Sugar Industry Act 1999

Supply contract as gatekeeper: Section 31(1) makes the supply contract the precondition to supplying cane to a mill for a crushing season; a grower may supply only if the grower has a supply contract with the mill owner for the season. Supply contracts may be individual or collective (s 31(3); s 32 defines individual contract; s 33 defines collective contract). Each party must sign the supply contract (s 31(5)). Collective contracts require each grower in the group to sign and allow appointment of a bargaining representative to negotiate on behalf of the group (s 33(2)-(3)). There may be multiple collective contracts for a mill at the same time and a grower may be party to more than one collective contract (s 33(4)-(5)).

Mandatory and optional contract terms: Section 33B sets out required terms for supply contracts between growers and mill owners (with an express exception where the grower is a related body corporate of the mill owner). At minimum the supply contract must provide for the cane payment or the basis to work it out (s 33B(2)(a)). Unless the parties agree otherwise, the contract must include a related sugar pricing term linking the cane payment to the sale price of the on‑supply sugar (s 33B(2)(b)). If a related sugar pricing term is included, then, unless the parties otherwise agree, the contract must allocate sale‑price exposure between mill owner and grower on a stated basis (s 33B(2)(c)). If the grower bears price exposure for a grower economic interest (GEI) sugar portion, the contract must include GEI marketing arrangements (s 33B(2)(d)-(e)) that give the grower the right to nominate a GEI sugar marketing entity unless otherwise agreed.

Dispute resolution and arbitration: Supply contracts must state a dispute-resolution process that includes arbitration and require parties to attempt to resolve disputes using that process (s 34(1)-(2)). The Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 applies to such arbitrations subject to specified modifications (s 34(3)). Where parties have negotiated an intended supply contract and a negotiation notice has been given requiring the mill owner to use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate for at least 10 business days, a disputed proposed term at the end of that negotiation period is taken to have been referred to arbitration by agreement (s 33A(1)-(3)). The referral agreement is taken to be an arbitration agreement despite s 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act (s 33A(4)). The arbitral tribunal for such referrals may decide disputes only by deciding the term (s 33A(5)). Parties must each bear their own arbitration costs in the contexts specified (s 33A(9), s 34(4)).

Access rights , property and procedure: The extract provides two statutory access rights: permits to pass and cane railway easements (s 63(1)). Permits can be granted by a landholder and authorise a grantee and persons acting for them to use another person’s land subject to conditions and a stated period (s 63(3)-(4); s 64 allows landholders to grant). Where agreement with a landholder cannot be reached, a person may apply to the Land Court to be granted the access right; the Land Court may grant the right only if certain thresholds are met (s 65). The Land Court may impose reasonable conditions and must consider native title consent where relevant (s 65(5)). Registration and notice requirements for permit and easement events are set out with strict 28‑day timelines and an express maximum penalty (ss 70-71).

Compensation and enforcement: Compensation regimes on grant, variation or cancellation are set out. If parties cannot agree, the Land Court decides compensation and must have regard to specified valuation, loss and consequential factors (s 68(2)-(5); s 73(3)-(5)). The Land Court may order rectification or reinstatement of land (s 74). Land Court orders under the part must be furnished to the registrar of the Supreme Court and on filing are enforceable as Supreme Court orders (s 74A).

Transitional and administrative concepts: Chapter 9 migrates records and powers from an earlier Sugar Industry Commissioner to the Land Court and registrar, preserves existing access rights and outstanding applications, transfers assets and liabilities and clarifies the position of employees and exempt documents (see ss 285-297, 289, 291-295). Appeal rights in relation to earlier commissioner decisions are preserved with the chief executive taking the commissioner’s place as respondent (ss 296-297).

Other statutory interplay: The instrument expressly defers to and intersects with the Land Act 1994 and Land Title Act 1994 for registration mechanics (ss 70-71), the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and Local Government Act 2009 for works on roads and railways (s 75(2)), the Native Title Act 1993 in relation to indigenous land use agreements (s 65(5)), the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 for arbitration procedure (s 33A(3)), the Industrial Relations Act 1999 regarding employee termination rights (s 294), and the Freedom of Information Act 1992 regarding exempt documents (s 295).

All of the above concepts are laid out in the cited sections of the supplied text and determine who decides (Land Court, registrar, arbitral tribunal), who pays (compensation orders; parties bear own arbitration costs in specified circumstances; penalty units for non‑notification), and the procedural steps to create, vary, cancel and enforce rights connected to cane supply and associated land use.

