Calls to strengthen biosecurity funds have grown after a turbulent few years that left the ag industry vulnerable to lose a lot. The government’s solution, however, is causing even louder kickback from industry bodies. 

The premise of the new legislation would see a ‘Biosecurity Protection Levy’ commencing from 1 July 2024, where funding biosecurity protection would become a ‘shared responsibility’ between ‘those who create risk and those who benefit from biosecurity efforts, including producers. 

According to Labor’s plan, it is expected that importers will pay 48 per cent, producers six per cent, Australia Post two per cent, and the remaining 44 per cent will be covered by ongoing taxpayer funding. 

Farming bodies have vehemently opposed the new levy, with NSW Farmers calling the introduction of the bill a ‘crisis point’.

“As we’ve said time and time again, farmers already pay far more than their fair share to fund the nation’s biosecurity system, and they are also incurring huge costs to protect their businesses against biosecurity threats,” NSW Farmers Biosecurity Committee Chair Ian McColl said. 

The existing contributions from producers include investments in on-farm biosecurity activities, membership fees for Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia, and contributions to emergency responses under deed arrangements.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) recognised these contributions, but noted those investments don’t “directly fund biosecurity costs at the border that prevent pest and disease incursions into Australia”.

Leader of The Nationals David Littleproud argued that the structure of the levy would see farmers charged for the biosecurity costs of imported fruit and vegetable, essentially paying the way for their competition. 

“In what parallel universe would any Australian government tax their own farmers, to pay for foreigners to bring their products into this country?” Mr Littleproud said. 

Farming groups are instead in favour of a levy that relies more heavily on importers. 

“There is no container levy imposed on importers, despite their recent offers to contribute more to the cause,” Mr McColl said. 

As part of the new levy, the government announced that a Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel would be formed to offer stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to future priorities. 

“We will be clear about what revenue is being raised from producers and importers, along with other components of the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding model, and how that money is being invested,” Minister for Agriculture Murray Watt said. 

Already, there is skepticism from stakeholders around accepting the invitation to join the advisory panel.

“Given we flat out oppose the Biosecurity Levy, we’ll think carefully about any role that might be construed as endorsement,” National Farmers Federation David Jochinke said. 

“We note the Panel doesn’t seem to be reflected in the legislation tabled today, so it certainly doesn’t guarantee farmers the oversight they were seeking. Once again, that’s completely out of step with the usual design of industry levies.”