Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

It is, of course, just over a month since the Treasurer delivered the Albanese government's second budget. It is a budget that has a very strong focus on the regions and a strong focus to protect and grow the agricultural sector. It's a budget with a focus on jobs and on filling critical gaps that, frankly, the National Party failed to fix in nearly a decade. This budget does include over $1.5 billion of additional investment in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, and we do this because we absolutely recognise the importance of food and fibre security to our nation and to the world. We understand the economic importance of keeping our regional, rural and remote communities strong, resilient and productive, and productive they are.

In the face of global trade pressures, labour shortages and the challenges of floods, fires and national disasters, agriculture is at record highs. The value of Australian agriculture is forecast to be $90 billion this year, while our agricultural exports will be $75 billion. But we can't be complacent about that. The arrival of new pests and disease into Australia can have devastating and very long-lasting impacts. With the ever-increasing volume of travellers and trade across our borders, we do need sophisticated and well-functioning biosecurity systems to protect our plant, animal and environmental health. A strong biosecurity system is absolutely vital for exports. It's vital for jobs and vital for our way of life.

It is amazing to think that, until this budget, biosecurity funding was never stable, never secure and never predictable. Our budget changes that, just as we promised to do at the election. It invests more than a billion dollars in our biosecurity to protect and to grow our $90 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. This investment is permanent and it is locked in for every year in the future. We have drawn a line under what, frankly, were stopgap measures, temporary budget booby traps of underfunding and biosecurity funding cuts from the National Party that put the regions at risk. We've reversed the $100 million annual funding cut that was locked in by the former government—something that the National Party ministers allowed to happen while they were at ERC.

Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion sustainable funding model is the start of a new era of biosecurity funding. Our investment will protect and grow agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. We are committing to permanently deduct more dedicated taxpayer funding than ever. Taxpayers will be contributing 44 per cent of costs in 2024-25. We're recovering more than ever before from those who create the risk, the importers, who'll contribute 48 per cent of costs for biosecurity in 2024-25. We will also introduce, as members have asked me questions about, the modest new biosecurity protection levy on beneficiaries of the strong biosecurity system, our agriculture, fisheries and forestry producers, and that levy is six per cent. They are the beneficiaries of this system and it is important that they contribute as well.

Farmers have so much at stake, and it is fair to ask them to pay a little bit more for this incredibly important system, just as we are asking other working Australians to contribute through the taxes that they pay. We will work very closely with industry, in answer to what the member for Fairfax was asking, on levy design and implementation, as well as how we use the funds to protect the agricultural sector. We continue to explore ways to reform cost-recovery arrangements, including the option of a broader biosecurity import levy that is consistent with our international trade law obligations, and our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding along with a fair system to pay for it.

Given the very short time I have left to speak in this debate and that we are already past the time for the debate on the Treasury to start, I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. To the member for Mayo in particular I say that road funding is a shared responsibility between local, state and federal governments, and the way in which we fund from the federal government is of course the increase of $250 million, bringing it to $750 million for local roads through the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program, but there is also the $500 million for Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program and the blackspots program that we have locked in to this budget, as well as the financial assistance grants funding that has a roads component— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure $5,979,008,000

See this speech in context