Cassowary Coast Regional Council

It is interesting to read that Tully Sugar Ltd. is using the media to promote its case to the ‘Planning and Environment Court’, due to be heard in March/April 2009 in Brisbane. Tully Sugar is challenging decisions of the Cassowary Coast Regional Council to uphold planning recommendations allowing landholders of previous or current cane land to sell to tree companies.

I have not commented publicly on these planning issues since the appeals were lodged and had assumed that Tully Sugar would do the same, until the matter is heard in the appropriate court. I have no interest in playing out the court case through the media, but feel that in the face of public statements by one side, the other ought to at least set the record straight.

We have a situation here where two legitimate contesting agricultural interests both seek use of the same agricultural land.

With Tully Sugar costing its shareholders a considerable sum to fight the case (and ratepayers a considerable sum to defend it) their directors will want a win. The majority of the shares in Tully Sugar are owned by growers. At the time these decisions were made by council the growers’ local organisation, ‘Tully Canegrowers’, supported the right of cane farmers to sell their land to whoever they choose. I am told Canegrowers head office in Brisbane may have a different view, but the relevant stakeholders in this matter are the Cassowary Coast locals.

This might be a case of directors and shareholders having different agendas.

The Council has to act in the best interest of the whole region and in accordance with the existing planning rules. We believe that our staff have done so, in recommending approval of the trees. Council did take into account all the available relevant factors when deciding upon the applications from the tree companies and the submission from the one opponent – Tully Sugar.

Different planning regimes apply in the north and the south of our region and they can only be changed by a drawn out process approved by the Minister. In the north trees can be planted as of right, without any approval process. In the south, there is a process designed to allow council to put conditions on this land use. This is not however a tool to allow outright refusal of tree planting. It is to do with setting conditions, eg. set back; riparian zones and weed and fire control.

The result of the appeal by Tully Sugar is that the approvals in the former Cardwell Shire area are now on hold until the case is heard. The effect has already been a dramatic increase in land being acquired in the north of our region by tree companies. This will, if it continues, place at risk the milling interests of Bundaberg Sugar Limited.

Tully Sugar has gained some temporary respite, but the sugar industry in the region, especially now in the north, continues to shrink.

The sugar industry in the 1990’s went through a period of deregulation led by the millers. Now it is the milling industry wanting regulation.

Trees certainly should not have an unfair taxation advantage, but that is not a problem that local government can fix, although we have been strongly advocating for this unfair advantage to be removed by the federal government.

I certainly sincerely hope the sugar industry does remain viable. It is the third most important industry in our region, a major employer and a very important part of our community. I own mill shares and grow cane.

However I contend it is not the trees that are causing most concern to the industry, but rather the high cost of inputs, low cane prices and environmental constraints.

Unfortunately, as canegrowers know too well, options at present aren’t that numerous for those wanting to exit the industry, hence the appeal of the trees.