New government export charges to be passed on to Australian producers
Australia’s agriculture sector faces a massive financial blow after the government quietly announced exporters must now fund regulatory costs.
An unexpected move by the federal government to recover regulatory costs of agricultural exports has shocked the nation’s farm sector and exporters.
The cost is expected to be in the realm of “millions and millions” for agricultural exporters, sources have told The Weekly Times.
The government announced late last week that new cost recovery arrangement for exports would be introduced from 1 July next year.
Today, farmer and exporter representatives were scrambling to understand what the changes will mean, after being given just three hours notice ahead of a meeting with government representatives that announced “what amounts to a significant cost shift onto industry”.
One source said the announcement appeared to be “decision first, consultation second”.
National Farmers’ Federation president Hamish McIntyre said the NFF was concerned the proposed changes to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry export cost recovery arrangements “may hurt the competitiveness of agricultural exports and producers”.
“Australian agriculture exports 80 per cent of the food and fibre it produces, so any hit to our international competitiveness across the value chains has a direct impact on the sector’s productivity,” the Queensland-based producer and farm leader said.
“This trade delivers public good not just into regional communities, but to the entire nation.
“It is imperative that the principles of equity and fairness are embedded into cost recovery frameworks both for the entire sector, and between agricultural industries.
“The costs of any changes, proposed to roll out over the course of the next three years, will most likely be passed onto producers.”
Mr McIntrye also said NFF members had raised concerns about export cost recovery frameworks being used to support the broader departmental cost base.
He said “meaningful and responsive consultation will be of the utmost importance as the proposed changes are implemented”.
An Australian Meat Industry Council spokeswoman said: “Industry ‘consultation’ has been consultation in name only, following an opaque and inadequate review of cost recovery arrangements by DAFF”.
“After allocating $3.7m to a cost recovery taskforce and two years of commitments to engage with industry, DAFF provided agricultural export sectors with just three hours’ notice of a meeting to announce what amounts to a significant cost shift onto industry,” she said.
“AMIC is reviewing the information provided by DAFF, which indicates an intention to charge industry to fund essential government services over which the Department holds a service-provision monopoly.”
AMIC was “extremely disappointed by the absence of meaningful consultation or any serious effort to reduce the regulatory cost burden on industry.
“Instead, Australian exporters are being asked to shoulder the cost of well-publicised budget pressures within the Agriculture portfolio.”
Grain Producers Australia southern director Andrew Weidemann said GPA would be “closely monitoring the consultation documents”, epxetced to be out in January 2026.
“There is little information so far for GPA to comment directly, however it will be our focus to understand how this cost recovery exercise would impact our state farming organisation members and all grain producers,” he said.
“We are very mindful of any cost burden to grain producers is a very real concern.”
Nationals leader David Littleproud said “there is support for cost recovery in providing export services, but it must be implemented right”.
“It is very concerning that the Albanese Labor government has allowed the department’s costs to provide export services to blow out while implementing limited efficiencies and now expecting the agriculture industry to pay,” he said.
“It also seems inappropriate to put new costs on the industry for what seems like the Department’s core business such as ‘regulatory continuous improvement and efficiency’.”
A statement from Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said the cost of providing regulatory exports functions had outstripped revenue raised for the 16 of the last 20 years, with export arrangements having received $138m in supplementation measures from the government since 2023-24.
The minister’s statement said the cost recovery arrangement was needed to ensure vital export regulatory services were sustainably funded and continued to meet industry needs.
There would be a phased return to cost recovery over the next three years for most arrangements, the statement said.
From late January next year industry is expected to be asked to provide feedback on the arrangement over a five-week consultation period, with draft cost recovery implementation statements and explanatory materials that outline cost recovery activities and how fees and charges would be calculated also released.
* More to come