Growers: The provisions directly condition a grower’s lawful ability to supply cane to a mill on having a supply contract for a crushing season (s 31(1)). Growers are parties required to sign supply contracts (s 31(5)) and, if participating in a collective contract, each grower must sign the collective contract (s 33(2)). Growers bear specified price‑exposure obligations if a GEI sugar price exposure term is included in the contract (s 33B(2)(c)(ii)). Growers may nominate a GEI sugar marketing entity where the contract permits (s 33B(2)(d)-(e)). Growers or groups of growers may appoint bargaining representatives with written authority (s 30 def). Growers who negotiate intended supply contracts can trigger the arbitration pathway by giving a negotiation notice and following the statutorily prescribed negotiation period (s 33A(1)).

Mill owners: Mill owners are the counterparty required to enter supply contracts if they are to accept cane (s 31). They must sign supply contracts (s 31(5)), may be required to bear sale‑price exposure for a stated proportion of on‑supply sugar where a related sugar pricing term is included (s 33B(2)(c)(i)), and may be required to have an agreement with a GEI sugar marketing entity to sell quantities corresponding to the grower economic interest sugar (s 33B(2)(d)(i)). Mill owners, or persons authorised by them, have express rights to construct and use railways and roads on land over which they hold access rights, subject to other statutory controls (s 75(1)-(2)). Mill owners are also subject to obligations to accept directions from a grower-nominated GEI sugar marketing entity where the contract provides for such nomination and to deliver for sale the required quantity within a reasonable stated period (s 33B(2)(e)).

Interested third parties: The text defines interested third parties broadly to include harvesting contractors engaged by growers or mill owners, ethanol producers and persons who transport cane to a mill (s 30 definitions). An interested third party may be a party to a supply contract (s 31(4)). Where a party has a direct or indirect monetary interest in supply or milling, they may be implicated by contractual arrangements and access rights.

Landholders: Landholders whose land may be used for harvesting, transport or cane-railway purposes are affected in multiple ways. A landholder may grant an access right by agreement with a grower or mill owner (s 64). If no agreement is reached, the Land Court can grant the access right over the land (s 65), and such grants may give rise to compensation claims and conditions (s 68). Landholders may be subject to orders for rectification or reinstatement by a grantee (s 74, 74A), and they must be served with applications to the Land Court where the applicant knows that they may be entitled to claim compensation (s 65(3), s 72(3)).

Land Court and registrars: The Land Court is given jurisdiction to grant access rights where agreement fails, to impose conditions, and to determine compensation and rectification orders (ss 65, 68, 72-74). The registrar (who keeps the relevant land registers under the Land Act 1994 or the Land Title Act 1994) must be notified within 28 days of permit or easement events and must ensure notices appear in relevant registers (ss 70-71). The registrar of the Land Court must deliver Land Court orders under this part to the registrar of the Supreme Court for filing so they become enforceable as Supreme Court orders (s 74A).

Public authorities and laws: Other statutory bodies are implicated. The Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and Local Government Act 2009 control ancillary works and encroachments on State‑controlled roads and local roads when mill owners construct or maintain roads or railways (s 75(2)). Native title overlay issues are addressed by requiring that an access right would not affect native title, or that an indigenous land use agreement exists consenting to the grant (s 65(5)). The transition of functions from the Sugar Industry Commissioner to the State and Land Court affects the commissioner’s former staff, assets, liabilities and outstanding proceedings (ch 9, ss 285-297, 289, 291-294).

Arbitration and legal practitioners: Parties who litigate or arbitrate under the regime are affected by statutory constraints and procedures: e.g., the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 applies subject to modifications; parties must bear their own arbitration costs where the statute says so (s 33A(9), s 34(4)); final offer arbitration procedures are prohibited (s 37). Users of the arbitration system must follow the negotiation-notice procedures to trigger the statutory referral (s 33A(1)).

Entities with historical dealings: The transitional provisions affect anyone with agreements, proceedings, or access rights that originated under the office of the commissioner prior to the commencement day. Such agreements and proceedings are taken to be between the State and the entity, and applicants must avail themselves of the Land Court and registrar processes post‑commencement (ss 287, 289, 292-293).

In short, the regime affects private growers and mill owners directly, third parties with monetary interests, landholders who may be subject to access rights, the Land Court and registrars as decision‑makers and record‑keepers, and public authorities whose powers intersect with construction and registration processes. The statutory text specifies who decides (Land Court, arbitral tribunal, registrar), who must notify and register (grantees), who pays (compensation orders; prescribed penalties; arbitration costs), and the procedural steps each affected actor must follow.

