide is a growing concern, and in some cases alarm, about air quality and future oil reserves.

An extensive American study attributes 1 in 5 lung cancer deaths to fuel emissions.

The June/July 2003 edition of The Road Ahead report: “The latest Air Emission Inventory Report has revealed that drivers are the major air polluters in Queensland’s south-east. Based on EPA and Brisbane City Council (BCC) monitoring, the report shows motor vehicles cause more than 60 percent of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide in the region. BCC estimates travel could increase by 60 percent by 2011.”

“The Australian transport sector accounts for about 20% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions, a figure which is expected to increase.” (Ecos April-June 2003)

In South East Queensland air quality is a growing concern and drivers are the major air polluters.

There is currently no legislation to address this concern. “Queensland’s 3,187,000 registered vehicles are estimated to have belched out a record 14.1 million tonnes of carbon monoxide in the past 12 months.” (Courier Mail 11 June 2003)

Asthma is a growing health concern in Australia. In 2001 in Australia, 37,000 men, women and children were admitted to hospital suffering symptoms of asthma. This is an extraordinary figure and does not include those suffering quietly in their own homes. It is known that certain particles emitted form petrol can trigger asthma.

What does the science say?

The science says that greenhouse gases, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are poisoning the earth’s atmosphere. The science says that increasing average global temperatures, arising from an increase in greenhouse gases from industrial activity and population growth, contribute to the Greenhouse Effect.

The science also says that under current conditions, use of ethanol-blended fuels as E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) can reduce the net emissions of greenhouse gases by as much as 37.1%. Ethanol blended fuels such as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline) reduce greenhouse gases by up to 3.9%.

Where does it come from?

  • Ethanol is made from clean, green, raw materials
  • Fermentation ethyl alcohol is produced from three types of raw materials:
  • Sugar based feedstocks – mainly molasses, sugarcane juice, sugar beet, Jerusalem artichoke
  • Starchy products or cereals – mainly corn, wheat, maize, potatoes
  • Cellulose sources – mainly waste or biomass such as wood, rice straw, plant material left over from logging, or other plant waste.
  • There are no economically viable industries as yet, but research is continuing and these may become important sources of ethanol in the future.
  • These raw materials can be replenished each year by the sun, thus making ethanol a renewable energy source! 

Can you use e-10 in your vehicle? Ethanol is suitable for use in most post-1986 vehicles. If you are unsure about using ethanol, you may consult your vehicle handbook or check with your car manufacturer. More information is available from  www.autoindustries.com.au/ethanol  


Biotechnology & GE

GM technology will allow the Australian sugarcane industry to remain globally competitive.

The sugarcane industry will develop GM technology mindful of potential impact on other landholders and users of sugarcane products.  The sugarcane industry will provide choice to producers, supply chain and consumers and will consider market options including segregation and indentity preservation where required.

What you should know
  • There is currently no commercial genetically-modified (GM) sugarcane in Australia
  • There is wide and strong industry support for GM sugarcane adoption
  • GM sugarcane technology is being developed by and for the Australian sugarcane industry
  • The adopted technology will have been tested and approved by the national regulatory framework as safe for the environment and safe for humans
  • GM technology provides many environmental and production advantages for farmers
  • The sugarcane industry is considering its customer and consumer requirements and will develop processes accordingly

DuPont and BSES Limited Partnership

DuPont and BSES Limited announced a partnership in 2009 to Improve Sugarcane Planting Technologies and Varieties and Increase Productivity for Sugarcane Growers and Millers.  The agreement bought together DuPont’s extensive plant biotechnology expertise with BSES’s unrivalled knowledge of sugarcane breeding, cropping systems and milling. The alliance will focus on the development and delivery of technologies to improve current planting technology and agronomic practices to enable productivity growth and reduced cost of production.

“We see significant opportunity to leverage our genetics and biotech trait capabilities in sugarcane,” said John Bedbrook, vice president - DuPont Agricultural Biotechnology. “BSES is the global technology leader in sugarcane, and we look forward to working with the company to enhance this very important global crop.”

DuPont, through its Crop Protection business, has strong relationships with sugarcane growers and sugarmill customers. As the leader in weed control for sugarcane, DuPont is committed to helping improve customers’ productivity and profitability.

BSES Chair Paul Wright said the agreement will define the Australian sugarcane industry’s international position well into the future.

“Comprehensive research has found that by accessing biotechnology first, the Australian sugarcane industry can retain its competitive position and build a lead role in the commercialization of biotechnology in the global sugarcane industry,” he said.

“DuPont is an excellent fit for BSES. Biotechnology is the next major science-based advance for the sugarcane industry, and together, we’ll deliver its benefits to the advantage of BSES Limited members and stakeholders,” said Wright.

Sugarcane is one of the most efficient biofuel feedstocks used commercially today.

DuPont invests more than $1 billion in research and development annually to address emerging global trends, one of which is reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

BSES Limited is the principal provider of research, development and extension to the Australian sugar industry. Formed in 1900, BSES has a long history of applying good science to problems facing sugarcane production, and developing effective solutions that benefit the whole industry.

Today, BSES works closely with Australian sugarcane growers, millers, harvest contractors and government to find ways to make sugarcane production more profitable and environmentally sustainable.

DuPont is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.


Carbon Trading & ETS

Use the links below to access fact sheets about Agriculture and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme:

  • Australia’s Farming Future - the Australian Government’s climate change initiative for primary industries. It provides funding over four years to help primary producers adapt and respond to climate change.

In its submission, CANEGROWERS:
  • Supports the exclusion of agriculture until 2015, with a review in 2013.
  • Notes that, if cropping on agricultural soils was regarded as a separate category of emissions, it would likely be considered too small and too difficult an emitter to include in the scheme.
  • Will participate in good faith in the process of development of options for the coverage of cropping under the CPRS.
  • Calls for ongoing industry consultation, properly funded and resourced and inclusive of all agriculture, including the cropping sector.
  • Demonstrates from experience in the sugar industry that direct measurement of N2O and other greenhouse gasses in field is not feasible.
  • Notes that estimation of emissions will be required, whether or not agriculture is covered or uncovered.
  • Has carried out a comprehensive analysis of a number of options for the point of obligation for GHG emissions in cropping industries. This is to be provided as a separate submission and based on the familiar principles of equity and efficiency of the policy tool.
  • Indicates that it cannot, with its current state of knowledge, make a decision on where the point of obligation should be, or indeed, if coverage under the CPRS is the most equitable and efficient way to reduce emissions in the cropping sector.
  • Notes that fuel (including the fuel component of harvest contracts) comprises approximately 24% of average cane growing costs. It supports the proposal to rebate the excise on fuel by the cost of permits and to provide the equivalent amount of the excise reduction on fuels used off-road for a three year period prior to review.
  • Emphasises the importance of this rebate being applied efficiently, as there is a risk that the price paid for permits (and therefore passed on in the fuel price) may not match the amount rebated if the price of permits varies over time.
  • Questions the recommendation to offset the fuel costs for heavy vehicle road users for only one year from the commencement of the scheme prior to review, and not the three years offered to other major transport fuel user groups.
  • Suggests that biofuels also receive a rebate equal to the excise reduction in order to provide appropriate encouragement for their adoption.
  • Suggests that, when the initial three year period of excise reduction is finished, the government should explore reducing the excise at times when oil prices are high, but requiring permits to cover the CO2 emissions, while leaving the excise at current levels when oil prices fall.
  • Requires that sugar production, as a major export earner for Australia, must have assurances that our export competitiveness will not be placed at risk as a result of the implementation of the CPRS.
  • Notes that, even if agriculture is not covered under the scheme, it will still be subject to cost effects as a result of cost impositions upstream.
  • Provides preliminary figures that indicate an increase in average cane growing costs of 15¢/T cane for electricity (which impacts very unevenly across regions as some have more reliance on electricity for pumping irrigation water than others) and 10¢/T cane for the carbon embodied in fertiliser use (ignoring the contribution from denitrification).
  • Suggests that these increases will impact on international competitiveness.
  • Calls for an extension of the fuel rebate scheme to electricity and water and fertiliser.
  • Calls for ongoing research in the area of climate change but stresses the need to ensure that research into greenhouse related issues does not “crowd out” necessary research into productivity of agriculture.

CANEGROWERS proposes that a full review of the economic, environmental and social impact of diversion of significant areas of agricultural land into forestry be required before access is available to permits for forestry on agricultural land.


Farming issues policy

Issues

Crop protection is a critical facet in the optimization of sugar cane production. Production losses to the industry can be high because of the impact of disease, weeds and animal pests.

To maintain productivity through crop protection, a number of activities are undertaken by the industry.  These include risk surveillance of disease by BSES and other agencies, the introduction of improved generic varieties to the industry, the chemical and biological treatment of disease by integrated pest management (IPM) techniques, feral animal control, training in chemical use and correct disposal of used chemical containers.

There is need to continually monitor and implement actions in these areas, so that sugar cane productivity is maintained or improved.

Objective

To ensure that the necessary tools for ongoing crop protection are available and readily accessible by farmers and are used in a socially acceptable manner.

Policies

  • That CANEGROWERS continue to promote crop protection activities with funding agencies so that providers can continue to undertake research and development in this area.
  • That risk surveillance programs are funded so that the entry of exotic sugar cane diseases into Australia is minimised.
  • That BSES and other agencies are encouraged to continue to develop new disease resistant varieties and systems for crop protection.
  • That chemicals needed for ongoing disease and weed control are identified and registered with the APVMA.  These chemicals are to be used according to label instructions and used in accordance with conditions to minimise spray drift.
  • That integrated pest management (IPM) strategies continue to be disseminated and revised through research and development.
  • That CANEGROWERS continues to support the activities of Plant Health Australia (PHA).
  • That feral animal control programs particularly for pigs and rats are funded and cost effective programs are implemented.
  • That Chemcert continues to be the course of preference for growers for training in the use of chemicals used in the sugarcane industry.
  • That the disposal service for used chemical materials e.g. drum muster and any other suitable government program is supported by the industry.

Farm management policy

Issues

Linking the demands of agricultural productivity and profitability with responsible environmental management is a major challenge for cane growers.

The Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Plan and regional Natural Resource Management Plans have focussed attention on farming practices and their potential impacts on aquatic environments.  Open communication by the industry with stakeholders is becoming more important as the industry attempts to build public confidence in how farms are managed.  As new issues emerge, the ability of the industry to ensure public confidence will become critical to maintaining a positive political environment that endorses cane farming.

The ability of the industry to self-manage is continually being eroded by the development of legislation and restrictions on how farming is conducted.  Maintaining access to appropriate chemicals and fertilisers in the face of ongoing demands for public accountability is an important issue.

A Farm Management System (FMS) is a voluntary approach that can be used by growers to identify and manage risks, including environmental risks, that may occur as a result of their farming operation.  It is a way for growers to bring together and record what they currently do on farm and what a grower needs to put in place for good farm management.  FMS aims to benefit growers by focusing attention on implementing good farm management practices and then reviewing progress made against set targets e.g. regional natural resource management targets.  FMS can help draw diverse on-farm management issues together under a common flexible ‘systems’ approach.

A coordinated industry approach to farm management will provide the necessary support, resources, research and tools to assist an individual growing enterprise to self-manage its operation.  It will assist in displaying to the general public the support tools, support services and programs which growers have adopted to continue to farm in a sustainable manner.

Objectives

  • Develop a voluntary approach to sustainable farm management which will promote adoption of key practices which lead to increased profit and improved environmental performance.
  • Ensure growers maintain economic, environmental and socially sustainable access to resources within the context of changing government legislation.

Policies

Farm Management Outcome

The outcome of an industry-led farm management program will be the responsible and sustainable use of soil, water and other physical resources, consistent with economic efficiency and community aspirations, providing opportunities for the industry to develop program(s) which meet these outcomes.

FMS Program

An industry-led FMS program will build on existing industry programs, be simple to implement, minimise the cost to individual enterprises, improve efficiencies of record keeping, and contain a self-assessment component.  Adoption by growers should be on a voluntary basis.  An industry-led FMS program will support acceptable standards promoting good farm practice agreed to by the industry groups.

The FMS Program will accommodate regional differences and regional risks. CANEGROWERS supports the development of a Sugar Industry Farm Management Systems Strategy and seeks the involvement and support of key sugar industry groups in the development of this strategy.

The QFF FMS Framework provides a guide to inform the development of farm management systems in the sugarcane industry to improve profitability, productivity and sustainability of sugarcane growers.

To complement the industry-led FMS program, CANEGROWERS may seek incentives from the government for the implementation of environmentally sustainable farming systems.

Provision of extension services to cane growers to adopt good farm management practices which are consistent with sustainable agriculture and conservation of coastal ecosystems, continues to be of high importance.  Industry agreement of these good farm management practices is essential.

Revision of the Code of Practice for Sustainable Cane Growing in Queensland is part of the process of achieving stakeholder endorsement that farming practices meet the general environmental duty of care.

The COMPASS self-assessment workbook is a valuable tool with which growers can assess the sustainability of their farming practices, while recognising that the workbook will require revision as new industry good farm management practices are developed.  As such, CANEGROWERS promotes COMPASS as a useful first step and key component for a grower’s farm management system.  COMPASS is one method to assist growers with self-assessment in their farm management system.

The adoption of agreed good farm management practices (given due regard to regional differences) by the majority of growers through the delivery of industry endorsed, competency-based training programs, is seen as a key component.  Development and implementation of programs, which allow reporting industry performance, either as in a Public Environment Report or as agreed NRM Management Targets will assist communication with stakeholders.

Certification options with potential incentives for the sugar industry will continue to be explored but are not an essential requirement for a sugarcane grower’s farm management system.

Access to Chemical and Fertilisers

Agricultural chemicals and fertilisers are essential components of the sustainable cane farming system.  Their continued availability and registration is required.

Diuron Use

Diuron is a broad-spectrum herbicide and controls most of the common weeds in sugarcane.   Two commonly used products that contain diuron are Velpar K4 and Comanche and there are label recommendations to add diuron to 2,4-D, sodium salt, paraquat, Daconate, Actril, Gesapax, Combi and other products.  Adverse findings from the NRA review could result in the loss of an important tool in crop production.   In 2003 a Submission on Diuron Use was developed by BSES and CANEGROWERS on behalf of the canegrowing industry.

 

Government schemes & taxation policy

Issues

The cane growing industry has, in recent years, been obliged to approach government at both state and federal level for assistance due to temporary, adverse circumstances such as drought, flood and low price.  The current federal government Sugar Industry Reform Package and state government assistance measures are the outcome of this approach.  There is a need to monitor these programs and work with government to ensure that the result of the assistance is a self-reliant, dynamic, sustainable industry.

Other government schemes impact on cane growers, which also require management.  These include the Exceptional Circumstances Scheme, the Energy Grants (Credit) Scheme and taxation arrangements.

Objective

  • To ensure cane growers obtain fair access to appropriate assistance
  • To maximise the quality and effectiveness of government funded assistance to cane growers
  • To ensure that specific taxation measures that impinge on cane growers and rural producers are appropriate and fair

Policies

Sugar Industry Reform Program

  • That CANEGROWERS be involved in ongoing negotiations with both State and Federal Governments to assist the sugar cane industry to achieve prosperity.
  • That cane growers wishing to leave the industry should be assisted in such a way that they are able to exit with dignity.

Drought Relief

  • CANEGROWERS should actively support an exceptional circumstance system based on independent growers, groups of growers or districts, able to trigger assistance for an exceptional circumstance.

Taxation

  • That CANEGROWERS seek the introduction of an investment allowance to encourage the development of farm improvements to facilitate ongoing viability.
  • That the expense for work carried out on soil conservation and drought mitigation to be eligible for 100% tax deductibility in the year of expenditure.
  • That CANEGROWERS supports income equalisation schemes that allow growers to manage in times of reduced income.

Fuel Excise

  • That CANEGROWERS supports the retention of the diesel fuel rebate to primary producers at the full rate of the diesel fuel excise.
  • That CANEGROWERS supports the retention of the import parity pricing system for fuel.

 

Sugar marketing & trade policy

Issues

The Queensland sugar industry has benefited through its single desk approach to marketing, which provides the ability to manage supply, obtain premia and provide transparency in pricing. It has been predicated that statutory marketing arrangements will be removed when the Sugar Industry Act is reviewed in 2006.  There is therefore a need to ensure that new arrangements maximise income for the industry, retain benefits of centralised marketing and allow participants flexibility in production and delivery. The world market for sugar is corrupted by domestic support policies in overseas countries and trade barriers. The world food industry is becoming more demanding, with requirements for traceability and guarantees of environmentally sustainable practices in production.

Objective

To ensure that Queensland sugar producers maximise returns by efficient marketing and selling of sugar and a fair world market place.

Policies

Role of statutory marketing authorities

    Support marketing arrangements based on efficiency and competitiveness that maximise the market power of producers. Recognise some marketing arrangements must be supported by industry regulation, either self-regulation or statutory. Continue to support moves to remove protection and subsidies in major sugar producing and consuming countries. This includes support for the Global Sugar Alliance, for the inclusion in sugar liberalisation in multilateral trade negotiations and appropriate inclusion of sugar in bilateral arrangements.

Sugar brands and quality

  • Queensland Sugar Limited should maximise industry income through the provision of particular brands of sugar appropriate to individual markets provided that the remuneration from these markets is such that the supply of particular types of sugar is commercially viable.  Differentiation maybe through any of combination of the following:
    • Purity
    • Quality characteristics
    • Production processes (e.g.; environmental certification, organic, GMO status)
  • Mills, collectively or individually, should be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged   financially as a result of Queensland Sugar Limited requiring them to produce any particular brand of sugar.
  • That comprehensive industry information on raw sugar quality performance be made available to all mill areas and CANEGROWERS
  • That QSL should have the ability that, when a new market is identified for a particular product, a separate pool may be established for participants in that particular product.

Operation of QSL

  • That the pricing and risk management strategy of QSL be set in consultation with industry participants.
  • That QSL should operate the advances program so as to disperse funds as they are received and not become involved in significant borrowings or large cash holdings.

Sugar terminals

  • That ownership of Sugar Terminals Limited be retained in the hands of active grower and active miller shareholders.
  • That the costs of operating terminals continue to be pooled so long as sales continue to be made on an industry basis.

 

Transport issues policy

Both state and federal government are continually reviewing legislation regulations relating to transport.  Often proposals come forward that are impractical to implement, which may not necessarily improve workplace health and safety but which may impact negatively on the viability of enterprises.  Examples include:

  • Fatigue management legislation
  • Withdrawal of UD licences
  • The development for performance guidelines for haulout equipment

At the same time, improvements in transport infrastructure are necessary to meet the change in demands for cane transport, particularly due to restructure of the industry

Objective

To represent the interests of cane growers in matters coming under the jurisdiction of the State & Federal Departments of Transport and Main Roads and the Queensland Police Service.

Policies
  • That CANEGROWERS continue to press for change in the transport area to those operating conditions which impact negatively on the orderly operations of cane production and harvesting and which do not improve workplace safety
  • That CANEGROWERS supports the provision of public use infrastructure in cane growing areas by the appropriate level of government.
  • That CANEGROWERS continues to oppose the transfer of infrastructure costs for the transport of cane to the industry.
  • That CANEGROWERS continues to cooperate with appropriate instrumentalities with a view to seeking solutions to problems involved with the movement on public roads of equipment for use in cane growing and harvesting.
  • That CANEGROWERS supports the retention of a special driver licence for agricultural vehicles. 

 

Value chain relationships policy

Issues

With the passage of the amendments to the Sugar Industry Act in April 2004, value chain relationships within the sugar industry have entered a new era.  Although local variations on conditions within agreements have been possible for many years, the new environment, virtually without any legislative pre-conditions, puts the emphasis in value chain relationships clearly at an individual grower and bargaining agent level.  At a state level, CANEGROWERS policy should therefore be to support growers negotiating collectively and to encourage improvements in value chain relationships.

Objective

  • To provide support to district CANEGROWERS companies in their role as bargaining agents for growers and encourage improvements in value chain relationships.
  • To maximise grower viability and profitability through value chain optimisation in areas such as season length, transport arrangements etc.
  • To act as the central repository of industry data to be used for the benefit of value chain participants.

Policies

  • That CANEGROWERS Brisbane provide support to CANEGROWERS companies acting in their role as bargaining agents.
  • That this organisation and the Australian Sugar Milling Council establish a peak industry body.  The role of this body would be:
    • The development of industry-wide policy;
    • Provision advice to state and federal governments
  • That it be the policy of CANEGROWERS that CANEGROWERS district companies should act on behalf of all members of CANEGROWERS
  • That security of cane payment be provided to CANEGROWERS members
  • That CANEGROWERS collect industry data on behalf of industry to be used for the benefit of industry value chain participants.

 

Irrigation policy

Issues

  • Irrigation is critical to the sugarcane industry and there are around 3500 irrigated canegrowers throughout Queensland. This represents around 55 percent of total growers and 60 percent of production.
  • CANEGROWERS use around 1 200 000ML of water per year which is around 350ML per grower.
  • The main irrigation areas are the Atherton Tablelands, Burdekin, Proserpine, Mackay, Bundaberg, Isis and Maryborough and the vast majority of growers irrigate in the areas. Without irrigation, most of these growers would not be able to grow cane.
  • In recent years, there have been considerable changes to irrigation policies in Queensland that are significantly impacting on canegrowers including irrigation water pricing. Government has been increasing water prices significantly and could increase them even further putting at jeopardy the viability of many growers

Objective

Ensure growers maintain economic, environmental and socially sustainable access to resources within the context of changing government legislation..

Policies


Water Pricing
  • Irrigation water charges in irrigation areas be based on a zero rate of return on capital for existing irrigation schemes.
  • Efficient scheme operating costs be paid by the direct user including operational, maintenance and replacement costs.
  • Growers meet the efficient resource management costs of Sunwater and that all resource management costs in Resource Operations Plans are justifiable (i.e. directly related to running an irrigation scheme in a catchment), necessary and transparent.
  • Water prices are negotiated at the scheme level by Customer Councils and Sunwater with the Queensland Competition Authority to set prices where agreement cannot be reached.
  • Contributions on new assets should be negotiated with each scheme when the scheme is being developed. Also, if water and infrastructure costs are purchased up front (eg water entitlements), no rate of return should be subsequently charged.
  • Capacity to pay be determined at the scheme level based on predominant crops and the performance of typical growers.
  • Those parties who are direct users and direct beneficiaries of irrigation water and dams should contribute towards the cash cost of operation and thus help defray the costs of irrigators.
  • Variation of water charges apply as follows:
          • different industry sectors be charged at different rates;
          • different rural industries be charged at the same rate;
          • that the practice of different pricing levels between river and channel irrigators within a scheme is recognised. However, differences in water prices should not occur within existing schemes that were established on the principle that prices be averaged across the scheme, unless determined otherwise by irrigators within that scheme.
  • Growers not be charged for externalities and scarcity of water.
  • Oppose any contribution to the resource management costs of government in managing Queensland water resources.

Local Management of Irrigation Schemes
  • Local management of state owned irrigation schemes should be supported.
  • Local management arrangements include the option for control and management of all headworks including storages so that there is the prospect of a large degree of self determination to suit local irrigators.

Water Entitlements
  • Granting of a water licence and associated works licence be in perpetuity.
  • Any loss of water entitlement as a result of a Water Allocation Management Plan should be fully compensated.
  • Transfer of water entitlement be supported within sectors provided that the irrigation system is capable of supporting such transfer.
  • Where Sunwater proves to the relevant customer council that a reduction in losses has occurred in a scheme, this reduction in losses be converted to a tradeable water allocation.
  • Sunwater maintain responsibility for policing overuse of water in Sunwater schemes.

Dams and Land and Water Management Plans
  • Dam owners should not be required to undertake a hazard-assessment, by a professional engineer to determine the impact of dam failure on downstream people, more than every 10 years.
  • Land and water management plans be required by regulation only in circumstances of the acquisition of water and by agreement in areas of significant environmental risk.