Coalition Senators' dissenting report
1.1The Coalition backs a sustainable funding model for the biosecurity system that supports and adapts to changing risks and operating models. This is evident in the Commonwealth Biosecurity Strategy 2030[1] released in 2021 and the 2021–22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.[2]
1.2The Coalition does not support taxing Australian farmers for the risk created by importers.
1.3It is disappointing that the substantial progress made by the former Coalition government in developing a sustainable biosecurity funding model, which included an import container levy, was not implemented by the Labor government.
1.4Australia's biosecurity system protects Australia's environment, economy, and way of life. The Commonwealth Biosecurity 2030 document indicates 'Recent studies show Australia's biosecurity system is worth $314 billion over 50 years (in present value)'.[3]
1.5This inquiry has further reinforced the comments we made in response to the previous inquiry into the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 [Provisions] and related bills.[4] At that time, we highlighted the concerns raised about the proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy (BPL) in the context of the broader consideration of the industry-imposed primary industries levies system.
1.6As we pointed out, several stakeholders reiterated the importance of maintaining a distinction between the BPL and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023.Yet this inquiry into the BPL, has re-emphasised the risk to the world class voluntary industry-imposed primary industries levies system that pays for research and development, marketing, biosecurity activities and biosecurity emergency responses.
1.7The primary industry levies system is critical to the competitiveness, productivity, and sustainability of agriculture, which is facing increasing challenges from competitors, input costs, and climatic conditions.
1.8The potential withdrawal or drop in funding from the industry-imposed primary industries levies, once the BPL is introduced, will be devasting for Australia's agriculture industry, other industries, the environment, and the community.
1.9A number of RDCs voiced concerns that their capacity to invest in biosecurity R&D may be reduced as producers could choose to either reduce the amounts, they contribute through the agricultural levy system, or postpone increases in levies.[5]
1.10The Bills include no detail on who the 'certain producers' are that will be expected to pay the levy or how much the levy will be. These details will be set out in regulations, which can be amended. In addition, the Rules will set out how the levy will be collected. All Bills lack sufficient details to determine the impact on the industry and those businesses who will be tasked to collect the levy.
1.11This inquiry attracted 60 submissions—significantly more than the 15submissions received for the earlier inquiry into the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 [Provisions] and related bills. We note there was broad support from various submitters for a strong and sustainable biosecurity funding mechanism that would protect Australia against the threat of exotic pests and diseases.[6] The principle that biosecurity is a shared responsibility between all stakeholders, including government, the public and industry, was acknowledged by most submitters including Cattle Australia, the National Farmers Federation Horticulture Council, and NSW Farmers.[7]
1.12Unfortunately, the inquiry report largely dismisses and fails to address the concept of shared responsibility with the onus of burden squarely falling on producers including many sectors which thus far have not been involved in the levy system.
1.13Many submitters opposed the BPL as a component of a sustainable biosecurity model.[8] For example, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) argued that it was 'concerned that the levy may have a distortionary impact on the rural research and development system given it does not appear to accord with underlying principles such as proper establishment processes, industry support, equitability and accountability'.[9]
1.14Similarly, while welcoming the allocation of additional funding to biosecurity, the Invasive Species Council (ISC) commented that the way in which the BPL has been designed has been vague, and consultation limited.[10]
1.15Consultation with industry around the specifics of this levy has been very poor.Industry was blindsided by the announcement of the BPL and was only offered consultation on the BPL after it was announced in the 2023–24 Budget.
1.16There was no mention of a levy in the 2022 Sustainable funding and investment to strengthen biosecurity: discussion paper.[11] This is despite the Office of the Impact Analysis—The Biosecurity Sustainable Funding Impact Analysis—noting that 'the discussion paper included the option of a domestic levy as one of the funding options'.[12] This has caused confusion and ultimately put this process at risk.