Growers’ duties and rights:

• Duty to hold a supply contract to supply cane: Under s 31(1) a grower may supply cane to a mill for a crushing season only if the grower has a supply contract with the mill owner for the season. Supply contracts must be signed by each party (s 31(5)). Collective contracts require each grower to sign (s 33(2)). These duties bind growers to contracting as the entry point for lawful supply.
• Right to participate in collective bargaining: A group of growers may appoint a bargaining representative to negotiate a collective contract (s 33(3)). The bargaining representative must have written authority (s 30 definition).
• Rights in GEI marketing: If a supply contract contains a GEI sugar price exposure term, the contract must include a GEI sugar marketing term and, unless otherwise agreed, provide for an entity nominated by the grower to be the GEI sugar marketing entity (s 33B(2)(d)). If the grower nominates an entity, the mill owner must deliver for sale the relevant quantity as directed by the entity within a stated reasonable period (s 33B(2)(e)).

Mill owners’ duties and rights:

• Duty to enter supply contracts: Mill owners must be party to supply contracts if they accept cane, and must sign contracts (s 31(1), (5)).
• Duty to sell or deliver on-supply sugar as specified: If the supply contract requires the mill owner to have an agreement with the GEI sugar marketing entity, the mill owner must hold that agreement and, where the grower nominates the entity and the contract so provides, must deliver for sale the quantity directed (s 33B(2)(d)-(e)). Subsection 33B(3) clarifies that s 33B(2)(d) does not apply if the contract states the mill owner will sell the on‑supply sugar.
• Right to construct and use infrastructure where they hold access rights: A mill owner or an authorised person may construct, maintain, alter and use a railway or road on land of the mill owner or over which the mill owner holds an access right, and use vehicles, rolling stock and machinery considered necessary (s 75(1)) subject to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and local laws (s 75(2)).

Shared duties and process obligations:

• Dispute-resolution process required in supply contracts: s 34(1) requires every supply contract to state a process for dispute resolution that includes arbitration. Parties must attempt to resolve disputes by using that process (s 34(2)). The Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 applies to such arbitrations subject to specified modifications (s 34(3)). Parties in these arbitrations bear their own costs in the circumstances set out in s 34(4).
• Prohibition on final offer arbitration: Parties cannot use final offer arbitration or a substantially similar process, with the statute giving a definition of what final offer arbitration would entail (s 37).

Access-right duties and entitlements:

• Grant and use of access rights: Landholders may grant access rights to growers or mill owners (s 64). If no agreement is reached, applicants may ask the Land Court to grant access rights and must serve a copy of the application on all persons the applicant knows may be entitled to claim compensation (s 65(2)-(3)). The Land Court may grant the application only if satisfied the applicant failed after reasonable attempts to negotiate, the access right is necessary for the purposes in s 63(2) or (5), and that native title is not affected or consent exists (s 65(5)).
• Notification and registration duties: Grantees must notify the registrar within 28 days of permit or easement events and deliver relevant documents (ss 70(2), 71(2), (5)). The registrar must ensure a notice appears in the relevant Land Act or Land Title Act register so a search will show the event (ss 70(3), 71(4)). Failure to comply with the notification obligation exposes the grantee to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units (ss 70(2), 71(2)).
• Compensation rights and obligations: If an access right is granted, the landholder and grantee may agree on compensation (s 68(1)). If they cannot agree, either may apply to the Land Court to decide the amount (s 68(2)-(3)). The Land Court must have regard to the change in value of interests, loss, injury or expense and other matters it considers just and reasonable (s 68(4)). Equivalent provisions apply on variation or cancellation (s 73).

Land Court and registrar powers:

• The Land Court decides on grant, variation and cancellation of access rights where agreement is not reached, can impose reasonable conditions on a grant (s 65(6)), determine compensation, and make rectification or reinstatement orders (ss 65, 68, 72-74).
• Enforcement: Land Court orders under this part are to be given to the registrar of the Supreme Court and, on filing, are enforceable as if they were orders of the Supreme Court (s 74A).

Arbitral tribunal limits:

• Where a dispute about proposed terms of an intended supply contract is referred to arbitration under s 33A, the tribunal may decide the dispute only by deciding the term(s) in dispute (s 33A(5)). The referral agreement is taken to be an arbitration agreement for the purposes of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (s 33A(4)). Parties must bear their own costs in such arbitrations (s 33A(9)). Additionally, if a GEI sugar marketing term is a proposed term and the grower proposes to nominate an entity, the contract must not unreasonably treat the grower less favourably than if a mill-related entity were the GEI marketing entity (s 33A(7)-(8)).

