Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Biosecurity breaches are a huge threat to our country. Funding biosecurity threat abatement is an absolutely critical investment in our nation's future. Every dollar is an insurance policy against potentially catastrophic costs to our communities, environment and agricultural producers. This threat is expected only to multiply over time. The climate crisis and increased trade and movement mean Australia will need to fortify and strengthen our biosecurity prevention systems over the coming years. As we've seen with the recent varroa mite outbreak, biosecurity breaches are very costly. The impacts on community health, businesses, the environment and agriculture extend well beyond the billions in response funds needed when outbreaks occur.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee recently took evidence that 40 million bees have been euthanised in the last 18 months following the varroa mite outbreak. Livelihoods have been devastated, and the threat from this biosecurity breach is likely to become more serious over time as we move from eradication, which has failed, to management or living with this pest. It was reported only this week in the Sydney Morning Herald that red imported fire ants alone could end up costing Australian taxpayers $38 billion if funding responses are not up to the task. That's just one invasive pest. Our biosecurity offices and workers deal with multiple threats on a daily basis.

In my home state of Queensland, the government was warned about this 20 years ago. In 2001, it launched the National Fire Ant Eradication Program, which was supposed to have fire ants eradicated by 2006. And yet, after spending almost $1 billion of public money, Queensland has seen the area of infestation increase tenfold. That's over 800,000 hectares. It's absolutely out of control and threatening the entire country. Senior scientists warned the program that there was little evidence to show that eradicating the entrenched fire ant infestation was even feasible. They said to instead look at containment options lest we end up where we have actually ended up now, with thousands of infestations across the country.

The Queensland government chose to adopt a doomed-to-fail eradication program because it knew it could send most of the bill back to the federal government rather than having to fork out money for containment. Then, when senior officials within the program tried to raise the issues of mismanagement and misreporting, they were sacked. The government was warned that its programs were failing, and instead of doing anything about it, it tried to quietly sweep it under the rug. Despite the ongoing inquiry into the spread of red imported fire ants, it seems the government hasn't learned its lesson and continues to stick to its line on poorly governed and mismanaged eradication programs.

That's why the Greens support the imperative for the Australian government to implement a sustainable funding model for biosecurity now and into the future. It appears that pretty much everyone in this debate agrees on this crucial point. When considering priorities for a new sustainable funding model for biosecurity, the government should be prioritising the environment. The government could do this by committing additional funding packages for environmental biosecurity protection and response measures. This levy is a significant matter of public interest and concern, and this parliament needs to find a way forward.

Basically, biosecurity funding has two key components. The first is prevention programs to stop problems before they start. Prevention is always better than a cure. The second component is responding to biosecurity breaches and funding for response measures that can be sourced directly from stakeholder levies in the agricultural sector. Farmers pay levies and can vote on the manner in which these levies are directed through priorities for the sector and areas of most need. Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia receive their funding directly from these levies paid by producers. It's really understandable that farmers have concerns. Not only are they now paying a second levy for biosecurity but also they will have no input into or avenues for feedback for accountability. The Greens believe that, on this point, the government has reflected these concerns in its commitment to a taskforce constituted from agricultural groups. However, we're yet to see the full detail on how this would work or allay farmers concerns. It's also reasonable that some farmers are asking why they should pay a levy on the basis of food production when this food passes up through a supply chain where numerous other interests profit from the work of farmers, but in this bill they are not being asked to also contribute.

The Greens have met with many stakeholders and listened to their concerns about this bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. We understand that farmers are doing it tough, including being forced by the supermarket duopoly to accept rock-bottom prices for the food they produce. Many of the concerns raised with the Greens are very worthy of interrogation in the Senate.

The Greens have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and oversight applied within the bill itself in regard to the allocation and dispersal of the revenue collected from this levy. The direction of collected levy funds into consolidated revenue is a key concern with the bill in its current form. The current structure and application of this legislation needs work. My colleagues in the Senate will be doing their job to properly interrogate and scrutinise this bill and any sensible amendments that may be required.

We also believe that risk creators, like importers, need to pay their fair share. The Greens will be pushing the government to commit to progressing a levy on risk creators in the form of a container levy, or similar, as a matter of priority. We acknowledge that risk importers are being asked to contribute more through other elements of the government's biosecurity funding plans.

Recent revelations around taxpayer funding into the red imported fire ants eradication program have raised red flags over efficacy, over governance, over transparency and over accountability of funding of these types of biosecurity responses from consolidated revenue. The Greens want to ensure accountability around how the government undertakes its role on biosecurity. Too much money has been wasted. We want to see clear performance measures against contributions made by primary producers through any new levy.

The Greens will be voting against this bill in the House of Representatives and reserving our final position in the Senate, pending consultations with the government.

See this speech in context