The dust might be settling on Queensland Sugar Limited’s Annual General Meeting, but the sense of frustration remains.
Even the most impartial observer would agree that fairness and common sense took a hit that day.
QSL had proposed what most of us would consider a simple, logical change to its constitution – that only those who actually market sugar through QSL should have a say in how it’s run.
In other words, if you’re not part of the team, you shouldn’t get to call the shots.
Unfortunately, Wilmar and MSF – both of whom no longer market any of their own sugar through QSL – voted down the proposal.
That was enough to block the reform, because changes like this need 75 per cent support from both miller and grower members to pass.
Of course, growers across every region backed it unanimously. Even some millers, including Mackay, Isis and Bundaberg Sugar, supported it too. But the two biggest players voted no, and that was that.
The result might sound like an obscure governance issue, but it’s actually a very big deal for growers. What it means is that these multinational millers, who are direct competitors to QSL in the global sugar market, still get to influence its governance and even who sits on its board selection committee.
They do this by using the volume of sugar supplied by Queensland farmers – sugar the mills don’t own – to exercise voting rights within QSL.
In any other company, this would be unthinkable.
It’s been almost ten years since growers had to fight tooth and nail for the right to choose who markets their sugar. That fight led to Marketing Choice being enshrined in law. Yet here we are again, watching two powerful milling companies use their corporate muscle to undermine that principle.
And this isn’t happening in isolation. The same companies used their positions on the board of Sugar Terminals Limited (STL) to push through the decision to terminate QSL’s long-standing management of the state’s bulk sugar terminals.
That move, due to take effect in mid-2026, has serious implications for transparency, efficiency and grower control over critical export infrastructure.
When QSL steps away from running the terminals, it will focus solely on its marketing business – the very business its biggest competitors still hold influence over.
It’s hard not to see that as a deliberate attempt to weaken QSL’s position and, by extension, reduce growers’ marketing options.
CANEGROWERS has made it clear that this situation can’t continue. We’re working with government, QSL and the wider industry to find a solution that protects growers’ rights and the long-term stability of Queensland’s sugar industry.
Marketing choice isn’t just a slogan. It’s the foundation that ensures growers get a fair price for their sugar and can have confidence that their hard work is represented competitively on the world stage. If that foundation is eroded, the whole system starts to crumble.
Growers have every right to be angry – and every reason to stay engaged. The strength of our industry depends on it.
