“Zero economic sense”: Farmers furious with producer levy in government’s $1 billion biosecurity plan

Australia’s leading farming groups are furious at the Albanese government for pushing ahead with biosecurity funding plans that would impose a new levy on primary producers.

Announced in the 2023-2024 federal budget, the Biosecurity Protection Levy is part of a broader plan to change how Australia’s biosecurity measures are funded from July 1, 2024.

Biosecurity refers to the identification, prevention, and eradication of pests and other threats to Australian wildlife, plant life, crops, and livestock.

Those measures are currently funded by levies tacked on taxpayers, who pass through Australia’s customs system and benefit from national biosecurity, and importers, whose imported goods are subject to stringent safety checks.

Under the $1 billion federal government plan, taxpayers will chip in 44% of total biosecurity funding, with importers contributing 48%, and Australia Post contributing 2%.

Primary producers will contribute 6% to that total through a new levy.

Government documents describe this as a plan to ensure farmers “who directly benefit from Australia’s strong biosecurity make a modest and direct contribution to ensure the biosecurity system is sustainably funded into the future”.

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government Catherine King tabled a bill giving effect to that levy in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, formally introducing it to Parliament.

“Producers derive significant benefits from Australia’s biosecurity system, including through prevention of pests and diseases entering Australia, maximisation of trade opportunities, and sustainable access to premium overseas markets,” according to explanatory documents attached to the bill.

“Without strong and sustainably funded biosecurity, our biodiversity would be at risk, jobs would be lost and producers would experience lower production and higher costs.”

But farmers are less than impressed, saying the bill cuts against the views of producers, the Australian Productivity Commission, and leading tax academics.

“No farming group wants it,” said National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke.

“It’s an administrative nightmare.”

Michael Guerin, CEO of Queensland industry body AgForce, shared similar views.

“Let there be no doubt, this biosecurity levy is a tax in thinly veiled disguise, and farmers resent being blindsided in this way,” he said.

The proposed levy “makes farmers do all the heavy lifting for the benefit of importers and airlines, and provides no benefit to the agricultural industry on which Australia’s food security relies,” he continued.

The legislation was tabled after a Productivity Commission report found “individual sectors [could] face additional costs from the levy that are greater than the benefits that they receive”.

A separate report from the Australian National University’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute found that “Overall, the government’s package to implement the BPL does not pass critical scrutiny”.

It proposed two alternatives: increasing charges for those who create biosecurity threats, like importers and travellers, or funding biosecurity measures through general taxation.

Jochinke said the government’s decision cut across those views.

“Everyone from the Productivity Commission, to the Australian National University and the Freight & Trade Alliance has labelled this policy a dud,” he said.

“It makes zero economic sense.”

On Wednesday, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Murray Watt also revealed the formation of an advisory panel to give feedback on the funding and how it is used.

“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 in a statement.

“Given they have so much at stake, I also want industry to contribute to our biosecurity priorities more directly.”

Jochinke voiced his scepticism towards the producer advisory panel, which he said was not enshrined by the proposed legislation itself.

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