Biosecurity protection levy now in the house, advisory panel to form

The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 and Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 were also introduced to complete the legislative framework.

According to the latter Bill, "levy payers, charge payers and collection agents" who fail to make or keep records could be hit with civil penalties.

"The maximum penalty for this strict liability offence would be 60 penalty units. Certain defences, such as mistake of fact, may be available," it said.

"It is appropriate that this offence is one of strict liability. The making and keeping of records would promote the integrity of the BPL system, assist with compliance and enforcement activities... and help to ensure that the correct amounts of biosecurity protection levy have been collected."

The monetary value of a penalty unit increased from $222 to $275 on January 1, 2023. The penalty unit subsequently indexed to $313 on 1 July 2023.

The next increase through indexation will be on 1 July 2026.

Transport Minister Catherine King said in a second reading that the Collection Bill will trigger monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers and unlock "a set of modern and flexible compliance and enforcement tools, as well as information management, and offences and civil penalties."

"Compliance measures and penalties will be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement," she said.

Meanwhile, Labor has simultaneously announced a 'Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel' will be formed with members drawn from the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, importers and research organisations.

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said the panel was in response to industry demands for transparency over how the levy - which will be funnelled into consolidated revenue - is spent and to provide feedback for areas of priority funding.

"Industry have said loud and clear that they want more say in how we use biosecurity funds," 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.

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

The government responded to months of protests from the agriculture sector by announcing alterations to its contentious BPL model "to ensure it's more equitable and more transparent."

The levy, that will require farmers to pay $47.5 million a year, was first announced in the 2023 Federal Budget as part of a new sustainable biosecurity funding model and is scheduled to begin on July 1.

The government had originally announced that the new tax would be based on 10 per cent of existing statutory agricultural levy rates.

However, it adjusted settings earlier this month and the BPL will now be set according to "an industry's average share of gross agriculture, fisheries and forestry production over a rolling three-year period.

Meanwhile, an interesting twist to the advisory panel announcement was that those named as being on the panel were unaware that the panel idea existed prior to Tuesday.

A department official called each individually to invite them to be on the panel on Tuesday afternoon.

Grains Producers Australia chief executive Colin Bettles echoed common sentiments that the organisation was happy to accept a seat at the advisory panel table, although it remained steadfastly opposed to the levy being introduced, and that it was difficult to comment in further detail until participants were provided the Terms of Reference for the panel.

Panellists named included chief executives of GrainGrowers, Cattle Australia, Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, Australian Dairy Farmers, Sheep Producers Australia, Freight and Trade Alliance, Australian Grape and Wine, Seafood Industry Australia, WoolProducers Australia, Cotton Australia, CaneGrowers, Australian Pork Limited and the Australian Forest Products Association.

One of the panellists said the panel did not appear to be referenced in the legislation, meaning that guaranteed oversight of the levy funds may not be built-in.

However, National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said he had yet to receive any formal correspondence regarding the panel and that it was too early to judge whether it would provide industry the oversight it had been calling for.

"It's pretty clear that it's being tacked on at the 11th hour to try and give the levy some credibility. We'll be pretty cautious about agreeing to anything that could be construed as endorsement of the levy," he said.

Mr Mahar said the NFF remained "flat out opposed" to the concept of the levy and that "every" farming group and pointed to bodies, including the Productivity Commission and Australian National University, that had questioned aspects of its modelling.

"We'll be incredibly disappointed to see the Government plough ahead with legislation against that tidal wave of expert advice," he said.

"This process has been a shambles since it was sprung on industry a year ago and we hope the Senate will see that and put it in the bin."

Freight and Trade Alliance director Paul Zalai said the organisation's involvement will allow importers, customs brokers, freight forwarders and e-commerce providers an opportunity to have a say on how to best administer and use a significant proportion of collected levies and cost recovery funds.

"Importantly, the minister's announcement is recognition by the federal government of the dual goals to safeguard against pest and disease outbreaks," he said.

"And the need to facilitate legitimate international trade with modernised systems and processes. By bringing key producer and trade representatives together it reinforces the message that these goals are not mutually exclusive and provides Australia with a unique opportunity to be a global leader of biosecurity best practice underpinned by long-term sustainable funding."

Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker said having a seat at the table was "integral to holding the Albanese Government to account on its Sustainable Biosecurity Funding model and ensuring it delivers for grass-fed producers."

"Cattle Australia has been critical of the introduction of the Biosecurity Protection Levy (BPL) since its announcement in last year's Federal Budget, citing the lack of industry consultation, the serious inequalities of the new tax, and inadequate oversight and safeguards," Dr Parker said.

"We are pleased the Government has listened and for the first time, grass-fed cattle producers will have the ability, through CA, to directly set and monitor the progress of biosecurity priorities and assess the financial performance of the Department's biosecurity system.

"At a time when the complexity of biosecurity challenges continues to increase, this is a genuine opportunity to influence and advise Government on a better biosecurity system that addresses these threats, particularly those to our north."

Senator Watt said the panel would meet three times a year.

"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," he said.

"The Government will work with the Advisory Panel to ensure that biosecurity priorities identified by industry are clearly understood and acted upon."

Importers will be asked to pay about 48 per cent of the overall BPL of $804 million through an existing $363.6m in fees and charges and a new low value import charge that will raise $27.1m with taxpayers paying 44 per cent, farmers 6 per cent and Australia Post covering the remaining 2 per cent.