2PM THURSDAY UPDATE: The vote on the biosecurity levy bills will now occur next week. There is not enough time left in today's House of Representatives sitting to get an outcome today.
EARLIER: The much-maligned suite of biosecurity levy bills could pass the House of Representatives as early as Thursday, but it will be without the support of The Greens.
Queensland MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown confirmed in her speech in the Federation Chamber on Wednesday night that The Greens would be voting against this bill in the House of Representatives and reserving a final position in the Senate, pending consultations with the government.
“The Greens have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight applied within the bill itself in regard to the allocation and dispersal of the revenue collected from this levy,” she said.
“The direction of collected levy funds into consolidated revenue is a key concern with the bill in its current form. The current structure and application of this legislation needs work.
“My colleagues in the Senate will be doing their job to properly interrogate and scrutinise this bill and any sensible amendments that may be required.”
Ms Watson-Brown said The Greens believed that risk creators, like importers, needed to pay their fair share and would be pushing the government to commit to progressing a levy on risk creators in the form of a container levy, or similar, as a matter of priority.
"The Greens want to ensure accountability around how the government undertakes its role on biosecurity. Too much money has been wasted. We want to see clear performance measures against contributions made by primary producers through any new levy.”
Second reading debate on the bills moved to the Federation Chamber, which is usually preserved for matters that are not controversial, on Wednesday.
It was a manoeuvre that Member for Nicholls Sam Birrell cited as another example of a government that was “anti-agriculture”.
“I think the fact that this has been put in the Federation Chamber indicates just how little Labor thinks of agriculture and controversial agricultural bills that should be debated in the House of Representatives,” he said.
“It's up here, out of sight and out of mind, like agriculture itself.”
He went on to tell to chamber that it would be laughable if the issue wasn’t so serious.
“The principle of making farmers who are already doing it tough pay for their competitors to import produce into the country to compete against them is just another example of this government being anti-agriculture,” he said.
Sam Birrell.
“I ask this Labor government: what do you hate about farmers so much?
“This Labor government sees primary production as a cash cow to exploit rather than an industry to nurture.”
Mr Birrell said a container levy was a better way forward.
On Wednesday 23 Coalition, Greens and Independent MPs spoke in opposition to the bill, with many of them pointing out that no Labor MP, apart from the Agriculture Minister, had been willing to speak out in favour of it.
Tasmanian MP and farmer Gavin Pearce told the chamber it didn’t make sense for farmers to pay a levy on produce being imported into the country.
“It's not the responsibility of our domestic Australian farmers, the people doing the right thing, to pay to protect against foreign pests coming into Australia; it should be the responsibility of the person importing that,” he said.
“When it comes to the international playing field, we're expected to pay a levy as we export into foreign countries. Why shouldn't it be the same way in the opposite direction, for those importing?
“There should be user-pay arrangements whereby the person, business or country that's bringing those products in is responsible. And, quite frankly, they expect to pay.”
MP Melissa Price told the chamber that unfortunately Labor had the numbers to pass the bill.
“Soon, when we leave the Federation Chamber and head back to the main chamber, I'm sure every single one of these Labor politicians who say they care about regional Australia will line up and support this legislation. They should hang their heads in shame!” she said.
“For those listening at home: the legislation will then make its way to the Senate and, given the multitude of issues with this legislation, I call on the Senate crossbenchers to do their homework—please.
“Understand what this will do to regional communities and make sure that this useless package of legislation receives proper scrutiny before a committee.
“It should not be rushed through to meet the deadline of 1 July without all these answers being resolved. At the very least, maybe we will actually get rid of this useless piece of legislation.”
Meanwhile, Australian Livestock & Property Agents Association Ltd Chief Executive Officer Peter Baldwin said 7000 collection agents have been left in the dark and are largely unaware they will have to collect the levy.
“Agents who are overburdened already will have very little time to collect the levy – or the government’s tax – and how to do so correctly,” Mr Baldwin said.
“There is immense and utter confusion. If the biosecurity protection levy legislation suggests the collection agent will also have to provide the levy paper with an invoice, this will create a considerable regulatory burden.”
Grain Producers Australia (GPA) has reaffirmed its strong opposition to the proposed Biosecurity Tax saying the policy still fails to pass the fairness and equity tests.
GPA members have been on hand to watch debate on the bill as its progressed through Parliament this week, which has coincided with GPA members holding meetings in Canberra with federal representatives, urging them to stand up for what’s right and vote against the bill.
GPA Chair and WA grain producer, Barry Large, said this week’s engagement included GPA grower representatives meeting with Agriculture Minister, Murray Watt, to directly advocate the concerns of their grower members on the biosecurity tax, and other current priorities.
“Our producer members are the ones being hit with this additional biosecurity tax and cost of doing business that’ll see funds going straight into consolidated revenue,” he said.
We urge all members of parliament to take time to listen to, and understand, the wide range of concerns expressed by so many different producers and their representatives – not just grains.”
“Despite repeated requests we are yet to see any economic modelling on this so called ‘sustainable’ funding model and biosecurity tax, to provide proper scrutiny and transparency,” he said.
“Especially why producers are considered the only ‘beneficiaries’ of biosecurity who should pay this new tax, and not others across the supply chain who we know also benefit, from the paddock through to consumers.”
The government's package of three bills seeks to impose a new biosecurity protection levy to be payable by producers.
They are the: Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024.
Two of the bills seek to implement a biosecurity protection levy or charge to be inflicted on Australian farmers to pay for biosecurity activities which are undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
The third bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collections Bill 2024, will enable the collection of the levy.
The levy is slated to commence on July 1, 2024.
Labor will set the tax rate as a proportion of an industry’s average gross value of production over a three-year period.
The legislation lacks any detail of the cost to farmers or how the levy will be collected. It is not yet clear what industry will have to pay.
More than 50 agricultural representative groups previously signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressing unified opposition about the new tax.