Transitional duties and rights:

• On commencement day, the access rights register becomes the property of the registrar and the registrar must ensure notices for current access rights appear in the relevant registers (s 289). The commissioner goes out of office (s 291) and existing agreements, proceedings, assets and liabilities associated with the commissioner transfer to the State or continue in force as specified (ss 292-293). Employees previously employed by the commissioner have the statutory rights associated with a lawful termination under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and those rights may be exercised against the State (s 294).

These provisions define specific legal duties about contracting, negotiation, registration, notification and compensation and allocate decision‑making authority to the Land Court, arbitral tribunals and registrars in clearly defined circumstances.

Explicit monetary penalty for notification failures: The supplied text contains express monetary penalties tied to failure to notify the registrar of permit or easement events. Section 70(2) and section 71(2) require the grantee to give a signed notice to the registrar within 28 days after a permit event or easement event, and each provision states a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units for non‑compliance. The notice must identify the parties and the land affected and include a copy of the permit or the document effecting relinquishment, variation or cancellation (s 70(2)). In the case of easement events s 71(2) requires a signed notice identifying parties and land.

Enforcement of Land Court orders: The Land Court is given power to make orders under the access-rights provisions, including awards of compensation, imposition of reasonable conditions, and rectification or reinstatement orders (see ss 65(6), 68, 72(4), 74). Section 74A establishes an enforcement mechanism: the registrar of the Land Court must give a copy of any order made under the relevant part to the registrar of the Supreme Court, who must file it in the Supreme Court registry; on filing, the order is enforceable as if it were an order of the Supreme Court (s 74A(2)-(3)). This creates a direct procedural route to enforcement in superior court processes.

Debt recovery for obstruction of access rights: Section 75(4)-(5) provides a civil remedy where a person suffers loss or damage because another person obstructs or attempts to obstruct the person’s use of an access right or rights under s 75(1). The person who suffers loss may recover the amount of the loss or damage as a debt from the obstructing person. The Land Court may also issue restraining orders to prevent obstruction or attempted obstruction (s 75(3)).

Compensation orders and calculation principles: The Land Court may decide amounts of compensation on grant, variation or cancellation where parties cannot agree (ss 68(2)-(3), 73(1)-(3)). When deciding compensation, the Land Court must have regard to specified matters, including any change in value of interests as at the day the access right was granted or varied (s 68(4)-(5); s 73(4)-(5)). Compensation can take the form of periodic payments towards the cost of the use of a permit, or payments for significant detriment to the landholder’s use of the land (s 68(6)).

Arbitration cost allocation and constraints: The statutory scheme makes specific cost allocations for arbitrations under supply contracts and in referral arbitrations. Section 34(4) states each party must bear its own costs of arbitration mentioned in s 34(1). For referral agreements under s 33A where an intended supply contract dispute is referred to arbitration, subsection 33A(9) requires each party to bear its own arbitration costs. These provisions limit the availability of costs orders shifting costs to the other party in those arbitrations. The Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 otherwise applies subject to the identified modifications at s 33A(3) and s 34(3).

Prohibition of certain arbitration forms: Section 37 prohibits final offer arbitration or any process substantially the same. The statute defines final offer arbitration and prescribes how it would operate if it were permitted; because the statute forbids it, parties cannot adopt that settlement device under the supply-contract dispute rules.

Procedural requirements for notice, service and application: The text creates procedural obligations that carry enforcement consequences indirectly by affecting statutory eligibility and the operation of rights. For example, in Land Court applications for access rights (s 65) an applicant must serve the application on every person the applicant knows may be entitled to claim compensation if the access right is granted (s 65(3)), and similar service obligations are required under s 72(3) for variation or cancellation applications. Non‑compliance with service or notice rules may affect the proceeding and the validity of orders (the text itself requires the service but does not specify an explicit penalty for failure to serve in these sections; the Land Court rules and practice would determine further consequences).

Registration and public notice obligations as administrative enforcement: The registrar is required to ensure a notice appears in the relevant register under the Land Act 1994 or Land Title Act 1994 so a search will show the permit or easement event (ss 70(3), 71(4), 289(2)). Failure by the grantee to submit proper documents or timely notice attracts the 40 penalty unit sanction; the registrar’s obligation to ensure the searchable notice appears creates an administrative duty that enables public discovery and subsequent reliance.

