THE new Australian Biosecurity Protection Levy passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday and was immediately met with a chorus of criticism from farmers, agricultural groups and the Federal Opposition.

Calling it a ‘fresh food tax’, The Nationals leader, David Littleproud said the idea was “an attack on families and farmers” and would “drive up the cost-of-living and make groceries more expensive at the checkout”.

Grain Producers Australia chair, Barry Large, said the levy had fundamental defects with the weight of independent evidence and opposing views continuing to escalate.

But he was clear about his preferred solution.

“All Australian producers who’ll be hit with this new tax are opposed to this flawed policy proposal, in one shape or another, and want the government to scrap it immediately,” he said.

More than 50 agricultural groups had earlier sent a joint letter to the prime minister to voice their opposition to it.

The levy would be created by a package of three bills and has been slated to start on July 1 – but the 74 (Labor-only) to 67 vote will not be so easy in the Senate, where Labor would need the help of either the Greens, minor parties or independents.

The tax rate will be set as a proportion of an industry’s average gross value of production over a three-year period; the government said the levy was intended to “fund biosecurity costs at the border that prevent pest and disease incursions into Australia” with the estimation it would raise about $50 million per year as part of a $800 million annual biosecurity budget.

It is intended to be funded from four sources – with taxpayers contributing around 44 per cent, importers 48 per cent, producers six per cent and Australia Post two per cent.

Despite recognising “many primary producers already invest in biosecurity through on-farm biosecurity activities” and meeting with considerable opposition since its announcement last year, the government pressed ahead with the changes this week.

Speaking in Federation Chamber on Tuesday afternoon, regional development, local government and territories minister, Kristy McBain defended the levy and claimed the government “took time after the May budget to listen to the industry feedback”.

“The sustainable biosecurity funding package is a new era for biosecurity in Australia,” she said.

“It recovers more than ever before from biosecurity risk creators, whether they be importers, international parcels and mail, or international travellers. Australia has never had sustainable and predictable biosecurity funding, despite this being recommended in multiple reviews and continually sought by industry and environment groups.”

She also said the levy was an improvement on the Coalition’s own container levy proposal from 2018, which “was supposed to raise more than $100 million a year to fund our biosecurity”.

“It did not raise a single cent,” Ms McBain said.

“Not a single cent. You can’t make that up.”

But Mr Littleproud said the new levy “will force farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of international importers”.

“In what parallel universe would a government charge its own farmers to pay for the risks their competitors are creating?” he said.

“This new tax will hurt families at a time they can least afford it and farmers who are already under pressure.

“It doesn’t make sense at all and comes amid a cost-of-living crisis. Farmers will be forced to pass on costs, meaning families will feel more pain at the grocery checkout.”

It was also pointed out just three Labor MPs debated the bill, while 20 Coalition speakers “stood up for farmers”.

Mr Littleproud said the agriculture industry was worth $80 billion but claimed despite its huge importance, the location of the debate in Federation Chamber was indicative of the attitude the government had towards them.

“That an issue of such significance was moved out of the House of Representatives demonstrates Labor’s regard for our farmers and regional and rural communities,” he said.

National Farmers’ Federation president, David Jochinke said while farmers were disappointed to see the controversial levy progress to the Senate, it was encouraging to see all non-government MPs validating the industry’s strong opposition.

“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.”

He said the move was “utterly staggering” given the level of opposition to the policy.

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

“It makes zero economic sense.

“No farming group wants it. It’s an administrative nightmare. And now we even have the importers themselves calling to scrap it and send them the bill instead!

“We’re shocked to say the least that they’d ignore the unanimous voices of farmers, importers and policy experts. If they aren’t listening to this broad church of voices, who are they listening to?”

Joining opposition to the levy by the Liberals and Nationals, Greens MP, Elizabeth Watson-Brown stated her party had “serious concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight” applied to the allocation of collected industry funds.

“The Greens will be pushing the government to commit to progressing a levy on risk creators in the form of a container levy,” she said.

WoolProducers Australia chief executive, Jo Hall said the organisation had opposed the levy since it was proposed in last year’s federal budget “as it is simply a tax on producers who already contribute significant funds to both through compulsory levies at a state and territory level and privately in their businesses” and also backed a container levy as a better idea.

Asked by The Spectator to respond to the claims of Ms McBain that the container levy concept was a failure, Ms Hall was quick to point out the claimed complexity of such a levy would be more than matched by the added bureaucracy of the new levy requiring compliance from smaller producers.

“Do you not think putting a levy on every single producer for every farmer product is not a little bit complex as well?” she asked.

“There’ll be situations with the smaller industries that don’t currently have a levy, they’ll have to have a levy collection mechanism put in place.

“The costs of collecting the levy could outweigh the money that they generate from that levy.”

She also pointed out that it wasn’t just farmers that benefit from strong border protections.

“Of course, producers are huge beneficiaries from biosecurity, but so is everybody,” Ms Hall said.

“Healthy environments and tourist attractions and native animals and stuff like that.”

She added the time was now for people to voice their concerns before the Senate vote, likely in May.

The Victoria Farmers Federation also spoke out, calling on Victorian crossbench senators Thorpe, Van, and Babet to oppose the tax.

NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair, Ian McColl said, “It beggars belief that you would hit farmers up with a new biosecurity tax and not the importers who represent the biosecurity risk”.

Local Wannon MP, Dan Tehan also hit back against the levy echoing Mr Littleproud’s concerns over farmers paying for the risk of their overseas competitors.

“In a cost-of-living crisis, why is the Government making the food we produce here in Australia more expensive?” Mr Tehan asked.

“It lacks common sense.”

But in her speech to the House, Ms McBain was adamant the levy was a good idea.

“We listened to feedback from industry and are making our new biosecurity protection levy more equitable, more proportionate and more transparent,” she said.

“For the first time ever, the government is also giving industry a say on biosecurity priorities and how the Commonwealth biosecurity budget is used, through our sustainable biosecurity funding advisory panel.”

Mr Jochinke said the announcement of the panel had been met with cynicism by industry stakeholders.

“It’s pretty clear this panel is being tacked on at the 11th hour to try and give the levy some credibility,” he said.

But the last word could go to Calare MP, Andrew Gee who also spoke to the House and quoted one of his constituents.

“I had a recent conversation with Orange (NSW) area orchardist, Guy Gaeta about this issue,” Mr Gee said.

“He didn’t varnish his words when he said, ‘It’s disgusting. These people are off their rocker. I’m not going to pay it.’

“I should add that that quote is the part of the conversation that is suitable for printing in Hansard.”