Farmers livid as Labor introduces biosecurity protection levy bill into Federal Parliament

The Albanese Government’s controversial biosecurity protection levy has been tabled in a bill introduced into Parliament, sparking outrage among farmers “bamboozled” by the surprise move. Regional Development Minister Catherine King tabled the bill in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, despite backlash from farm leaders who have labelled the levy a “tax” on primary producers. National Farmers’ Federation president David Jochinke said the move was “utterly staggering” given the level of opposition to the policy, which was announced in the last Federal budget. “No farming group wants it. It’s an administrative nightmare … (that) makes zero economic sense,” he said. “Everyone from the Productivity Commission, to the Australian National University and the Freight and Trade Alliance has labelled this policy a dud.” A report handed down in December by the Productivity Commission found the policy case for the levy was riddled with design faults, while another report by the ANU’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute concluded it “does not pass critical scrutiny”. The TTPI report, released last Wednesday, flagged several “warning signs”, including the inability of levy payers to “monitor and influence how proceeds are used”. In response, the Government this morning announced it would form a new advisory panel to give farmers and importers a say on how biosecurity funding is spent. The NFF was among 22 organisations invited to be on the panel, but Mr Jochinke said industry stakeholders were cynical about the announcement. “It’s pretty clear this panel is being tacked on at the 11th hour to try and give the levy some credibility,” he said. “All it’s done is demonstrate the continued shambles this process has become, with stakeholders yet to receive formal invites, or any detail on the panel’s scope and role. “Given we flat out oppose the biosecurity levy, we’ll think carefully about any role that might be construed as endorsement.” Mr Jochinke said the panel did not guarantee farmers the oversight they wanted, and called on Opposition and crossbench parliamentarians to reject the bill. WoolProducers Australia — another group invited to be on the panel — accused Labor of attempting to “rush” the legislation through Parliament. WPA general manager Adam Dawes reaffirmed the group’s “total opposition” to the levy, which is set to apply to all primary producers nationwide from July 1, raising about $50 million a year. “There has been unanimous support amongst producer groups in opposing the tax,” he said. Mr Dawes also referred to a report by the Office of Impact Analysis, which is within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, that found the policy proposal for the levy did not meet the requirement of what was considered “good practice”. The new levy is part of an overhauled $1 billion “sustainable biosecurity funding model” designed to lock in consistent funding to protect Australia’s $90 billion agriculture sector from pests and diseases. Introducing the Bill to Parliament on Wednesday, Minister King said without the new model, funding for Australian biosecurity would have declined by almost $100m per year to less than $500m in 2026-27. Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said the new Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel would meet three times a year with the Government, providing “transparency of biosecurity expenditure” and giving farmers and importers input into funding priorities. “Industry have said loud and clear that they want more say in how we use biosecurity funds, and the Albanese Government has listened,” he said. “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.” Senator Watt said importers would pay 48 per cent of biosecurity costs under the new model, while taxpayers would contribute 44 per cent, producers 6 per cent and Australia Post 2 per cent. Primary producers already make extensive contributions via existing industry levies, as well as billions of dollars of other contributions and management costs.