New changes to Federal Labor’s controversial biosecurity levy are not enough: farm lobby groups

WA farm leaders say changes to Federal Labor’s deeply unpopular new biosecurity levy announced this week do not go far enough and have renewed calls for the “unfair tax” to be scrapped. The levy, as revealed in the 2023-24 Budget, would have seen all primary producers pay an additional 10 per cent on top of what they already pay in agricultural levies. That proposal was universally rubbished by farm groups nationwide, 50 of which voiced their outrage in a recent letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt on Tuesday said the Government had “listened to feedback from industry”, announcing a raft of changes to make the system “more equitable and transparent”. “This is borne out of genuine consultation with industry groups,” Senator Watt said. Under the changes, rates will now be set according to an industry’s average share of gross agriculture, fisheries and forestry production over a rolling three-year period. “The rates will be set using a common and equitable basis for all industry sector products and goods and will not be set by reference to 2020-21 agricultural levy rates,” Senator Watt’s office said in a statement. “In addition, imposition of the levy will be tailored to individual products and goods to reduce multiple imposition points across a product’s supply chain. “These changes will ensure that sectors who previously would not have contributed to the BPL, because they do not collect levy payments, are included in the contributions.” The levy is part of an overhauled biosecurity funding model designed to lock in consistent funding to protect Australia’s $90 billion agriculture sector from pests and diseases. But WAFarmers president John Hassell told Countryman importers, as “risk creators”, should bear the greater burden. “It’s still a tax, make no mistake. It’s just a tax on us that makes us less competitive, and I think that stinks,” he said. “It’s one of about six extra impositions that they’re loading onto farmers. This is a very anti-farmer government, and it’s another anti-farmer tax.” Legislation to implement the levy is set to be introduced in Parliament in the coming weeks, before taking effect on July 1. WA Grains Group chair Alastair Falconer said the proposal should be scrapped and a levy on containers entering the country introduced instead. “It’s still a tax on our (gross) production, not on our profits, so it makes the ability to make a profit even harder,” he said. Grain Producers Australia chairman Barry Large, who farms at Miling in WA’s Wheatbelt, rejected Senator Watt’s claim there had been meaningful consultation. “It would have saved us all a lot of time and effort if the consultation process had happened in the beginning,” he said. “We will unpack it (further), but at the moment, we’re not sure exactly how much the Government really is listening when we say that this is unpalatable.” Mr Large said he was concerned the funds raised — estimated at $50 million annually — would still go into consolidated revenue rather than a dedicated biosecurity fund. He cited a damning report by the Productivity Commission late last year that flagged numerous design faults with the proposed levy, and found farmers would have no way of knowing “whether levy proceeds are going to activities that they value”. “The accountability of it is something that we need to see and understand, because we’ve already got reserves in other organisations that look after the grains industry,” Mr Large said. National Farmers’ Federation president David Jochinke said the organisation remained opposed to the “fundamentally flawed” levy. “We still await significant further information concerning the levy’s design, and what it will practically look like for producers on the ground,” he said. “We also want to see details on the potential impact on the existing levies system, and transparency about how the collected funds will actually deliver dedicated, additional and tangible biosecurity outcomes.” Not all farm lobby groups were unhappy with this week’s announcement, with GrainGrowers chair Rhys Turton saying the changes were “an important step forward” that showed Senator Watt was “actively listening to industry concerns”. “While there are still issues to be addressed, the announcement is a positive step, and we look forward to further discussions, particularly around accountability and performance issues,” Mr Turton said. “For some time, we have been calling for clarification around the charges applied to each commodity group, and the announcement details an approach that will hopefully deliver a more equitable system across Australian agriculture.” Mr Turton, a York farmer, said the industry was still analysing the proposed changes but it appeared they would result in decreased funding imposition for grains. “As an industry, we asked for a more equitable system, and this is a step down that path,” he said. “The Minister has said he is committed to strengthening transparency and accountability, and we look forward to further discussion and his announcement on priorities and future spending in the coming weeks.” Mr Turton said the grains industry already made a significant contribution through investment in research and development, support for Plant Health Australia, contributions to emergency plant pest responses, as taxpayers, and in the everyday operations of growers’ farm enterprises. “What we need is a biosecurity system that industry is confident in, and that can meet the needs of Australian agriculture,” he said. “A strong, workable system that protects industry from pests and diseases is in the interests of everyone.”