Queensland Consolidated Acts

SUGAR INDUSTRY ACT 1999 - SECT 33A

33A Arbitration of disputed terms of intended supply contract

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a grower is negotiating, or has attempted to negotiate, a supply contract (an
"intended supply contract" ) with a mill owner, whether the grower is acting on the grower’s own behalf or is in a group of growers that has appointed a bargaining representative to negotiate the contract on behalf of the group; and

(b) the grower or bargaining representative gives the mill owner a notice requiring the mill owner to use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate a supply contract within a stated period (the
"negotiation period" ) of at least 10 business days; and

(c) at the end of the negotiation period, the grower and mill owner dispute a proposed term of the intended supply contract.

(2) The grower and mill owner are taken to have made an agreement (the
"referral agreement" )—

(a) to refer the dispute to arbitration; and

(b) for the dispute to be arbitrated under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 subject to subsections (5) to (9) .

(3) If the grower or mill owner refers a dispute about a proposed term of the intended supply contract to arbitration, the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 applies to the arbitration subject to subsections (4) to (9) .

(4) Despite the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 , section 7 , the referral agreement is taken to be an arbitration agreement under that Act.

(5) The arbitral tribunal appointed for the arbitration may decide the dispute about the proposed term only by deciding the term.

(6) Subsection (7) applies if a GEI sugar marketing term is a proposed term of the intended supply contract and the grower proposes to nominate an entity to be the GEI sugar marketing entity.

(7) A term of the intended supply contract must not have the effect of unreasonably treating the grower less favourably than the grower would be likely to be treated if a mill-related entity were to be the GEI sugar marketing entity.

(8) Without limiting subsection (7) , a term of the intended supply contract would have the effect of unreasonably treating the grower less favourably for the subsection if the effect were that the grower would unreasonably pay more for a service provided by the mill owner under the intended supply contract than the grower would pay for the service if a mill-related entity were the GEI sugar marketing entity.

(9) Each party must bear the party’s own costs of the arbitration.

(10) If the arbitral tribunal decides each dispute about the proposed terms of the intended supply contract, the grower and mill owner are taken to have made a supply contract including—

(a) any terms agreed between the parties; and

(b) the terms decided by the arbitral tribunal.

(11) In this section—

"arbitral tribunal" see the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 , section 2 .

"mill-related entity" means—

(a) the mill owner; or

(b) a related body corporate of the mill owner.