AT the senate in Canberra, farmer groups have been adamant in their objection to the Federal Government’s Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024.

This legislation will, if passed by the Senate, come into effect on July 1.

It will impose a levy on all primary producers.

Biosecurity is the management of risks to the environment and the community arising from pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing or spreading.

It can be implemented off-shore, at the port or on-farm.

The aim of the Bill is to levy a total of six percent of all biosecurity funding from farmers, timber growers, beekeepers and all other primary producers.

This week, The Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has been holding an inquiry with submissions from affected parties, most notably peak farmer groups.

The National Farmers Federation (NFF) chief executive, Tony Mahar listed objections in his written submission when he asserted, “the Levy fails to recognise existing producer contributions to the biosecurity system” and “it is inconsistent with agreed principles of the National Biosecurity Strategy”.

“There is strong concern regarding the transparent use of the collected funds to deliver dedicated, additional and tangible biosecurity outcomes.

“It’s likely to have adverse, unintended consequences on the existing levy system and … it ignores the need for increased contributions from risk creators including containerised imports.”

In like mode, Grain Producers Australia (GPA) chief executive, Colin Bettles amplified the risk from containers when he stated in his submission, “GPA has long supported a move to introduce a container levy as recommended by the Craik Report in 2017, so the risk creators can contribute more to shared responsibility and accountability.”

Indeed, the two most recent biosecurity failures have been the devastating bee pest Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and the pernicious Red Imported Fire Ant (RIFA) (Solenopsis invicta), both of which arrived in shipping containers.

Another complaint which has been raised is that funds raised by the Levy will be added to General Revenue and not sent directly to the end users who are the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

After the hearing, peak Queensland farmer group, AgForce Queensland’s senior policy advisor Dr Annie Ruttledge said the Biosecurity Protection Levy is effectively a tax on farmers that provides little guaranteed benefit.         

“Its name implies it is earmarked for biosecurity - so why is it being directed into consolidated revenue?” she asked.

“Levies are imposed by government at the request of industry, following extensive stakeholder consultation, with funds directed based on what industry requests. None of this is the case for this so-called Biosecurity Protection Levy.”

Mr Mahar also pointed out that negative conclusions on the levy have been “…validated by several independent organisations including the Australian National University (ANU), the Productivity Commission, and the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA).”

The Spectator has noted that the Red Imported Fire Ant has already made it into the popular Better Homes and Gardens website (April 23) demonstrating that it is not just farmers but also urban households who suffer from biosecurity failures.

Succinctly summing the matter up Mr Mahar said, “this is poor, clumsy, lazy policy.”