Interaction with other enforcement regimes: The extract repeatedly defers to other statutes for ancillary enforcement. For example, s 75(2) makes the construction, alteration and use of roads subject to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and local laws under the Local Government Act 2009. The transitional and employment sections (ss 291-294) refer to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 for employee termination remedies. The Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 governs the arbitration processes subject to the constraints in ss 33A and 34.

In sum, the enforcement architecture in the supplied text combines administrative filing and register notice duties (backed by an explicit penalty for the permit/easement notification), a Land Court compensation and injunctive relief role, a conversion of Land Court orders into enforceable Supreme Court orders (s 74A), civil debt recovery for obstruction (s 75(5)), and arbitration cost rules that shape private enforcement incentives. All citations above are to the relevant sections in the supplied text.

Registration and land titling regime: Sections 70(3), 71(3)-(5) and 289(2) explicitly make the operation of permit and easement notices dependent on, and implemented through, the Land Act 1994 and the Land Title Act 1994. The easement event may be registered only in compliance with those Acts (s 71(3)), and until registration the registrar must ensure a notice appears in the relevant register (s 71(4)). The access rights register is transferred to the registrar on the commencement day and the registrar must create corresponding notices in the relevant land registers for each current access right (s 289). These provisions place registration mechanics and title effects within the established land‑titling statutes.

Transport and local authorities: Section 75(2) expressly subjects mill owners’ rights to construct, alter and use roads or perform ancillary works to local government laws (Local Government Act 2009, s 60) and the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (s 50). The note in the text references Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, section 50 (Ancillary works and encroachments). These references show that state and local transport laws constrain the exercise of rights to place infrastructure across public roads, and ensures that roadworks must comply with separate administrative approvals and encroachment rules.

Arbitration law: The supplied text invokes the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 for arbitral resolution of supply-contract disputes (s 33A(2)-(3) and s 34(3)). It also states that, despite the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 s 7, the referral agreement in s 33A is taken to be an arbitration agreement under that Act (s 33A(4)). However, the instrument modifies the usual application of the Arbitration Act by specifying that the arbitral tribunal may decide the dispute about a proposed term only by deciding the term (s 33A(5)), and by stipulating cost allocation rules (each party bears its own costs under s 33A(9) and s 34(4)). These sections therefore create a special arbitration subset within the broader arbitration law.

Native title and Indigenous rights: Section 65(5) requires the Land Court to be satisfied either that the access right would not affect native title or that an indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) exists consenting to the grant. The ILUA must be registered under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) for this section (s 65(7)). This directly connects the operation of access rights to the Commonwealth native title regime and requires that land‑use decisions take registered Indigenous agreements into account.

Industrial relations and employee rights: Section 294 treats employees of the prior commissioner’s office as if their employment had been lawfully terminated under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and preserves their termination rights as against the State. Thus employee remedies and entitlements are determined by the Industrial Relations Act structure.

Freedom of information: Section 295 preserves the exemption status under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 of documents that were exempt immediately before the commencement day because section 271 applied. This preserves confidentiality protections as they existed prior to the transition in administrative machinery.

Court structure and enforcement: The Land Court is made the decision‑maker for many access-right issues; section 74A requires the Land Court registrar to provide copies of orders to the Supreme Court registrar for filing, and on filing the order is enforceable as a Supreme Court order (s 74A(2)-(3)). Appeals that were previously to the commissioner under earlier provisions are preserved but the chief executive replaces the commissioner as respondent (ss 296-297). These provisions map the interplay between specialist land‑court jurisdiction and wider superior court enforcement mechanisms.

Other statutory cross‑references: The instrument contains multiple cross-references to other statutory instruments for specific processes (for example, the Land Act and Land Title Act for easement registration, the Transport Infrastructure Act for road encroachments, and the Native Title Act). Where the supply-contract regime touches on sale of sugar and marketing exposure, the text references the commercial arbitration framework for term decision. The combined effect is a regime that operates within, and requires compliance with, multiple pre‑existing statutory frameworks.

In short, the supplied text is not standalone; it explicitly imports procedural controls, registration mechanics, native title constraints, transport and local government permissions, employment law protections, and arbitration law. Practitioners must therefore treat it in the context of these overlapping enactments when advising clients or preparing applications, notifications, registrations or arbitration referrals.

The supplied text contains numerous editorial notes and amendment markers indicating the instrument has been subject to staged amendments and insertions. The history is set out in the margin annotations included in the supplied extract; the following summaries cite those annotations.