1.17Many submitters expressed concern regarding the adequacy of consultation by the Australian Government and a failure to adequately address industry concerns.[13] For example, Livestock SA stated that from 'the beginning of the BPL introductory process, the consultation with industry has been inadequate, and this was reflected in the subsequent levy design'.[14]
1.18Likewise, GrainGrowers stated that much of the engagement with industry 'has been through on-line submissions and meetings rather than face-to-face workshops or discussion, which infer inflexibility in the design and development'.[15]
1.19Grain Producers Australia (GPA) argued that the failure to identify risk creators and risk beneficiaries was another shortcoming of the policy design and consultation process.[16]
1.20In addition, the NFF emphasised that there continued to be a lack of detailed and clear information available to industry so close to the proposed implementation date:
The government has asserted that the BPL will generate revenue to contribute six per cent of the costs of sustainably funded biosecurity system, however it is not clear what the sustainability funded biosecurity system budget represents or how this may fluctuate or change over time. Further, we remain in the dark on specific details of the calculation of individual industries' levy rates or collection methodology, in regulation or otherwise.[17]
1.21Cattle Australia argued that 'without appropriate implementation, co-design planning, stakeholder oversight and adequate safeguards, it will just be a tax on industry funded levy investment, rather than a levy jointly managed by industry and government, as a shared responsibility for improved biosecurity, sustainability and regional food security'.[18]
1.22Yet despite all of the evidence from many submitters and participants across all commodities and sectors about the lack of appropriate consultation, the report simply accepts the assurances given by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the department) that they had addressed 'key concerns'.[19] This is simply not acceptable. We believe that the government should undertake further specific face-to-face consultation with stakeholders and producers on the BPL.
1.23Further, several submitters expressed concern that the BPL would have a negative impact on the existing agricultural levy system.[20]
1.24Sheep Producers Australia argued that 'under the agricultural levy system levies are established and managed through a carefully designed system underpinned by principles of equity, efficiency and transparency'.[21]
1.25Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) argued that the BPL has impeded the ability of the dairy sector to raise 'its own funds for purposes specific to improving on-farm biosecurity awareness and practices'.[22]
1.26GrainProducers indicated that in April 2022 they initiated member discussions about conducting a project to investigate whether the current levy-rates paid by producers are fit-for-purpose. Their submission claims that ‘consultation on Grain Producer levies was sabotaged by BPL'.[23]
1.27Again, the inquiry report accepts statements from the department that it has responded to feedback, and that the BPL would 'be tailored to individual products and goods to remove multiple imposition points across a product's supply chain, subject to further consultation'.[24]
1.28Just 53 days out from implementation, there continues to be no clarity around who and how the levy will be collected, or how it will be imposed on a commodity, such as livestock, that can be transacted multiple times between a farmer, feed lot and abattoir.
1.29Given the government appears set to proceed with implementation of the new BPL regime from 1 July 2024, there will clearly be limited, if any, opportunity for further (and certainly not genuine) consultation.
1.30Levy rates will be set on the basis of each agriculture industry sector's proportional share of total gross value of production (GVP). For example, cattle producers contribute 18 per cent to Australian agriculture's total GVP (based on a 3-year average), so they will contribute 18 percent of the total Levy, which is about $9.3million. Banana growers contribute 0.7 per cent to total GVP, which leaves them with a bill of $368,000 towards the Levy.
1.31But the fact remains, the BPL as currently designed, will not be implemented equitably across all industries and products.[25] This point is illustrated by the Australian Honey Bee Council which noted in its submission and in evidence given a the public hearing on 23 April 2024, that approximately half of the national honey crop was currently not subject to levies as it was produced by recreational beekeepers.[26] Further, Oysters Tasmania noted that the government 'does not know the identity of those who gather oysters, either commercially or recreationally, nor the value of this production'.[27]
1.32As currently proposed, and pointed out by several submitters[28], the BPL fails to adequately recognise the existing contributions to Australia's biosecurity system made by producers across several industries. In evidence given at the public hearing on 23 April 2024, Ms Jo Hall, CEO, WoolProducers Australia stated 'the approach taken for the proposed introduction of this levy is the complete disregard for the contribution that producers already pay to the national biosecurity system'.[29]
1.33Again, rather than suggest a way that this might be addressed, or requesting further detail or evidence, the report blindly accepts statements from the department that the BPL would form part of a more sustainable funding model for Australia’s biosecurity system.[30]
1.34GPA indicates that in 2022-23, the Grains Research and Development Corporation invested $42.3 million into biosecurity projects and initiatives, and over the last six years this total has been about $220 million.[31]
1.35In addition, a Biosecurity Activity Levy is paid by grain producers to fund the Grains Farm Biosecurity Program and website ($970,000 average per year over last five years) and Plant Health Australia membership ($418,000 average per year over last five years).
1.36GPA goes on to say that the Biosecurity Emergency Response Levy is also paid by grain producers and funds the costs of emergency responses for grains related pests and diseases. This fund has intentionally accumulated over a number of years in order to pay for future emergency responses. On 30 June 2023, it had an estimated balance of about $7 million. Emergency response expenditure over the five years to 30 June 2023 will total about $3.1 million. These funds have contributed to responses to: Khapra beetle, Varroa jacobsoni, Brown Marmorated Stink Bug and Red Witchweed.[32]
1.37Under the GVP model proposed by the Labor government, the BPL for grains will be over $12 million per year.
1.38In terms of a small industry like Summerfruits, their commitments to Australian biosecurity are:
past spend of $169,252;
ongoing annual spend of $20,000; and
current biosecurity liability of $544,200.
1.39This does not take account the numerous hours spent by staff and volunteers on biosecurity issues and incidents.[33] The BPL for Summerfruits has been calculated as an extra $234,705.
1.40The BPL will have a compounding effect on the current investment made by industry.
1.41It is still not clear how the levy will be collected. If the levy is collected through a third party (collection agent) then an invoice must be provided to the levy payer within seven days. GrainGrowers indicated 'the proposed levy must be recorded as a separate line item on grower invoices to ensure it is distinguishable from existing industry levies and there is transparency in charges applied'.[34]
1.42Under the industry-imposed primary industries levy system there are around 7,000 collection agents.
1.43The Australian Livestock and Property Agents (ALPA) submission concurs with the following findings of Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Biosecurity Protection Levy Summary of consultation outcomes, February 2024, Third Party Impacts:
A number of stakeholders, particularly collection agents, raised concerns regarding third party costs and impacts associated with the BPL such as changes to broker ICT systems and software, increased fees, and increased costs associated with BPL administration and compliance. The department’s discussions with brokers and ICT/software companies have indicated that changes to system and collection mechanisms, based on the policy as proposed, would be relatively minor and straightforward. The key issue raised with the department is that ICT companies may require several months’ lead time to make the necessary software changes to allow system updates and roll-out to collection agents. The issue of who pays for ICT upgrades to software and the additional work for primary producers was raised by several stakeholders.[35]
1.44ALPA stated in their submission that it is 'extremely concerned for our members to be in any way prepared for the introduction of the BPL given the 1 July commencement, compounded by the level of costs they will incur to do so. The how and what of collection needs to be confirmed'.[36]
1.45The National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia submission asked, 'will the government be reimbursing wool brokers for the added administrative cost incurred from the role of levy collectors?'.[37]
1.46The Office of Impact Analysis indicates that 'there are existing collection agent arrangements that can be leveraged'.[38] The Regulatory Impact Analysis does not include any analysis of the impacts on collection agents. In addition, the analysis does not include the impact on industries that currently do not have a levy where a new process must be set up, such as growers paying direct to the department. Again, this impact cannot be confirmed.
1.47The Collection Bill will trigger the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act2014 allows for certain enforcement actions including:
monitoring and investigation powers;
enabling the issuing of infringement notices to support a flexible compliance approach that reserves criminal penalties for the most serious offences;
late payment penalties applicable if a levy or charge is not paid on time based on a complex formula with a three-step method. The amount of penalty for a day is based on a rate of two (2) percent per month.
There are penalties for failing to:
give a return or notice under the rules - 60 penalty units;
make or keep records in accordance with the rules - 60 penalty units.
1.48These penalties commence:
If the Act receives Royal Assent before 1 July 2024 – on 1 July 2024;
If the proposed Act receives the Royal Assent on or after 1 July 2024 – on a single day to be fixed by Proclamation.
