New biosecurity model rakes in $97m as farmers oppose the system

A whopping $97.4 million has been garnered from importers since July 1 under the Federal Government’s new Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Model, including an additional $11.3m collected from importer fees and charges.

The Albanese Government’s $1.03 billion dollar biosecurity model, which was announced in the May Budget, will operate from July 1, 2024, with a shared equitably model between taxpayers (44 per cent), importers or “risk creators” (48 per cent) and the direct beneficiaries (6 per cent) of the biosecurity system.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said the funds collected would go directly back into the national biosecurity system, protecting Australian agriculture and the community from harmful pests and diseases that “threaten trade and our way of life”.

Mr Watt said instead of taxpayers picking up the total cost of biosecurity, “importers are starting to pay their fair share”.

But agricultural groups have opposed the new levy charges citing they may “erode farmer confidence in the entire levy system”.

In the National Farmers’ Federation submission to the Biosecurity Protection Levy: Consultation Paper, which closed for comment on October 13, chief executive Tony Mahar said while the peak farming body supported efforts to ensure Australia’s biosecurity system was well resourced, “it does not support this policy”.

“This isn’t about farmers not wanting to contribute to the biosecurity system — they already contribute significant amounts,” Mr Mahar said.

Mr Mahar said the industry was “extremely concerned” the new levy would jeopardise producer confidence in the existing levies system as it did not align with underlying principles, such as proper establishment processes, industry support, equitability and accountability.

“This new levy is going to erode producer confidence in the entire levies system as it’s inconsistent with the principles that underpin other levies producers pay,” he said.

“The proposal is not equitable between and within different commodities, and explicitly states that producers will have no say in how the money they contribute will be used.”

“GPA understands the Federal Government’s intent to deliver a sustainable funding model for biosecurity, but the proposed policy fails to deliver this outcome on multiple levels,” he said.

He said grain producers were “already paying significant and record amounts in existing levies” — including State and Federal ones — as well as contributing directly to the costs of biosecurity management, through their own farm businesses.

“To collect another 10 per cent tax off growers, and redirect these new funds into consolidated government revenue, is a flawed approach that’s severely undermining trust and confidence in the policy proposal, in its current shape,” Mr Large said.

He said there was no guarantee the funds from the levy-tax on producers would reach the Department of Agriculture’s budget and biosecurity programs.

“And we already know these funds won’t be redirected towards investments in existing levy programs and agencies — such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Plant Health Australia — that work in trusted partnerships with levy-paying growers,” he said.

Cattle Australia has also taken a strong position on behalf of grass-fed cattle producers.

CA chair David Foote said without appropriate implementation, co-design planning, stakeholder oversight and adequate safeguards, the Biosecurity Protection Levy would be “just another tax that reduces the competitiveness of this essential industry”.