Recent insertions and amendments related to supply contracts and arbitration:

• Section 29 (purpose of Pt 2) shows a replacement/presence insertion in 2004 (pres s 29 ins 2004 No. 3 s 7) and an amendment in 2015 (amd 2015 No. 32 s 4). The annotation records that s 29 had previous forms and was amended in 2015.
• Section 30 (definitions for Pt 2) contains an insertion in 2004 (pres s 30 ins 2004 No. 3 s 7) and a deferral entry that the definition of "supply contract" was omitted in 2015 (s 30 def supply contract om 2015 No. 32 s 5). The definition material includes the 2015 insertions setting out interested third party examples.
• Sections 31-35 are recorded as preserved/inserted in 2004 (pres s 31-35 ins 2004 No. 3 s 7), with s 34 carrying further amendments in 2007 No. 26 s 8 and 2015 No. 32 s 7, and s 35 noted as preserved in 2004.
• Section 33A (arbitration of disputed terms of intended supply contract) and section 33B (terms about sale of on‑supply sugar) were inserted in 2015 No. 32 s 6. The annotations confirm these provisions are newer additions that create the specific referral-to-arbitration mechanism and GEI marketing terms.

Access rights and Land Court procedure amendments:

• Sections 63-75 show amendment annotations across 2007, 2008 and 2009 (for example s 63 amd 2008 No. 22 s 18; s 65 sub 2008 No. 22 s 20; s 68 amd 2008 No. 22 s 23). These mark the transfer of certain functions and refinement of Land Court powers.
• Section 70 and 71 (notification and registration matters) were inserted or amended in 2008 No. 22 s 24. They introduce the 28‑day notice requirements and the 40‑penalty‑unit maximum for non‑compliance.
• Section 72 (variation and cancellation of access right) shows amendments in 2007 No. 26 s 10 and 2008 No. 22 s 25 reflecting judicial or procedural updates to variation/cancellation thresholds (special circumstances vs. non-use for two years).

Transitional and commissioner-related amendments:

• The commencement and transitional provisions in ch 9 record numerous insertions and amendments across 2000-2008. For example, s 284 (definitions for ch 9) includes stages of amendment (orig ins 2000 No. 25 s 15; om 2003 No. 44 s 21; pres s 284 ins 2008 No. 22 s 37).
• Sections 285-297 carry multiple annotations showing the transfer of cases to the Land Court and the timing of the commissioner’s ceasing office (e.g., s 291 prev s 291 ins 2000 No. 25 s 15; pres s 291 ins 2007 No. 26 s 14 sub 2008 No. 22 s 37).
• Section 74A (enforcement of Land Court decisions) was inserted by 2008 No. 22 s 26.

General note on omissions and placeholders:

• Numerous sections in the extract are shown as "omitted" or with editorial notes (for example, sec.38-sec.62 entries show "om 2004 No. 3 s 6" or "orig/omitted"), indicating either that the supplied extract omits substantive text for those sections or that the legislative history removed those provisions in past amendment rounds. The presence of these annotations in the supplied material indicates a complex revision history with insertions in 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2015, among others.

For precise drafting history, the extract’s annotations list the amending instruments by year and number (for example, "ins 2015 No. 32 s 6", "amd 2008 No. 22 s 23", "ins 2004 No. 3 s 7"). Any practitioner or researcher needing the exact legislative timeline should consult the consolidated Act with editorial notes or the statute revision schedule that tracks those cited amendment notations.

All amendment references above are taken directly from the supplied text annotations.

The supplied extract does not record or cite any judicial decisions or litigation outcomes. There are no cases named in the text provided. Where the extract addresses dispute resolution and appeals, it sets out statutory paths (for example, referral to arbitration under s 33A, mandatory dispute‑resolution processes in supply contracts under s 34, and preserved appeal routes to Magistrates Court or Land Court for earlier commissioner decisions under ss 296-297). The text also provides mechanisms for Land Court orders to be enforced as Supreme Court orders (s 74A). But the supplied material contains no annotated examples of litigation outcomes, no reported decisions, and no case law references.

Practitioners should therefore treat this extract as a statement of statutory procedure and rights rather than a source of judicial interpretation. Any questions about the interpretation, scope, or constitutional or property‑law interaction of these provisions would require consulting reported decisions, which are not included in the supplied material.

Timing and notification strictness: Sections 70 and 71 require a grantee to notify the registrar of permit or easement events within 28 days and to supply specified documents; failure attracts a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units. The 28‑day window is statutory; a failure to comply is an offence with financial consequence. Additionally, for easements the event may be registered only in compliance with the Land Act 1994 or Land Title Act 1994 (s 71(3)), and until registration the registrar must ensure a notice appears in the relevant register (s 71(4)). Practitioners should note that the statutory duty to file and the separate registration mechanics operate in parallel and missing one step may result in exposure to penalties or uncertainty of title effect.

Arbitration cost structure and access: Both s 34(4) and s 33A(9) require that each party bears their own costs for the arbitration processes described. That allocation may affect the practical willingness of small growers to initiate or sustain arbitration, as a party cannot recover costs from the other party under those specific provisions. The cost rule is statutory and modifies usual access to costs awards in litigation or arbitration governed by other rules.

Narrow remedial scope of arbitral tribunal: When a dispute over proposed terms of an intended supply contract is referred to arbitration under s 33A, the arbitral tribunal may "decide the dispute about the proposed term only by deciding the term" (s 33A(5)). The tribunal does not, by that wording, have an express power to reform the whole contract beyond deciding the disputed term(s). Parties should therefore frame arbitration submissions narrowly to secure the specific term decisions they seek.

Prohibition on final offer arbitration: Section 37 forbids final offer arbitration or a substantially similar process. Parties cannot design around the prohibition by crafting a mechanism that amounts to the same procedural avatar, because the statute defines final offer arbitration and disallows it.

GEI marketing constraints and "unreasonable" treatment test: Section 33A(7)-(8) and s 33B set limits on terms that would unreasonably treat growers less favourably if a mill‑related entity were to be the GEI marketing entity. The phrase "must not have the effect of unreasonably treating the grower less favourably" and the example about paying more for a service provided by the mill owner (s 33A(7)-(8)) create a qualitative constraint that will likely require factual assessment in any dispute. The statute, however, does not define "unreasonably" beyond the example, so parties may face interpretive difficulty and will need to rely on tribunal or court guidance (not provided in the extract).

Multiple collective contracts and overlapping obligations: Section 33(4) allows more than one collective contract to be in force at the same time for a mill, and s 33(5) allows a grower to be party to more than one collective contract. This can create potential overlaps of contractual obligations and raises complexity over priority, allocation of cane, price exposure and marketing directions. The statute does not itself set priority rules among multiple collective contracts, so the parties will need to manage or litigate overlaps under the ordinary principles applicable to their contractual arrangements and any dispute-resolution clauses in the contracts.

Land Court thresholds and special circumstances: For a Land Court to vary or cancel an access right on application, the Court must be satisfied for a cane railway easement that it has not been used for at least two years, or otherwise that there are "special circumstances" (s 72(4)). Section 72(5) clarifies that a mere change in the use of the land affected by the access right is not in itself special circumstances. Practitioners should note that the special-circumstances threshold may be interpreted narrowly and the statutory text expressly excludes some arguments that might appear prima facie relevant.

Native title consent and ILUAs: Section 65(5) requires that an access right, if it would affect native title, be consented to by an indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) registered under the Native Title Act 1993. This creates an external consent prerequisite where native title consideration arises and aligns the instrument with Commonwealth native title processes. Parties seeking access rights must ensure native title risks are addressed.

Registration compliance with land statutes: The easement registration must be in compliance with the Land Act 1994 or the Land Title Act 1994 (s 71(3)), and a cane railway easement included in a register may be varied only in compliance with those Acts' provisions about amending an easement (s 72(6)). This means that title‑effect changes require concurrent compliance with the general land laws and cannot be treated solely under this sugar‑industry instrument.

Transition of commissioner functions and record availability: The transitional provisions (ss 287-289) require materials and applications before the old commissioner or Magistrates Courts to be made available to the Land Court. Practitioners handling legacy matters should note the need to check where records have been moved and the formal procedure for having prior matters treated as proceedings before the Land Court (s 287(4)-(5)).

Enforceability route via Supreme Court filing: Section 74A requires the Land Court registrar to forward orders to the Supreme Court registrar for filing; on filing the order is enforceable as if it were a Supreme Court order. Practitioners should prepare for this administrative step to convert Land Court relief into enforceable judgments.

Omitted or redacted sections in text: The supplied extract contains many "omitted" or editorially redacted sections (notably sec.38-sec.62 and many later sections), so it is possible that other relevant provisions exist in the full Act or consolidated version that are not present in the supplied materials. Advice or compliance actions should be based on the consolidated Act and current versions of the referenced statutes, not solely on this extract.

