Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

Today I stand alongside my fellow coalition colleagues in resolute opposition to Labor's biosecurity protection levy, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. This is simply a fresh food tax. It is a poorly disguised attack on our farmers, a burden on Australian families and a missed opportunity for collaboration on a critical national food security issue.

The 1,714 farmers in my electorate of Capricornia are already battling significant challenges. They are the backbone of our nation's food security and they deserve our support, not additional burdens. This levy adds another layer of pressure, squeezing their already tight margins. The inevitable outcome: farmers will be forced to pass these costs onto consumers, pushing up grocery prices at a time when affordability is a major concern for Australians. Imagine a young family struggling to make ends meet. Every dollar counts when it comes to putting food on the table. Labor's fresh food tax will make this even more difficult, forcing them to choose between essentials like fresh produce and other necessities.

This biosecurity protection levy is not just bad economics but also a betrayal of trust that undermines the very foundations of Australian agriculture. Biosecurity is not a partisan issue. It's the bedrock of Australian agriculture, a vital national security that safeguards our $80 billion industry and the livelihoods of tens of thousands. From the early days of Australian agriculture, when strict quarantine measures were implemented to prevent the spread of animal diseases, successive governments have recognised the vital role biosecurity plays in protecting our agriculture industries, like the vitally important Central Queensland beef industry.

The coalition has a strong track record. We established the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in 2020 and we invested $49 million to aid communities in the management of feral pests, including species like wild pigs and deer, and weeds like gamba grass. Additionally, the coalition government dedicated $20 million towards eradicating yellow crazy ants in the wet tropics region. Also, in 2021, in spite of the worldwide pandemic, the former coalition government recorded a striking increase of over twofold in the detection of pests and diseases through air and sea cargo compared to the preceding year.

We understand the need for a sustainable funding model for biosecurity, but this levy is not the answer. It unfairly targets our most successful industries and risks jeopardising the very security it aims to achieve. Let's be clear: this tax is a tax on Australian success. Our farmers are world leaders in innovation and productivity. They invest heavily in biosecurity measures, from on-farm biosecurity protocols to cutting-edge technologies. This levy penalises this very investment. Imagine a scenario where a farmer adopts new biosecurity technology only to be hit with a higher levy for their proactive approach. This discourages innovation and hinders our collective biosecurity efforts.

The impact of this levy extends far beyond the farm gate. Our agriculture sector is the backbone of regional communities. Millions of Australians rely on jobs in agriculture and related industries. These communities thrive on the economic activity generated by our farms. A levy that hurts farmers will inevitably hurt these regional communities. Consider a town like Clermont in my electorate of Capricornia. Many families there rely on the income generated by the local farms. This levy isn't just a tax on farmers; it is a tax on the very fabric of regional Australia.

The levy also creates immense uncertainty for the agriculture sector. Critical details such as who will be taxed, by how much and how the levy will be collected remain shrouded in mystery. Initially Labor proposed a blunt 10 per cent increase on the existing industry levy. This one-size-fits-all approach ignored the vast differences between agriculture sectors. For some industries, a 10 per cent levy increase could be crippling, while for others it might be less impactful. This lack of consideration for the specific circumstances of each industry highlighted the deeply flawed nature of the policy from the outset. Following widespread criticism from farmers, producers and industry groups, the government announced a so-called rejig. However, this doesn't change the core problem; it simply changes the calculation method from a flat percentage on an existing levy to a levy based on a percentage of an industry's production value. While this might seem like a concession, it remains an unfair and unsustainable approach.

Firstly, the levy fails to account for the varying profitability of different agriculture sectors. A sector with high production volume but low profit margins could be disproportionately impacted by this levy. Secondly, the legislation offers no clear information on how the exact levy will be determined for each industry. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty for farmers and discourages investment.

Independent reviews by the Productivity Commission and the Australian National University have slammed the levy as 'flawed'. These independent bodies known for their rigorous analysis raised serious concerns about the equity and effectiveness of the levy. Yet the government continues to ignore expert advice, clinging to a policy clearly out of touch with the reality faced by Australian agriculture. This lack of transparency adds stress to farmers already grappling with rising input costs, workforce shortages and volatile weather, such as inevitable droughts and flooding rains. These are hardworking Australians who deserve clarity and certainty, not a poorly conceived tax that throws their businesses into disarray.

The details surrounding this levy remain shrouded in confusion. The legislation offers no clear information on who exactly will be responsible for paying the levy, how much they will be charged or how the collection will be implemented. This lack of clarity creates chaos for farmers. Farmers are left scrambling to understand the financial impact, while collection agents already overburdened with regulations are thrust into this mess with minimal guidance. This is policymaking on the fly and it is a recipe for disaster.

The biosecurity protection levy represents a missed opportunity for collaboration. The coalition have always advocated for a collaborative approach to biosecurity. We believe in working hand in hand with industry stakeholders to develop effective solutions. Labor's unilateral approach, with its complete disregard for industry concerns, is a recipe for disaster. Consider the frustration of organisations like the National Farmers Federation, who have expressed unified opposition to this levy. Their voices, representing thousands of farmers across the country, have been ignored. This is not how we build a robust biosecurity system. It's how we erode trust and hinder progress.

The coalition proposes a far superior solution—an importer container levy. This levy would directly target the source of the biosecurity risk: imported goods. An importer container levy is a well-established and proven approach that's already used successfully by many of our trading partners, including the United States and New Zealand, and is a fair and sustainable way to fund biosecurity, ensuring that the cost is borne by those who introduce the risk, not by our own hardworking farmers. The importer container levy is simple and efficient to administer. This stands in stark contrast to Labor's complex and confusing levy scheme, which will be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

The biosecurity protection levy is just one example of Labor's poor track record on agriculture. From scrapping the agriculture visa to reckless water buybacks, Labor policies are hurting farmers and our regional communities. We need a government that supports Australian agriculture, not one that burdens it with unfair taxes.

See this speech in context