Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, although I must say that I'm deeply concerned about it. I'd like to draw the attention of the House—and, in fact, the nation—to the lack of government speakers on this bill, and to the fact that we're debating this bill in the Federation Chamber. This is a critical bill on biosecurity, and when I look at the list of who is speaking on it, it is a long list when it comes to the opposition and regional members on the crossbench. But, apart from one speaker that I can see, nobody from the government side, apart from the minister, has actually come into this place and prosecuted the argument for this tax on farmers. And that's exactly what it is: a tax on farmers.

Biosecurity is critical for Australia's wellbeing—not just the wellbeing of primary producers but the wellbeing of all of us. Lumpy skin disease, foot and mouth, varroa mite—there are so many biosecurity risks on our doorstep. We are somewhat fortunate; we are an island. But the risk is forever present. But what this bill is going to do is charge farmers for it. Primary producers are going to pay a tax for not the risk that they create but the risk that is created by importers. That is nonsensical. We're talking about grape producers. We know that the wine industry and grape producers are having a perilous time at the moment. It's going to impact fishing. We're going to be saying to the local fishing industry: 'You need to pay a levy, you need to pay a tax, because of imports of fish.' Horticulture, sheep, lambs, forestry, cattle, dairy—it's going to cover the lot.

No peak body is supporting this bill—none; not one. In fact, this has united all primary production peak bodies against it. And there's the time frame for this. We are now coming towards the end of March. This is supposed to be implemented by 1 July. Again, it's nonsensical. It's a bad bill, it's poorly consulted on and it's just a tax on farmers when they can least afford it. I think it's rather galling that we don't have members of the government speaking on this, and it's highly inappropriate that we're using the Federation Chamber for this incredibly important issue of biosecurity.

I guess you can tell, Deputy Speaker Chesters, I do not support this bill. I implore the government to investigate alternative approaches that are fair, that are equitable and that are not saying to primary producers in this nation, 'You should bear the cost, to the tune of $153 million, for the risk that importers will cause.' It's not us here. It's not those who were up at four o'clock this morning milking cows. It's not our Australian farmers. It's those from overseas.

The other issue is that our farmers already pay around $500 million worth of levies. In fact, the first industry levy was introduced in 1929 to finance the marketing and research and development for the grape industry, known as the wine grape levy. Since then, the number of industry levies has grown to at least 248 across all sectors.

In 2016 the Productivity Commission reported on the regulation of Australian agriculture, and they found that farm businesses are subjected to many regulations which are complex and in place at every stage of the supply chain. They are often the wrong policy tool, they are inconsistent across or within jurisdictions and they are costly. The regulations across the agricultural supply chain include: native title; environmental protection; biodiversity conservation; agricultural and veterinary chemical standards; biosecurity, including pest surveillance and export control; national land transport regulatory frameworks; water access and regulation; animal welfare; livestock identification; food labelling and standards; food safety and certification; and statutory marketing. The list goes on. Honestly, I'm exhausted reading this.

Knowing that this is what our primary producers are already managing, the fact that this government wants to put an even further burden, a tax, on farmers is appalling—knowing that they're also working seven days a week for us. There's no Christmas Day off if you're a dairy farmer. There's no 'I don't like to work Sundays' or 'Do I get paid time and a half?' Not at all. They get up and they go to work, whether it's drought or it's flood.

It's unbelievable that we are doing this. What we should be doing is one of two things. Either the money should come out of general revenue or there should be a container tax targeting the businesses that are creating the risk, rather than charging our farmers. That makes sense; that is equitable. We're effectively saying to the victim, 'You should pay for the pest incursion; you need to pay protection money, rather than it being on the importers and containers.'

I have 1,965 agriculture, forestry and fishery businesses in my electorate, and 1,934 are small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. These businesses are being squeezed out of existence with rising power costs and labour costs, exacerbated by industrial relations changes and supermarket duopolies dictating prices. Potentially, we might see the price go to the consumer, but I doubt it, because our farmers are not price makers; they are price takers. This levy is wrong. The minister needs to go back to the drawing board and work with the community and work with industry to get this right. This is just a tax on farmers, and it needs to be stopped. I urge the government: do the right thing—pull the bill. And let's do this right.

See this speech in context