These points are drawn from the supplied sections and annotations in the text and identify areas where attention to procedure, timing, registration, cost allocation and overlapping contractual arrangements is particularly important.

Contract formation and content:

• Ensure every grower‑to‑mill supply relationship is governed by a signed supply contract for each crushing season, because s 31(1) makes the supply contract the statutory precondition to supply. Each party to the contract must sign (s 31(5)). For collective contracts, ensure each grower in the group signs (s 33(2)) and, if applicable, obtain written authority for any bargaining representative (see s 30 definition of bargaining representative).
• Include a dispute‑resolution clause that states a process including arbitration, as required by s 34(1). The clause should conform to the statutory arbitration parameters, including acknowledgement that each party will bear its own arbitration costs where the statute applies (s 34(4)).
• Draft core pricing and GEI provisions with the statutory defaults in mind. Supply contracts must at least provide for the cane payment (s 33B(2)(a)). Unless the parties agree otherwise, include a related sugar pricing term linking the cane payment to the sale price of the on‑supply sugar (s 33B(2)(b)). If a related sugar pricing term is included, ensure clear allocation of sale‑price exposure and, where GEI exposure is present, include a GEI marketing term and, unless otherwise agreed, allow the grower to nominate the GEI sugar marketing entity (s 33B(2)(c)-(d)). Where the grower nominates an entity, include a clear, stated reasonable period for the mill owner to deliver the on‑supply sugar for sale as directed, and tailor that period with regard to the likely period for delivery to a related body corporate (s 33B(2)(e), s 33B(4)).

Negotiation and arbitration compliance:

• If a grower wishes to invoke the s 33A referral process for an intended supply contract, ensure the negotiation notice requires the mill owner to use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate a supply contract within a stated negotiation period of at least 10 business days (s 33A(1)(b)). Keep documentary proof of the notice and the expiration of the negotiation period. If a term remains disputed at the end of the negotiation period, either party may treat the dispute as referred to arbitration under s 33A(2).
• Prepare arbitration submissions and remedies with the statutory limitation in mind: an arbitral tribunal under s 33A may decide only the disputed term(s) (s 33A(5)). Anticipate that each party must bear its own costs of that arbitration (s 33A(9)).
• Avoid using final offer arbitration or a procedure substantially the same, because s 37 expressly forbids it. Do not adopt procedures that would allow an arbitrator to decide only by selecting one of two final offers in the prohibited manner.

Access rights and land compliance:

• For any permit to pass or cane railway easement that is granted, ensure the grantee gives the registrar the required signed notice identifying parties and the land affected and attach the permit or the document effecting its relinquishment, variation or cancellation within 28 days of the permit event (s 70(2)). For easement events, comply with s 71(2) and supply whatever documents the registrar requires to register the event in compliance with the Land Act or Land Title Act (s 71(5)). Missing the 28‑day filing window exposes the grantee to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units (ss 70(2), 71(2)).
• If a landholder and grantee wish to avoid Land Court proceedings, negotiate compensation terms at the outset and record them in the access-right agreement; if agreement cannot be reached, be prepared to apply to the Land Court under ss 68 and 73, and to support valuation and compensation positions with evidence relevant to the statutory factors in s 68(4) and s 73(4).
• Where negotiations with a landholder fail, an applicant should document "reasonable attempts" to negotiate before applying to the Land Court under s 65(1)-(2). Serve copies of the application on every person the applicant knows may be entitled to claim compensation, as required by s 65(3).
• Be aware of native title overlay: if the access right would affect native title, obtain or rely on a registered indigenous land use agreement consenting to the grant (s 65(5)-(7)).

Court process and enforcement:

• When seeking variation or cancellation, follow the procedures in s 72 including service obligations (s 72(3)). Note the statutory thresholds: for cancellation of a cane railway easement the Land Court must be satisfied it has not been used for at least two years; otherwise the Court must be satisfied there are special circumstances (s 72(4)). Prepare evidence addressing these thresholds.
• Where the Land Court makes an order, ensure compliance with s 74A: the registrar of the Land Court will give a copy of the order to the registrar of the Supreme Court who will file it; once filed, the order is enforceable as a Supreme Court order (s 74A(2)-(3)). Prepare to take enforcement steps in the Supreme Court registry when necessary.

Record-keeping and transition matters:

• For legacy matters that originated with the Sugar Industry Commissioner or Magistrates Court, practitioners should verify that records and materials have been transferred to the Land Court and that any outstanding applications are treated as applications to the Land Court under s 287. The chief executive and registrars have