The Biosecurity Levy Bill was introduced into Parliament today, angering the agriculture industry that will be stung $50m annually if it is passed.
NFF President David Jochinke said the move was “utterly staggering” given the level of opposition to the policy.
“Everyone from the Productivity Commission to the Australian National University and the Freight and Trade Alliance has labelled this policy a dud. It makes zero economic sense,” Mr Jochinke said.
“We’re shocked, to say the least, that they’d ignore the unanimous voices of farmers, importers and policy experts. If they aren't listening to this broad church of voices, who are they listening to?”
The NFF is calling on parliamentarians to reject the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 and Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024.
NSW Farmers Biosecurity Committee Chair Ian McColl concurred: “Our message has been very clear – we oppose the biosecurity levy bill in its current form, and we do not believe this tax should be imposed on farmers.
“As we’ve said time and time again, farmers already pay far more than their fair share to fund the nation’s biosecurity system, and they are also incurring huge costs to protect their businesses against biosecurity threats.
“Meanwhile, there is no container levy imposed on importers, despite their recent offers to contribute more to the cause.”
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Murray Watt backed his levy, saying the cost of the BPL was only around 0.05% of the total value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry production, equivalent to 5 cents for every 100 dollars created in the industry.
In terms of retail food prices, the effect would be smaller still, as only around a quarter of the final retail price is driven by the producer price.
“The small cost is far outweighed by the significant and lasting benefits producers gain from stronger biosecurity prevention arrangements and high international prices,” Minister Watt said.
“The worst outcome for Australians, as consumers, and as primary producers, would be a significant biosecurity incursion.”
Leader of The Nationals David Littleproud said the bill lacked details of the cost to farmers or how the levy will be collected, which had created more confusion and anxiety for farmers.
“Farmers are still in the dark about this new levy – Labor still needs to come up with exact costs and the rate they will be taxed,” he said.
“In what parallel universe would any Australian government tax their own farmers, to pay for foreigners to bring their products into this country?”
Biosecurity advisory panel announced
Meanwhile, the tabling of legislation was accompanied by an announcement of a Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel, which will give farmers and importers a say on biosecurity priorities and how Commonwealth biosecurity funding is used.
It’s a move that Mr Jochinke said had been met with cynicism by industry stakeholders.
The Advisory Panel will meet three times a year, but any further details were thin on the ground.
“It’s pretty clear this panel is being tacked on at the 11th hour to try and give the levy some credibility,” he said.
“All it’s done is demonstrate the continued shambles this process has become – with stakeholders yet to receive formal invites, or any detail on the panel’s scope and role.
“Given we flat out oppose the Biosecurity Levy, we’ll think carefully about any role that might be construed as endorsement.”
He noted that the panel wasn’t reflected in the legislation tabled today, so it didn’t guarantee farmers the oversight they were seeking.
“Once again, that’s completely out of step with the usual design of industry levies,” he said.
WoolProducers General Manager Adam Dawes said the organisation was disappointed by the Government’s attempt to rush through what they say is a tax on Australian farmers “to fill a $50 million budget black hole in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry”.
He welcomed the idea of transparency but said: “The proposed level of transparency should be business as usual for any government department, and industry seats at the table certainly shouldn't come with a $50 million price tag.”
“WoolProducers will consider the invitation to join the panel in the coming weeks, however this consideration must not be construed to in any way support the imposition of this tax on Australian wool growers,” he said.
Cattle Australia (CA) Chief Executive Officer Dr Chris Parker said while the terms of reference for the panel will be the ultimate test, having a seat at the table on the Advisory Panel is integral to holding the Albanese Government to account on its Sustainable Biosecurity Funding model and ensuring it delivers for grass-fed producers while improving Australia’s biosecurity.
“This is only the first step though, and CA will continue to press hard for improved oversight of the BPL funds and expenditure, as well as all other biosecurity expenditure in general,” Dr Parker said.
Organisations invited to be on the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel:
National Farmers Federation
GrainGrowers Limited
Grain Producers Australia
Cattle Australia
Australian Dairy Farmers
Australian Fresh Produce Alliance
Sheep Producers Australia
Australian Grape and Wine
Seafood Industry Australia
WoolProducers Australia
Cotton Australia
CaneGrowers
Australian Pork Limited
National Farmers Federation Horticulture Council
Plant Health Australia Industry Forum
Animal Health Australia Industry Forum
Australian Forest Products Association
Freight and Trade Alliance
International Forwarders and Customs Brokers Association
Invasive Species Council
Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation