Budget a missed opportunity for long-term biosecurity funding

The federal budget has failed to deliver on promises for long-term, sustainable biosecurity funding. And industry has noticed.

Biosecurity has been given a multimillion-dollar boost, but the federal budget has failed to deliver on agriculture’s wish for long-term, sustainable biosecurity funding.

While Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ first budget has upped the federal government’s biosecurity spend, many of the measures listed in Tuesday night’s budget were relics of the former Morrison government’s March budget.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said on Wednesday the $134.1 million for biosecurity outlined in the October 2022-23 budget was “a substantial down payment on our election commitment to deliver long-term sustainable biosecurity funding”.

But any indication as to how long-term funding would be delivered remains to be seen.

“We will have more to say on this commitment in the future, after we properly consult with industry and other stakeholders.

“The previous government botched their introduction of a biosecurity levy because they were more interested in the announcement than talking to those affected. We will not make the same mistakes,” Minister Watt said.

It is believed the Minister is in the early stages of assessing what model can best deliver an annual funding stream that is agreeable to other industries such as the transport, logistics and freight sectors.

It was these industries that successfully lobbied the former Coalition government for over a year to scrap plans for an onshore biosecurity levy in 2020.

The levy was first promised in the 2018-19 federal budget with plans to raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year to protect Australian farmers from exotic pests and diseases.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said biosecurity funding outlined in the budget was a down payment on a promise to deliver long-term biosecurity funding. Picture: Jerad Williams

National Farmers’ Federation president Fiona Simson said she was hopeful a clear commitment to deliver sustainable funding would be seen in the next federal budget in May.

“We appreciate that we’re still relatively early in the term of this Government and work is currently underway, but sustainable biosecurity funding is something the sector is unwavering in its expectation to see implemented when the next Budget is handed down.”

Meanwhile the federal government has stepped away from its

pre-election commitment to pay upfront for Pacific workers to travel to Australia.

As part of a $67.5 million plan to improve the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility visa scheme outlined in the budget, rather than pay for travel costs, the federal government said it would underwrite employers’ upfront travel costs for seasonal workers who abscond.

Employers are currently required to organise and pay upfront for the full costs of travel for seasonal workers. These costs can be recouped over time from their wages, unless the worker never actually stepped foot on the plane, or fled the farmer’s property.

Paying for travel costs was seen as a way of incentivising workers to come to Australia, given they currently have to pay those costs back when they arrive here and begin working.

“This commitment to help with the cost of bringing in Pacific workers was a consolation prize for the scrapping of the Ag Visa,” Ms Simson said.

The scrapping of the agriculture visa – promised by former Agriculture Minister David Littleproud – will save the federal government $90 million earmarked for its development, with that funding to be funnelled into Pacific aid.

Australian Fresh Produce Alliance chief executive Claire McClelland was however supportive of the changes to the PALM scheme.

“The government’s measure to underwrite flight costs of workers will support approved employers to further invest and recruit through the scheme. This commitment makes sense as it helps employers manage the risks associated with upfront costs, while avoiding unnecessary red-tape,” Ms McClelland said.