Biosecurity levy changes flagged in the Senate

Agriculture was a hot topic in the second week of Parliament sittings this year – with the biosecurity levy and net-zero emissions. 

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Murray Watt used his opening statement to the Senate on Tuesday to announce that the much-maligned Biosecurity Levy – set to cost the agriculture industry about $50 million a year – would be calculated in a new way.  

The announcement came after backlash from industry, including a letter from 50 producer groups calling for the scrapping of the biosecurity levy entirely. 

“We’ve listened to that feedback and as a result... I’m announcing that we’re changing the way the Biosecurity Protection Levy (BPL) is calculated to make it fairer and more transparent,” Mr Watt said. 

“Rates will be set using a common and equitable basis for all industry sector products and goods and will not be set by reference to 2020-21 agricultural levy rates, as was originally proposed. 

“In addition, imposition of the levy will be tailored to individual products and goods to reduce multiple imposition points across a product’s supply chain.” 

Farmers demand more levy details 

However, industry groups remain unimpressed saying that they could not support the levy without more detail about how the levy would be rolled out. The expressed concern that the government had not addressed the issue that agriculture was not the only industry benefiting from enhanced biosecurity. 

Grain Producers Australia Chief Executive, Colin Bettles, said while the government had listened in making changes to update their policy, it was still unclear whether grain producers would pay any more or less than the proposed 10 per cent. 
“Producers already pay hundreds of millions of dollars in levies – including biosecurity – to deliver multiple public good benefits for the nation,” he said. 
“We need to ensure this new policy actually improves biosecurity protections for producers and is not just a new mechanism for adding to government consolidated revenue, by more cost-shifting onto producers.” 
Likewise, Cattle Australia Chief Executive Officer, Dr Chris Parker, was seeking more details about the design, implementation and oversight of the levy. 

“We believe the BPL in its current form does not share the cost of biosecurity with all sectors of the economy, and maintain our position that a detailed analysis of who the beneficiaries and risk creators are will be required to achieve a truly equitable policy,” he said. 

“Without appropriate implementation, co-design planning, stakeholder oversight and adequate safeguards, the BPL will be just another tax that reduces the competitiveness of the grass-fed cattle industry – an industry that is essential to the Australian economy.” 

Dr Parker said it is imperative that Government take existing expenses into due consideration when quantifying a biosecurity levy rate, to ensure the collection of funds is equitable across all industries prior to applying an additional proposed biosecurity protection levy. 

“It is critical that the collection of funds is transparent and used appropriately to leverage a stronger biosecurity system.” 

Net-zero no go for farmers: Watt 

Australian farmers will not be required to hit net-zero emissions as part of the nation's green transition, but will be expected to reduce emissions to help hit economy-wide target sets by the government, according to Farmonline. 

According to the report, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt told a Senate Estimates hearing yesterday afternoon that sector specific emissions reduction targets would not be applied to individual commodities. 

"We are not talking about setting any binding targets around methane reduction, or anything like that,” he said. 

"We are not intending to put a particular target around the ag sector to reduce its emissions by a certain amount, just as we are not intending to say that the transport sector must reduce emissions, but everyone must play a role. 

"So any concerns from the NFF and others that we are going to require agriculture to be net zero, that is not what we are proposing." 

The statement comes as farmer groups in the EU won a major concession on emissions targets that would have seen them liable for a 30% cut by 2040.

READ MORE: EU goes easy on farmers in 2040 emissions goal

Mr Watt also acknowledged that "there is a lot of work to do" on developing tools and methodology to measure emissions before any plans were rolled out.