NFF to boycott biosecurity panel

The peak farm lobby has declined its invitation to join the federal government new biosecurity advisory panel in protest over the proposed biosecurity protection levy.

Australian farmers’ peak lobby group will boycott the first meeting of the Albanese government’s new biosecurity funding advisory panel.

National Farmers’ Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said the group would not attend the panel’s first meeting next week in protest over the federal government’s “clumsy” design of its biosecurity protection levy that’s projected to raise about $50 million annually from farmers from July 1.

“The NFF isn’t participating in April, we don’t want to be seen as endorsing a tax. I’ll be brutal and frank here, I found out through the media (about the panel) and that’s indicative of this whole process. It’s been a clumsy way to implement policy,” Mr Mahar told a federal Senate committee scrutinising the Bill on Tuesday.

Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt announced the panel in February to counter industry concerns about a lack of consultation in the design of the proposed levy.

The panel will meet three times a year “to provide transparency of biosecurity expenditure and give farmers and importers input into biosecurity priorities”.

The NFF was one of 22 peak farming organisations invited to the panel, including Cattle Australia, Cotton Australia, GrainGrowers Limited and Australian Port Limited.

NSW Farmers has urged peak industry bodies not to attend, while Cattle Australia is awaiting answers from the federal government before it decides whether it will take part.

A week out from the panel’s first meeting, the federal government is yet to release its terms of reference or an agenda.

The Senate committee heard there was no support among the agriculture industry for the levy in its proposed form.

A lack of transparency around the money collected by the levy and how it would be spent was repeatedly raised by witnesses.

Former senior Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries staffer and now Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker suggested a special account be created to overcome this.

A special account created a ledged that allowed a specified amount of money to be drawn from consolidated revenue for specific purposes.

“I couldn’t see a bigger need for transparency to pay for functions that are fundamentally the government’s responsibility. There is no visibility for parliament or industry and I would strongly urge the Senate and this committee for the money to be accounted for in a special account,” Dr Parker said.

NSW Farmers president Xavier Marton told the committee it was “confronting” DAFF has not determined where in the supply chain the levy would be applied.

“We’re only eight weeks out from this tax being introduced and they are unsure about the collection of the levy on some products,” he said.

Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan questioned the department on how it intended to create a new system for 26 industries currently without a levy system in place – from berry growers to deer producers – to pay from July.

“I honestly don’t think this is ready. You’re asking us to vote on something, and I’m sorry to be blunt, but you’re struggling to convince me that you actually have a proper plan that within 70 days you can charge very small amounts to 84 industries,” Senator Canavan said.

Albanese’s biosecurity protection levy plans to raise $50 million annually from 84 agricultural sectors, to contribute 6 per cent of biosecurity funding.

DAFF confirmed producers’ “obligation” to pay the levy would begin on July 1, but collection for some sectors would not start on July 1.

ACT Senator David Pocock asked the Department why it was pushing ahead with the proposed model in the face of criticism from independent reviews.

He was told the government was continuing to explore alternative arrangements.

Senator Pocock has requested DAFF make public advice the federal government has received that showed it could breach international trade laws if it taxed or levied importers instead of primary producers, such as a container levy.