NFF: Farmers already pay enough for biosecurity

The ag industry is buoyed by news that a sustainable biosecurity funding model will be announced in Tuesday’s federal budget, but says farmers already pay enough.

Farm leaders have welcomed reports that the federal government will deliver a long-term, sustainable funding model, but fear a possible double-up on fees and charges.

The Albanese government appears set to introduce a watershed sustainable biosecurity funding model for the Department of Agriculture in next Tuesday’s federal budget.

It is understood the bulk of what is believed to be a $200 million increase for the department’s bottom line will come from taxpayers and the remainder to be generated by cost-recovery.

But Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has warned that the trade-off is that importers and farmers can expect increased fees and charges attached to the cost of importing goods.

National Farmers’ Federation vice president David Jochinke said farmers were not the only beneficiaries of Australia’s biosecurity system and that it was “only fair” those who created the biosecurity risk shared the cost of managing that risk.

Containers at Webb Dock, Port of Melbourne. Picture: Mark Stewart

“Farmers already contribute heavily by funding traceability systems, biosecurity organisations, and meeting the cost of outbreaks. Farmers shouldn’t have to pay more for something everyone benefits from. It’s time that risk creators did the same,” he said.

The NFF said other biosecurity outlays included industry-led best practice accreditation schemes and producer levies funding organisations such as Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia.

Many commodities also have formalised cost-sharing arrangements in place to fund industry recovery following specific disease and incursion events.

David Jochinke, Victorian farmer and VP of National Farmers Federation. Picture: Supplied

Speculation is mounting that a form of container levy may be included in the new modelling as a means of directly targeting risk-creating activity.

The now $90 billion agriculture industry was angered by a 2020 Coalition decision to drop a long-awaited levy on container imports, which would have generated a projected $110 million per annum to create a sustainable revenue stream for biosecurity activities.

NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair Ian McColl said meat producers were particularly vulnerable given the range of charges and fees already attached to the industry.

He urged the government not to put a biosecurity levy on “struggling industries” that had lost trade through supply chain issues and Chinese tariffs over recent years.

Mr McColl said farmers already made a huge contribution to biosecurity and that the federal government should not “double dip”.

“We already pay a large amount in fees and charges and also through the investment of levy dollars – many of our levy dollars go to biosecurity – to help support Australia’s biosecurity system,” Mr McColl said.

He also said increased funding for the agriculture department must be accompanied by improved transparency.

The agriculture department has been forced to cut spending and fired contractors after it was recently revealed its books are so deep in the red that it will record a $60 million cost recovery shortfall this year.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gary Ramage

When asked at a recent press conference whether farmers or importers “stand to lose the most” under a new sustained biosecurity model, Mr Watt only said that biosecurity is “a shared responsibility”.

“We need to ensure that the cost of providing biosecurity services is shared across the community and that includes making sure that risk creators, like importers, and people who benefit from the biosecurity system all pay their way as well,” he said.