Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024. The federal coalition firmly opposes Labor's biosecurity protection levy, also known as Labor's fresh food tax. This is a tax that will increase cost-of-living pressures and drive up food prices, impacting families across Australia. This legislation is another example of the Labor government biting the hand that feeds it. The levies will charge Australian farmers for the biosecurity costs of importers. In what universe would the Australian government tax their own farmers to pay for foreigners to bring their products to this country to compete with our own? Ultimately, farmers will be forced to pass on costs if they possibly can, which will mean families will spend more on their fresh food.

The federal coalition recognises that a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial for protecting Australia against the threat of exotic pests and diseases. The federal coalition has always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, in contrast to Labor's approach, taxing farmers was never considered to be a part of the mix. In the May 2023 budget, Labor announced a $153 million biosecurity protection levy that would apply from 1 July this year, which was essentially a fresh food tax on our hardworking farmers. At Senate estimates on 13 February 2024, in response to widespread opposition from across the agricultural sector to this proposed levy and its equitable application, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced that it would be rejigged. The Albanese Labor government will now set the tax rate of the biosecurity protection levy as a proportion of an industry's average gross value of production over a three-year period, instead of the former base rate of 10 per cent on industry led agricultural levies.

On 28 February 2024 the government introduced a package of bills into parliament to impose the new biosecurity protection levy. The legislation that has been introduced into parliament lacks any detail on the cost to farmers or how the levy will be collected. It also stipulates that the biosecurity protection levy can be set to nil, in case the cost of collecting the levy in some sectors exceeds the revenue that it raises. Labor's biosecurity protection levy remains a fresh food tax on Australia's 85,000 farmers.

Shamefully, this government has decided to inflict the new tax as a hit on Australian farmers to make them pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors. The industry was blindsided by the announcement of this levy. There was talk of budget measures to address the funding shortfall of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, but at no stage was a levy suggested as the solution. It was stated that consultation on the levy had occurred as part of the government's sustainable funding and investment into strengthening biosecurity. However, there is no mention of a levy in the 2022 discussion paper.

The Office of Impact Analysis determined that the policy proposal for the BPL was not good practice. The lack of a regulatory impact statement also does not give industries confidence in the department's ability to deliver effective biosecurity measures through the BPL. Levies are charges imposed by government, at the request of industry, following extensive consultation with stakeholders. Funds are spent on what industry requests. A recent departmental consultation process outlined that this levy would not be subject to producer voting arrangements in relation to its establishment or change, nor will producers or their representative bodies have a direct role in determining its use.

There are growing concerns that funds raised will not be put back into better biosecurity practices for the agricultural sector but, rather, will go into consolidated revenue. Stakeholder feedback has pushed for the levy to be renamed a tax or an excise to better reflect its functions. If the levy is to be implemented, industry has requested regular updates and transparent reporting from the department as to how the funds are being spent.

The industry is already investing heavily and co-funding biosecurity programs. These contributions were not considered when costing the levy. Not only is this inequitable but it has the potential to undermine pre-existing biosecurity efforts by increasing the cost of production for farmers and decreasing their ability to contribute to the levies they were previously contributing to. This threatens the statutory levy system by diverting funds away from existing levies that could be used to respond to a biosecurity threat.

If funds from the levy are not well targeted or not allocated to the industry at all—which is possible, given the funds would be transferred into unconsolidated revenue—the levy could disadvantage Australian producers in the wake of a biosecurity threat. Existing contributions should be recognised by the levy if it is to be implemented. My question to the agriculture minister is: can the minister guarantee that every cent raised by this levy will go back into biosecurity and the agricultural sector?

In contrast to the Albanese government, the federal coalition's approach to sustainably funding Australia's biosecurity system is targeted at the risk creators—the importers. Under a federal coalition government, Australian farmers will not be punished for the biosecurity risks that others pose. As the Leader of the Opposition announced in his response to the 23 May budget, instead of taxing farmers for biosecurity the federal coalition will introduce an importer container levy, as recommended by the independent Craik biosecurity review. Under the former coalition government, we were a considerable way down the path to implementing this approach; however, this has not been taken up by the current Labor government. Applying a charge to containerised cargo coming into Australia—an importer container levy—is a sensible and fair way forward. This is what the coalition stands for.

The Albanese government should apply some common sense, take the action that is required and scrap this tax. Two independent reviews of the biosecurity protection levy, conducted by the Productivity Commission and the Australian National University, have found that this policy is flawed. Adding to the frustrations of the agricultural sector, these bills outline no details on who the relevant producers actually are when it comes to determining who pays this new tax or how much. In fact, these crucial details will be set out in regulations, which can then be changed or amended. By the time the tax rejig was confirmed in February 2024, it was obvious that the government had no idea what the financial impacts will be on different industries. At Senate estimates, the department said they would 'formally advise industries of their rate in the coming weeks or months'.

A major issue is that these bills do not indicate who will be paying the biosecurity protection levy. The legislation only mentions 'certain producers'. It is expected that it is not just farmers who will be captured by this tax but also fishers and foresters. The chaos, confusion and absence of detail surrounding this new tax—which is due to take effect in July—is simply not good enough. When it comes to this policy, Labor's consultation process with the agricultural sector and industry stakeholders has been appalling. Additionally, the government does not know how it will collect this levy from the industries which do not currently contribute to the existing industry-imposed agricultural levy system.

Based on legislation, it is also not clear whether collection agents are aware how they will collect the levy change from an impacted industry. This is a Labor government that is making policy on the run. This Labor government is incompetent, directionless and not across the details of what they are proposing. The imposition of the biosecurity protection levy—a new fresh food tax on Australian farmers and Australian families—is yet another damaging blow to the agricultural sector, which is under constant assault by the Albanese Labor government.

Harmful changes are already being inflicted on our agricultural sector. These changes include tearing up the dedicated agricultural visa, which was the biggest structural reform to the agricultural workforce in our nation's history. With Australia's top peak food industry bodies identifying that agriculture is facing a shortage of 172,000 workers, the decision to scrap this visa was an absolute disgrace. There's Labor's hopeless reliance on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme to fill workforce shortages and then changing it so that farmers will be forced to offer a minimum of 30 hours a week despite the agricultural sector being seasonal. There's the ideological and reckless decision to ban the live sheep export industry. Labor is destroying an industry that is worth $85 million and that supports the livelihoods of more than 3,000 people.

There have been enormous cuts to regional infrastructure and water projects, including the federal government pushing back the start date of the beef corridor upgrade from the 2025-26 financial year to the 2027-28 financial year. These delays place a question mark over the sealing of more than 450 kilometres of Queensland's beef roads—a project that has had the support of seven mayors from seven Queensland local government authorities. The roads have been identified as some of the most important roads that would have the biggest impact on supply chains across Central Queensland. The roads that will be sealed under funding are the Clermont-Alpha Road, May Downs Road, Diamond Downs Road, Alpha-Tambo Road, Dawson Developmental Road, Fitzroy Developmental Road from Bauhinia to Duaringa, Fitzroy Developmental Road from Taroom to Bauhinia, Duaringa-Apis Creek Road and the Glenroy Road Corridor, including the crossing. So, on the one hand, the Labor government is betraying the agricultural producers by imposing a levy for something that is not even their product, and then, on the other hand, betraying Central Queensland by delaying the beef corridor upgrade, an upgrade that will not only improve road safety for all users but also form a strategic web of agricultural supply chains from east to west.

The Labor government has shown its lack of concern for the Great Artesian Basin by joining with the Greens in voting down an attempt by the Nationals in parliament to ensure that important safeguards are put in place to protect Australia's largest and greatest underground water source. The Great Artesian Basin is the largest underground water source in the world. We must protect this water asset of Australia, especially when it comes to carbon sequestration, for future generations and for the future of the whole water system in general.

The current EPBC Act does not go far enough in ensuring the appropriate approval process is in place. The fact that Labor and the Greens didn't support these amendments shows they are nothing but hypocrites when it comes to environmental protection. The Nationals are doing everything we can in Canberra to put some protocols around this carbon sequestration—the injection of carbon dioxide into the Great Artesian Basin—to ensure the prosperity of this water source for the future.

The Labor government has signed on to a reckless race to 82 per cent renewables by 2030, which means 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, at a cost of $80 billion, will rip up agricultural land while also chopping down thousands of hectares of native bushland and pristine farmland for wind and solar factories. They've introduced a proposed carbon tax on new vehicles, whereby Australians could pay up to $25,000 more for their favourite SUV or four-wheel drive and up to $18,000 more for their favourite ute, according to research undertaken by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

A new tax on farmers will inevitably be passed on to consumers, which means higher grocery bills for all Australians. As the federal member for Flynn, I'm determined to stop this tax on our farmers and on our food. It is unfathomable that the Labor government would ask farmers to pay a biosecurity levy for risks from international importers from other countries. Instead of taxing our farmers, the future coalition government will scrap this tax. Under our plan, importers of foreign products will pay for the biosecurity risks that they pose—not the Australian farmers. That is the way it should be.

See this speech in context