Biosecurity levy: Farmers ‘subsidising food imports’ by new levy

The ag industry has managed to hold off a new levy it likens to farmers paying for its own competitors, with a senate committee to scrutinise the legislation.

Farmers would effectively be subsiding cheap food imports into Australia if they are forced to contribute to the federal government’s new biosecurity funding model, the head of the nation’s farm lobby says.

Australia’s agriculture industry was celebrating a win this week, after the federal government failed to see its controversial biosecurity levy waved through parliament.

Instead, legislation for the levy – which would see farmers contribute almost $48 million a year to the revamped funding system via a levy on all sectors from July 1 – will undergo further scrutiny by a Senate committee, after the Greens and Opposition refused to support the Bill in its current form.

National Farmers’ Federation president David Jochinke said the lobby was “extremely happy” the Bill would now be “scrutinised with the due diligence that is needed”.

“We have talked with almost everyone we can on this, industry has been very loud and clear that we don’t support this levy,” Mr Jochinke said.

“We’re just hopeful commonsense prevails and Australian farmers aren’t subsidising food imports into Australia.”

The government has argued the cost of biosecurity should be spread across the supply chain, including those who benefit from it; the agricultural industry, however, has been united across all sectors in wanting the levy scrapped, saying farmers already pay for biosecurity through other levies collected.

The average farmer would have to hand over about $500 a year in biosecurity levies, according to the Albanese Government’s analysis, but just how the levy would be collected remains unclear.

Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown told parliament the party had “serious concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight” regarding the allocation and spending of the levy.

“The direction of collected levy funds into consolidated revenue is a key concern with the bill in its current form,” she said.

“We also believe that risk creators, like importers, need to pay their fair share. The Greens will 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.”

The Greens were joined in opposing the Bill by several members of the crossbench, including Indi MP Helen Haines, a “fifth-generation member of a farming family” who farms beef cattle herself.

“I’m concerned about the consultation process that the government undertook in designing these bills, a process that does not demonstrate to me truly good governance,” she said.

“I will be voting against the bills at this time, until I can see that the government have listened to the farmers and primary producers that are so vital to feeding and clothing all of us.”

Victorian Nationals MP for Nicholls Sam Birrell said the Bill was based on an “unfair principle … that the business owner, in this case the farmer, must pay for the costs of their competitor importing products into the country to compete against them”.

Mallee MP Anne Webster said: “If you ever needed an example of the disconnect between the Australian Labor Party and regional Australia, this Bill … is it.”

The Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will report back by May 10.