Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Panama tropical race 4, the Asian honey bee, myrtle rust, leaf miner, zebra chip, golden potato cyst nematode, longhorn beetles—this exotic-sounding list is actually a roll call of pests and diseases which have the potential to devastate agriculture in Australia. In fact, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, or DAFF, lists these amongst the top 40 risks to Australia when it comes to exotica and unwanted plant pests. If pest infestations and diseases take hold, they could result in huge losses to our $100 billion agriculture, fishery and forestry industries. That's not to mention the potential impact on employment, with more than 63,000 people employed in the horticulture industry alone, and the fact that these pests and diseases could devastate our unique environment.

I know, Deputy Speaker Andrews, that you'll be interested to hear about my recent trip to Darwin on 4 March to look at the laboratories, where we saw the incredible work that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry staff do in fighting something as simple as the fruit fly. That's why a strong and well-funded biosecurity system is crucial to Australia, and it's why I rise in support of the three connected bills: the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024. These bills will help to safeguard Australia's biosecurity. The Beale review in 2008 suggested that biosecurity is a responsibility shared amongst government, industry and the community. This suite of bills reflects that. As I said, government, industry and the community: three pillars.

I come from the small town of St George in the Balonne Shire out in south-west Queensland. Growing up, a lot of my friends were the sons and daughters of sheep and cattle people or cotton farmers, and some were veggie growers. I know how hard primary producers work. My brother-in-law and my sister had a cotton farm, and I know the incredible hours worked there. I also know about the devastation that comes when a pest or disease gets in amongst the cotton or other agriculture.

Maintaining Australia's biosecurity is critical for our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries and for our unique environment, our economy and the lifestyle that we all enjoy—especially in Queensland. Australia has a very proud biosecurity history—cane toads aside—and, while we have the strong foundation of being an island nation, our biosecurity success is also due to the systems that have provided such vigilance and fast action. These have ensured that we are one of the few countries in the world which still remain free from some of the world's most invasive pests and diseases. There's no foot-and-mouth disease here and no African swine fever or avian influenza on our shores, and we must work hard to maintain that.

We only have to look at the spread of the cane toad to see how dangerous it can be. I'm more than happy to be called cane toad around state-of-origin night, but their spread is alarming. They're now well beyond Queensland—up into the Top End and the Kimberley, and fast heading south into New South Wales. While they're an introduced species, their seemingly unstoppable spread and hugely detrimental effect on native species illustrates the danger that exotic pests pose to Australia.

Changes such as the growth in the volume and complexity of trade, the effects of climate change, and the ever-increasing spread of pests and disease around the world are putting pressure on our existing systems. Now is the time to invest in our biosecurity system, to future-proof it and to make funding sustainable, predictable, equitable, transparent and secure. This was an election commitment and, once again, the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment.

Obviously, a strong biosecurity system benefits all Australians—in the urban areas as well as in the bush. My electorate of Moreton contains the Brisbane Markets, the third-largest of Australia's six central markets for fruit and veg. It's where I like to go on weekends to pick up cheap fruit and veggies, and it's also a bustling place all week. Over 4½ thousand people work or do business there daily at 170 different businesses: fruit and veggie growers, wholesalers, providores, food processors, retailers, independent supermarkets and the food service industry. Brisbane Markets is a key part of the fresh produce supply chain, not just for Queensland but for the eastern part of Australia. Looking after biosecurity is looking after the people who work up and down the primary produce supply chain and the regional and remote communities at its core. This is another example of the Labor Party looking after the bush, something that the Nationals rarely do.

Our world-class biosecurity system needs investment so that we all keep benefiting. Labor understands this. In last year's budget we directed new and permanent funding to this of over $1 billion over four years, an extra $270 million per year ongoing from 2027 to 2028. It's all part of the strengthened and sustainably funded biosecurity system outlined in the last year's budget, and it's a first for Australia. Despite repeated expert recommendations, this country has never before benefited from sustainable and predictable biosecurity funding. It took a Labor government to make this happen and to put these critical protections in place for the 1.6 million workers in the Australian agricultural supply chain. This measure provides funding security and has been welcomed by industry. When we consider what's at stake if our biosecurity system is underfunded or has unpredictable funding levels, it's astounding that, under the former coalition government, biosecurity funding would have decreased by almost $100 million a year by 2026-27. The minister in the previous government, the member for Maranoa, thought that they could do biosecurity on the cheap. In fact, the Leader of the Nationals continues to talk about making the so-called risk creators pay more towards biosecurity, but it has taken a Labor government to take biosecurity seriously and deliver this. The member for Maranoa had over 1,300 days to get this done, but he failed comprehensively to make importers pay their fair share.

The Albanese Labor government has increased the contribution from importers. In total, they are contributing almost $100 million more in 2024-25, compared to the final year of the coalition government. Despite what those opposite would have you believe, importers are actually contributing the lion's share in additional funding to biosecurity. I repeat that: it will be importers who are contributing the lion's share in additional funding to biosecurity. By making importers pay their fair share, we are increasing biosecurity funding by around the same amount that the coalition cut from it. It will increase by $100 million per year.

The measures contained in the agriculture biosecurity protection levies and charges suite of bills are focused on increased payments from those who benefit from Australia's tough biosecurity system and from those who put it at risk. Primary producers benefit from our robust biosecurity controls. It allows them to sell a product at a premium. Over 70 per cent of all Australian agricultural production is exported. There are 26 million Australians, but we basically grow enough food for 75 million. These exports were valued at over $82 billion in 2022-23 by ABARES. Stringent biosecurity measures put Australian primary producers in pole position when it comes to ongoing access to export markets around the world. So, yes, we are asking them to pay an additional 5c for every $100 they produce. You might hear some fear coming from those opposite, so I just want to put that in context. It's 5c for every $100 they produce.

These bills were supported by industry in our initial consultation process. The Cattle Council of Australia, as it was known then, stated that biosecurity is a shared responsibility and that all parties must contribute. The National Farmers Federation agreed. The Australian Food and Grocery Council advocated a shared funding model. The Invasive Species Council called for funding from risk creators, then beneficiaries and, finally, government.

This suite of bills implements a new legislative framework to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of the new biosecurity protection levy. There are two imposition bills. The first is for biosecurity protection levies that are duties of excise for agriculture, fisheries and forestry products and goods produced in Australia. The second is for duties of customs in relation to these products being exported from Australia. The third bill provides for the collection and administration of those levies and charges.

The biosecurity protection levy will generate around $50 million per year in new revenue from primary producers. This equates to around six per cent—yes, I said that right: not 60 but six per cent—of the total $800 million cost of Australia's biosecurity system in 2024-25—six per cent. It's important to acknowledge that many primary producers already invest in wonderful biosecurity measures both on the farm and through membership fees for Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia or industry groups. These are a crucial part of the biosecurity jigsaw, but they do not fund the extensive work required to keep Australia safe and to protect those Australian jobs.

Protecting Australia's 60,000 kilometres of coastline is a complex job. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does the grunt work, using X-ray machines—huge X-ray machines, as we in the public works committee saw up in Darwin recently. They have quarantine measures, surveillance programs, detector dogs and screens. They inspect and clear millions of mail parcels, cargo containers, plants and animals. They have comprehensive biosecurity protection measures that are also taken offshore and at the border. Behind the scenes, there's also research on risk detection, the sharing of information and the continued review of risk in whatever is coming into Australia.

Labor will also introduce a biosecurity charge on imports with a value of less than $1,000, a measure that is forecast to recover around $27 million annually. We're also implementing a modest increase to the passenger movement charge for international travellers.

This suite of bills ensures that the cost of biosecurity is shared. Forty-four per cent of the cost will be contributed by everyday taxpayers. Importers will pay 48 per cent, so they're doing the grunt work. Primary producers will carry six per cent of the load, and Australia Post will pay two per cent. The biosecurity protection levy rate will be reviewed by the department every three years along with the review of the operation of the new system to make sure it's functioning effectively.

The Albanese government is committed to transparency regarding biosecurity systems. We recently announced the formation of the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel. Members from the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, importers and research organisations will meet three times a year and provide feedback on biosecurity priorities. The measures contained in this suite of bills position Australia to adapt and maintain our enviable biosecurity systems in the complex and changing global biosecurity environment.

The Nationals' amendment seeks to criticise the government for changing its mind on how the biosecurity protection levy is calculated. However, this is the result of genuine consultation with industry. Labor governments listen to feedback. As a result, we have made our new levy more equitable, more proportionate and more transparent, and we will continue to listen through the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel. As I said, I'm sure we will hear fear campaigns springing from those opposite, but I commend this bill to the House with pride.

See this speech in context