NFU rejects new Council of Sugar Cane
Growers
[posted 8 April 2010, 1530]
The National Farmers Union has written to
the Sugar Ministry rejecting the newly established Council of Sugar Cane
Growers (CSCG) as a representative organisation of the cane farmers.
A Ministry of Information (Minfo) release
issued after a Cabinet meeting last Tuesday stated that CSCG would be a
successor organisation to the Sugar Cane Growers Council (SCGC) which was
unlawfully disbanded by the regime last year, along with the Sugar
Commission of Fiji and the Fiji Sugar Marketing Ltd.
The NFU letter pointed out that the newly
established Council cannot be regarded as a genuinely representative
organisation of the cane farmers as appointments to it would be made by the
authorities and not the growers themselves.
The CSCG is to have 11 members, 8 of whom
will be growers selected by the Sugar Ministry from applications received in
response to its advertisement. The other three will be civil servants one of
whom will be the chairperson.
According to the Minfo release, the
activities of the new body will be funded by a levy to be paid by cane
growers at the rate of 24 cents per tonne of cane.
NFU has pointed out that the operating
expenses of the CSCG should rightly be paid by the State but, more
appropriately its establishment should not be proceeded with and the
industry institutions referred to above be reinstated as provided for in the
Sugar Industry Act.
Provided below is the full text of the NFU
letter to the Permanent Secretary for Sugar:
8 April 2010
The Permanent Secretary for Sugar
Ministry for Sugar
4th Floor Government Building
Suva
Dear Sir
Council of Sugar Cane Growers (CSCG)
We refer to a Ministry of Information (Minfo)
release notifying that Cabinet has approved the establishment of a Council
of Sugar Cane Growers to administer the affairs of sugar cane growers and be
the “successor body” to the purportedly dissolved Sugar Cane Growers
Council.
We note from the Minfo release that it
is the intention of the Ministry to make consequential amendments to the
Master Award “in order to reflect the establishment of the CSCG…”
We also note from the release that CSCG
is to be funded by a general levy on cane growers at the rate of 24 cents
per tonne of cane.
We have already drawn your attention in
our previous letters to the fact that the purported and forced dissolutions
of the elected Sugar Cane Growers Council, the Sugar Commission of Fiji and
the Fiji Sugar Marketing Ltd are all unlawful as these were done in
contravention of the relevant provisions of the Sugar Industry Act 1984.
The newly established CSCG, we note
from the release, is to comprise eight growers “representatives” to be
selected by the authorities from the applications received in response to
its advertisement, and three official representatives one of whom is to be
the chairperson.
It is thus clear that CSCG cannot be
regarded a genuinely representative body of the cane growers as appointments
to it would be decided by the authorities and not the growers themselves. In
the event, it would be iniquitous and injudicious to impose its operational
expenses on the growers. This expense should rightly be a charge on the
consolidated fund.
I should remind you that one of the
first acts of the military government when it took office in December 2006
was to dismiss the eight government nominees on the Sugar Cane Growers
Council as an affront to the democratic process. The interim government is
now reversing this earlier decision.
Furthermore, the High Court in Lautoka
had ruled in a judgment delivered on 17 July 2003 in the case of Silimaibau
& Anor v Minister for Sugar Industry… (HBC 155.01) that the purported
nomination by the Sugar Minister of 8 members to the Sugar Cane Growers
Council was “null and void and of no legal effect”.
The judgment found that the nomination
of unelected members to the Council reduced the rights of growers and
changed the democratic provisions by altering the results of the growers
council elections.
The future of the Sugar Industry
The NFU is apprehensive about the sugar
industry’s future judging from its abysmal performance in the past three
years (2007-2009), more particularly the 2009 season. Whether the industry
survives well into the future depends very much on the growers being
satisfied with the financial returns as well as the administrative and
technical arrangements applicable to the cultivation, harvesting,
transportation and milling of their cane.
This can only be ensured provided the
growers are left free to decide on their own affairs and are not subjected
to State patronage as is the case today. It can be said without doubt that
the industry is headed for more problems under the prevailing conditions.
We urge you to take note of the above
and reinstate the SCGC and other industry organisations as provided under
the Sugar Industry Act.
I shall be grateful for your response
to the representations herein as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully
Mahendra P. Chaudhry
General Secretary |