Importers hit with fee hike under Albanese Government’s new ‘sustainable’ biosecurity funding model

Importers and farmers will face higher fees under the new $1 billion biosecurity funding model revealed in the 2023-24 Federal Budget but a proposed levy on shipping containers entering Australia has been shelved.

The Albanese Government has touted its new “sustainable” biosecurity system, unveiled on May 9, as the first model to consistently protect the agriculture industry from threats of disease and pests.

Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt revealed further details during a speech at CropLife Australia’s post-Budget breakfast in Canberra last week, confirming the Government would impose an import fee hike flagged in the lead-up to the Budget announcement.

“From July 1, 2023, we will move towards proper cost recovery of biosecurity services provided to importers, with higher, fairer biosecurity fees and charges, Senator Watt said.

“For example, a full import declaration for imported goods arriving by air will increase by $5, from $38 to $43 per declaration, while the commercial vessel arrival charge will increase by $300, from $1054 to $1354.”

Full import declaration fees, which he said had not been “properly reviewed” since 2015, apply to importers of consignments over $1000.

On average, import fees will increase by about 28 per cent, with the hike expected to recover an additional $36m in 2023-24, according to Budget papers.

In addition, an entirely new cost recovery charge is set to be introduced on individual low value imports worth $1000 or less, raising about $27m per year.

The new charge equates to about 4 per cent of the value of a $10 parcel, 0.25 per cent of a $150 parcel, and 0.004 per cent of a $999 parcel.

“This charge will cover the cost of biosecurity clearance on imported goods that are not currently subject to cost recovery – up to now taxpayers have been paying this cost,” the Budget papers state.

“By 2024-25, importers will pay over $390m or around 48 per cent of total biosecurity costs.”

Senator Watt said the fees and charges would be reviewed annually to ensure regulatory costs were “properly recovered into the future”.

Farm lobby groups have long been calling for a sustainable biosecurity funding model, with the National Farmers’ Federation among those claiming importers should pick up more of the bill.

But Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA president Tony Seabrook, while acknowledging the need for a sustainable funding model, warned excessive “cost recovery” was not the answer.

“If it’s borne by the importers, it will be hived off to us at the end anyway,” he told Countryman.

“The Government needs to be a little bit careful about how hard they go for cost recovery.

“There are a lot of other aspects of the community where there isn’t cost recovery, because there’s a community good . . . the whole community benefits from having a strong biosecurity barrier there.”

The nation’s biosecurity system has been under siege in recent years with a surge in contaminated materials coming into Australia, increased detections and outbreaks of foot-and-mouth and lumpy skin disease in Indonesia.

Senator Watt said a shipping container levy proposed in a public discussion paper last November had been shelved so the Government could “closely examine the trade law implications”.

He told media the Government would “further explore the option” to ensure it was “robust and can stand up legally”.

WAFarmers president John Hassell said he would “absolutely” welcome a shipping container levy.

“I think those who create the risks should be should be bearing the burden of trying to eliminate it,” he said.

NFF president Fiona Simson said the organisation was unhappy the container levy had not been implemented “after years of consultation and discussion”.

“It’s extremely disappointing to have to continue waiting for a meaningful contribution from risk creators,” she said.