Farmers ‘disappointed’ after Albanese Government’s biosecurity levy passes Lower House

Legislation to implement the Albanese Government’s controversial new biosecurity protection levy has progressed to the Senate despite a wave of backlash from the Opposition and farmers nationwide. It comes after a package of three Bills was tabled in the House of Representatives, sparking fierce debate in the chamber last week. Federal Labor used its numbers to push the legislation through the Lower House on Wednesday morning after the Coalition, as well as several Greens and independent MPs, voted against it. National Farmers’ Federation president David Jochinke expressed disappointment but said it was “encouraging to see MPs validating the industry’s strong concerns”. “This was a very lonely vote for the Government, and we thank every member who voted against this bad idea,” he said. “It’s an important demonstration to farmers that their concerns are being heard.” The levy is part of Labor’s overhauled biosecurity funding model designed to lock in consistent funds to protect Australia’s $90 billion agriculture sector from pests and diseases. It would be charged to all primary producers in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, raising about $47.5 million a year, on top of the $500m Australian producers already pay in annual levies. The proposal has been unanimously condemned by industry groups, more than 50 of which are lobbying the Government to scrap the levy, claiming “risk creators” such as importers should bear the additional burden. Industry leaders are instead calling for a levy on containers entering Australia — a measure the Coalition has promised to implement if it wins the next election, and which the Greens are backing. Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown said the party also had “serious concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight” that would be applied to the allocation of collected funds under Labor’s proposal. Independent MP Helen Haines echoed farmers’ concerns money raised would go into consolidated revenue, saying there was “no guarantee” it would go towards biosecurity measures. A recent report by the Australian National University’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute concluded the levy “does not pass critical scrutiny” and flagged several “warning signs”, including the inability of levy payers to “monitor and influence how proceeds are used”. The levy was also heavily criticised in a previous report handed down in December by the Productivity Commission. “In criticising this Bill, farmers are not asking the Government to do all the work, because they already contribute to biosecurity measures via existing levies, on-farm activities and much, much more,” Dr Haines said. In a withering speech in Parliament last week, Durack MP Melissa Price labelled the levy a “completely unfair tax” that would force primary producers to “cover the risks imposed by their foreign competitors”. Labor MP Graham Perrett said the money to be raised annually from the levy only equated to about 6 per cent of the total $800m cost of Australia’s biosecurity system in 2024-25. “Forty-four per cent of the cost will be contributed by everyday taxpayers, importers will pay 48 per cent . . . primary producers will carry six per cent of the load, and Australia Post will pay two per cent,” Mr Perrett said. “Primary producers benefit from our robust biosecurity controls. It allows them to sell a product at a premium . . . so, yes, we are asking them to pay an additional 5¢ for every $100 they produce.” Meanwhile, the legislation has been referred for further scrutiny to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, which has until May 10 to prepare a report. Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt defended the levy on Wednesday, saying biosecurity funding was a “shared responsibility” between the Government, risk creators and “those who receive significant benefits”. “We have a range of threats on our doorstep, things like foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease which would decimate our ag sector and cost our nation $80 billion if they ever breached our defences,” Senator Watt said.