1.49This is concerning given that penalties will potentially commence with the current level of confusion around requirements and design details still being finalised.
1.50The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there 'are specialised staff who carry out compliance activities in relation to the existing agriculture levy system' and who 'specialise in undertaking compliance operations and activities, including inspections, following up missing levy returns, debt recovery actions, issuing of notices, and education of collection agents. For example, for the 2022–23 financial year, the department estimates that the Levies Compliance Team undertook almost 10,000 compliance-related actions'.[39]
1.51This high level of compliance-related actions against an existing long-standing process is also concerning given there will be a new levy imposed, with confusion and details yet to be finalised.
1.52The costs associated with the establishment, collection and administration of the BLP will be funded by an appropriation, as outlined in the 2023-24 Budget papers, of 0.8 million per year.[40]
1.53During the public hearing held on 23 April 2024, Senators asked the department about its advice to government proposing a levy on farmers, to raise $50 million and questioned if it had been a decision of government to go with the BPL levy? In response, the department advised:
As part of the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding proposal the department provided advice to government about a range of potential funding options. This included a potential new contribution from primary producers. The proposal was informed by stakeholder consultation undertaken in late 2022 which invited submissions on a range of potential funding sources, including increased contributions from beneficiaries of the biosecurity system.[41]
1.54The department advised that revenue collected from the BPL 'will support the permanent increase to the annual budget appropriation for Commonwealth funded biosecurity activities'.[42] It also pointed to the establishment of the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel, which would provide increased transparency of biosecurity expenditure. However, in response to a Question on Notice taken at the hearing on 23 April 2024, the department advised:
The Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel (advisory panel) will provide a mechanism for biosecurity stakeholders to advise, guide and support the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) as the Director of Biosecurity on biosecurity priorities, and for DAFF to inform panel members how Commonwealth biosecurity funding is being used.[43]
1.55This reinforces the considerable concern expressed by participants that the funds collected under the BPL would go into consolidated revenue, with no clarity or certainty that these would be directed towards industry biosecurity measures.[44]
1.56We contend that rather than a levy, this is a tax being placed on hard working farmers and their families. As argued by Greenlife Industry Australia, unlike other levies, the BPL 'cannot be passed on through supply chains as primary producers are generally price takers and do not set their commodity prices which fluctuate significantly based on supply and demand'. As such, 'it is highly likely there will be many instances where the BPL will erode any profit for the grower and in fact will deepen any market induced losses at any given time for our growers'.[45]
1.57The Office of Impact Analysis determined that the policy proposal for the BPL was not 'good practice'.
1.58The lack of an extensive regulatory impact statement and cost-benefit analysis does not give a full indication of the impact to farmers and collection agents.This lack of information is also affecting the confidence in the ability for the department to deliver effective biosecurity measures through the BPL.
1.59The impact analysis indicates that 'some of the BPL cost applied to producers would be passed through the domestic supply chain to consumers'.[46] This will add to the cost-of-living crisis.
1.60Independent academics from the ANU's Tax and Transfer policy institute prepared a policy brief in February 2024 which concluded that, 'overall the government’s package to implement the BPL does not pass critical scrutiny', and 'given a list of weaknesses of the proposed BPL, an alternative policy approach is desirable'.[47]
1.61A Productivity Commission research paper published in December 2023 used the BPL as a case study, raising numerous red flags about the policy design.The Commission identified eight warning signs with the BPL relating to other sectors benefiting, free-riding, the absence of a cost-benefit analysis, the levy not being imposed on an efficient tax base and the policy intervention is likely to come at a higher cost than necessary, not having widespread industry support, levy payers unlikely to monitor and influence how the levy proceeds are used and that levy payers will not be able to vote to continue or discontinue the levy.[48]
1.62The 2022-23 Budget measure for sustainable biosecurity funding outlined by the Labor Government did not include an Import Container Levy. At the Budget, Minister Watt committed to:
Importers’ fees and charges will be reviewed and adjusted annually, and the department will work with industry to make sure our charging models are fit for purpose and as part of this, will look at other options including a possible future import or container levy.[49]
1.63Several submitters pointed to potential alternatives to the BPL, including recommendations of the Craik Review relating to the introduction of a container levy.[50] The NFF, for example, emphasised the need for increased contributions from risk creators, including container imports, noting Australian agriculture has advocated for many years the need for a broad-based levy on inbound containers to help fund the biosecurity system. This call has been supported by environmental and invasive species organisations.[51]
1.64In addition, the Freight and Trade Alliance (FTA) and the Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA) supported 'the need to protect against biosecurity risks and indicated they would be prepared to pay an additional levy or cost recovery fee on the proviso that an appropriate proportion directly translates to commensurate improved and immediate trade facilitation measures'.[52] This initiative from the FTA and APSA was supported by many submitters, including the NSW Farmers' Association, Australian Grape & Wine, and Western Australian Farmers' Federation.[53]
1.65In August 2023, a Weekly Times article reported that the Full Import Declaration (FID) lodgements awaiting assessment had increased from about 500 on July 1 to 3000 on August 28, after steadily increasing from almost zero on June 12.[54]
1.66Rather than considering the evidence presented through submissions and at the hearing, to inform their position, the report again defers to the department which responded with information about the increase in charge on the FID, likely income and Australia's trade law obligations.[55]
1.67The Government has not worked with industry to fully explore the options for a sustainable funding mechanism and provided no evidence that a container levy would have trade implications.
1.68Despite detailed concerns from submitters and participants, the department has indicated that it plans to complete its engagement with industry stakeholders with a view to having the levy in place on 1 July 2024.
1.69At best this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the impact on producers and supply chain participants[56] across all sectors, and at worst demonstrates total ignorance of the complexities facing industries where there are no existing levy structures.[57]
1.70There are 84 commodities and 26 of these commodities do not currently have a levy. The department had not yet engaged with them. It is not known how the levy will be collected, including for smaller industries such as the deer industry which will be charged $265. During a public hearing on 23 April 2024, the department confirmed that there had not been a cost-benefit study on 'whether it's worthwhile to charge the deer industry $265, along with a lot of other industries—paltry amounts of money,' indicating that there had been an 'assessment of the levy as a concept'.[58] In responding to a Question on Notice, the department indicated that in 2022-23, there were 1,160 deer that were slaughtered at an abattoir for human consumption that would be subject to the deer slaughter levy. The deer slaughter levy payments are submitted on a monthly basis to the department.[59]
1.71In response, the report again defers to the department's assurance that consultation will continue over the coming weeks and the design and implementation of the BPL would be subject to review by the department every three years.[60]
1.72The report sums up by stating that 'On balance, the committee is satisfied that the BPL will support the Government's commitment to provide sustainable, predictable and permanent biosecurity funding'.[61]
1.73It is our view that there is very little balance in this report which completely ignores the overwhelming evidence presented by submitters and witnesses, that in the very least, far more work needs to be done in terms of consultation around design, implementation, and industry preparedness.
1.74In summary, these are the reasons why this Bill should not be supported:
the proposed Levy will impact nearly all of Australia's 85,000 farmers and thousands of supply chain participants;
the Levy is set to commence in just a matter of weeks on 1 July 2024;
Australian farmers, through the Levy, will contribute $51.8 million to the total biosecurity funding package;
farmers and agricultural businesses haven't been told how the Levy will be collected and managed;
the Levy doesn't follow the usual rules for collecting and using industry levies - this could have a negative effect on Australia's existing levies system, which funds rural research and development, and impact industry spending on research and innovation;
the policy doesn't align with the National Biosecurity Strategy, which Commonwealth, state and territory governments all agreed to; and
we can't be sure that collected funds will be spent specifically on improved biosecurity, as they will go into general consolidated revenue.
1.75On 8 May 2024, as the Committee's report was being considered and finalised, angry farmers representing more than 85,000 producers from right through the agricultural supply chain stood shoulder to shoulder at Beef Week 2024, urging the government to 'scrap the tax'.
1.76We will continue to stand behind the continued push by farmers to oppose this tax.
Recommendation 1
1.77That the Australian Government properly consult on a sustainable biosecurity funding mechanism including:
a full cost recovery basis for managing biosecurity risks of both passengers and commodities entering Australia; and
an import container levy to pay for the biosecurity risk created.
Recommendation 2
1.78That the Senate does not pass the bills.
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan
Deputy Chair
LNP Senator for Queensland
Senator Gerard Rennick
Member
Footnotes
[1]Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Commonwealth Biosecurity 2030, p. 7 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[2]Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Delivering Ag2030: February 2022, February 2022, p. 16 (accessed 8 May 2024)
[3]Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Commonwealth Biosecurity 2030, p. 4 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[4]Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 [Provisions] and related bills, February 2024, pp. 19–27.
[5]Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Biosecurity Protection Levy, Summary of consultation outcomes, February 2024, p.8 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[6]Australian Seed Federation, Submission 21, p. 1; WoolProducers Australia, Submission 5, p. 3; Livestock SA, Submission 15, pp. 1–2; Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, Submission 38, p. 2; Red Meat Advisory Council, Submission 52, p. 3.
[7]Cattle Australia, Submission 25, [pp. 1–2]; National Farmers' Federation Horticulture Council, Submission 17, p. 1. See also, AUSVEG, Submission 4, p. 4; Australian Macadamia Society, Submission55, [p. 1]; Greenlife Industry Australia, Submission 24, [p. 2]; GrainGrowers, Submission8,p. 1.
[8]Mr Colin Boyce MP, Federal Member for Flynn, Submission 1, p. 2; Australian Olive Association, Submission 3, pp. 1–2; AUSVEG, Submission 4, pp. 9–10; WoolProducers Australia, Submission 5, p.3; NSW Farmers, Submission 6, p. 3; Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, Submission 13, [p. 4]; Oysters Tasmania, Submission 19, p. 1.
[9]National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, p. 7.
[10]Invasive Species Council, Submission 58, p. 7.
[11]No longer publicly available as of 8 May 2024—has been removed from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 'have your say' webpage.
[12]Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office of the Impact Analysis, Biosecurity Sustainable Funding Impact Analysis, p. 7 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[13]Greenlife Industry Australia, Submission 24, pp. 4–5; Egg Farmers of Australia, Submission 50, pp.3–4; Plant Industry Forum, Submission 56, pp. 7–8; AUSVEG, Submission 4, p. 8; WoolProducers Australia, Submission 5, p. 4; Australian Dairy Farmers, Submission 14, p. 1; Australian Banana Growers' Council, Submission 22, p. 1; Queensland Fruit & Vegetable Growers, Submission 30, p. 1; Australian Grape & Wine, Submission 46, pp. 1–2; Australian Mushroom Growers' Association, Submission 47, pp. 3–4; Abalone Council Victoria, Submission 32, p. 1.
[14]Livestock SA, Submission 15, p. 3.
[15]GrainGrowers, Submission 8, p. 2.
[16]Grain Producers Australia, Submission 57, p. 26.
[17]National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, p. 8.
[18]Cattle Australia, Submission 25, p. 2.
[19]Ms Justine Saunders, Deputy Secretary, Biosecurity and Compliance Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 37.
[20]Australian Sugar Milling Council, Submission 2, p. 5; GrainGrowers, Submission 8, p. 4; National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, pp. 16–17; National Farmers' Federation Horticulture Council, Submission 17, p. 1; Seafood Industry Australia, Submission 20, p. 5.
[21]Sheep Producers Australia, Submission 54, p. 10.
[22]Australian Dairy Farmers, Submission 14, p. 1.
[23]Grain Producers Australia, Submission 57, p. 20.
[24]Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Submission 37, p. 7.
[25]NSW Farmers, Submission 6, [p. 2]; AUSVEG, Submission 4, p. 3; Livestock SA, Submission 15, p. 4; Seafood Industry Australia, Submission 20, p. 6; Greenlife Industry Australia, Submission 24 pp. 5–6; Oysters Tasmania, Submission 19, p. 1.
[26]Mr Danny Le Feuvre, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Honey Bee Council, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 29.
[27]Oysters Tasmania, Submission 19, p. 1.
[28]AUSVEG, Submission 4, pp. 9–10; National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, pp. 15–16; Australian Dairy Farmers, Submission 14, p. 4; Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Submission 31, pp. 3–4.
[29]Ms Jo Hall, Chief Executive Officer, WoolProducers Australia, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p.19.
[30]Ms Justine Saunders, Deputy Secretary, Biosecurity and Compliance Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 38.
[31]Grain Producers Australia, Submission 57, p. 8.
[32]Grain Producers Australia, Submission 57, p. 9.
[33]Summerfruit Australia, Submission 41, p. 3.
[34]GrainGrowers, Submission 8, p. 5.
[35]Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Biosecurity Protection Levy, Summary of consultation outcomes, February 2024, p.8 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[36]Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association, Submission 26, p. 5.
[37]National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia, Submission 27, p. 1.
[38]Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office of the Impact Analysis, Biosecurity Sustainable Funding Impact Analysis, p. 6 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[39]Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 56 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[40]Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[41]Response to Question on Notice (IQ24-000043), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry received 6May 2024.
[42]Ms Justine Saunders, Deputy Secretary, Biosecurity and Compliance Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 38.
[43]Response to Question on Notice (IQ24-000041), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry received 6May 2024 (emphasis added).
[44]Red Meat Advisory Council, Submission 52, p. 7; AUSVEG, Submission 4, p. 8; Egg Farmers Australia, Submission 50, p. 1; Berries Australia, Submission 51, p. 5; Australian Forest Products Association, Submission 48, p.5.
[45]Greenlife Industry Australia, Submission 24, p. 6.
[46]Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office of the Impact Analysis, Biosecurity Sustainable Funding Impact Analysis, p. 6 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[47]Australian National University, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Policy Brief 3/2024, The biosecurity protection levy: Principles for design, February 2024, p. 5 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[48]Productivity Commission 2023, Towards Levyathan? Industry levies in Australia, Research paper, Canberra, p. 28 (accessed 8 May 2024).
[49]Senator the Hon Murray Watt, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ' Budget delivers first ever sustainable biosecurity funding', Media Release, 16 May 2023.
[50]AUSVEG, Submission 4, p. 7; WoolProducers Australia, Submission 5, p. 4; NSW Farmers, Submission 6, [p. 2]; GrainGrowers, Submission 8, p. 4; Australian Nut Industry Council, Submission 40, p. 2; Red Meat Advisory Council, Submission 52, p. 8; Almond Board of Australia, Submission 18, p. 1.
[51]National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, p. 7. See also, Mr Tony Mahar, Chief Executive Officer, National Farmers' Federation, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 27.
[52]Freight & Trade Alliance and the Australian Peak Shippers Association, Submission 9, p. 3. See also, Australian Grape & Wine, Submission 46, p. 3; National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, p. 8; NSW Farmers' Association, Submission 6, [p. 2]; Western Australian Farmers' Federation, Submissio 34, pp. 2–3; Australian Olive Association, Submission 3, p. 2; NSW Farmers, Submission 6, p. 2.
[53]NSW Farmers' Association, Submission 6, [p. 2]; Australian Grape & Wine, Submission 46, p. 3; National Farmers' Federation, Submission 12, p. 8; Western Australian Farmers' Federation, Submission 34, pp. 2–3; Australian Olive Association, Submission 3, p. 2; Melons Australia, Submission53, pp. 4–5.
[54]Freight and Trade Alliance angered by Murray Watt social media post, The Weekly Times, Melbourne, 31 August 2023 (weeklytimesnow.com.au).
[55]Ms Justine Saunders, Deputy Secretary, Biosecurity and Compliance Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, pp. 38–39.
[56]AgForce Queensland Farmers, Submission 16, p. 1.
[57]Australian Barramundi Farmers Association, Submission 11, p. 5.
[58]Mrs Bronwen Jaggers, First Assistant Secretary, Biosecurity Strategy and Reform Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 47.
[59]Response to Question on Notice (IQ24-000040) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, received 6 May 2024.
[60]Mrs Bronwen Jaggers, First Assistant Secretary, Biosecurity Strategy and Reform Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, 23 April 2024, p. 47.
[61]Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 [Provisions] and related bills, May 2024, p. 23.
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments