Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and acknowledge your high office in the Speaker's chair. I will firstly give an overview of my electorate, situated in Queensland, in which the largest contributor to GDP is agriculture. Beef production is No. 2 and horticulture is No. 1. All of my growers—my horticulturalists and my graziers—are captured by this. I look around this Chamber, to my coalition colleagues to my left and my right, and I see how instrumental agriculture is to both of the members in this House. The reason why they're in this Chamber is not to have the argument, not to just participate in the debate, but to genuinely encourage this government to reconsider a very poorly constructed piece of legislation, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. It's poorly constructed for a number of reasons. This afternoon I had the great privilege of spending some quality time with two growers from my region, who are in the parliament today for another function being hosted in Parliament House. Both of them, without prompting, raised this piece of legislation as a catastrophic concern for them moving forward.

In a nutshell, what it looks like is that this is a levy. The two gentlemen that I spoke with that were here this afternoon are significant growers. They grow for our big retailers, and they're participating in the Senate inquiry. But they're also exporters. What they were able to very loosely articulate to me was that, when they compete in the international market and export their product in shipping containers or by airfreight, depending on the shelf life of the product they're sending, they pay for the biosecurity risk that goes into that country. That is part of the receiving country's risk profile. That's part of their business model. They're happy to participate in it. But this piece of biosecurity legislation is obscene. When competitors from other countries send their shipping containers into our market here in Australia, this is what they are being asked to do. When we send stuff out, we have to pay our biosecurity costs to other nations. But this piece of legislation is asking that, when competitors send their product to Australia, our growers have to pay it with no benefit. We're being asked to pay for the biosecurity risk at $150 million over three years, estimated to be $50 million a year. It's uncertain at this stage where that cost is going to be generated from, and I'll get to that later on in this speech.

To give you an overview, this is the obscenity of this piece of legislation. When we trade internationally, we pay our biosecurity costs for the countries we export to, and we own it. But we do not want to be paying the biosecurity risk for the very product that will sit on our domestic shelves and compete with our products when we don't have to do it in other jurisdictions. That is the fundamental flaw of this. When you drill down to it, the federal government has always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. That's not our gripe. We will always back up and pay our fair share when it comes to biosecurity, because it is a very powerful tool that we weaponise in protectionist ways, particularly with bananas, which can be imported from other countries. It is a powerful tool. However, in contrast to Labor's approach, taxing farmers was never part of this mix. Can I say that we have to encourage the government to reconsider this cost and where the funds—the $150 million, which is 10 per cent levy—will be generated from. It is obscene that we would be asking this of our growers, who are already doing it tough enough with increased fuel prices.

I'll try to give you some statistics from the WA Grains Group situation report. I noticed earlier on that we had someone there in the gallery from this organisation. This was prepared in March 2024, so it's a very recent report—for your consideration, Mr Deputy Speaker. Their opening comment is that Australian grains production is already at crisis point, with cost pressures, uncertainty in government policy and direction, instability in global markets and the increasing costs emerging at the farm gate. This report goes on. I will pull some dot points out of this, and then I will speak to the AUSVEG report. In this report earlier today, I was able to find this. When it comes to profits for a farmer, these are some of the costs that they endure as a sector before the government can think up another tax to lay on top of them. The receival fees that they pay when they're exporting products are up 26 per cent. The source of this is the WA Grains Group situation report. The cost of freight to port, from paddock to port, is up 64 per cent just here in Australia—increased costs because we're going through an inflationary period. Freight to the silo is up 58 per cent. But it's not all doom and gloom. They're saying that, as a result of the Ukraine conflict, the price of grain has gone up due to global demand and supply. The farmgate value is up 50 per cent. That's so I'm being absolutely transparent and not just painting a political image of a holocaust. Levies are up 56 per cent, and the end point of royalties is up 21 per cent. Wages on farm and onboard ships across the sector are up 104 per cent. Fertiliser and soil inputs are up 125 per cent. Fuel and oil are up 99 per cent. Chemicals—pesticides and herbicides—are up 54 per cent. Repairs and maintenance are up 109 per cent. That would be mostly tied to labour force pressures. The cost of machinery and replacement is up 71 per cent.

You've got an industry outlining just how tough it is to compete in this sector, and you have a government with its eyes shut, running around the country, saying: 'Hey, we've got a great idea. We've thought of a whole new tax that you'll get no benefit from, that we can inflict on you'—the Australian farming sector—'and let's make it an arbitrary 10 per cent.'

This is one of the few things I have seen in this place that has overwhelmingly united the agricultural sector, which can be mercurial and fragmented in its approach. But this piece of legislation has united all of them—the National Farmers Federation, peak bodies from the states, AUSVEG. There is not one peak body out there which is supporting the government's position on this obscene tax. Why would we disadvantage our local growers and give a competitive advantage to those who are importing products into this country, in an environment which is already crippling?

In the AUSVEG document, the No. 1 point in their conclusion is this: 'No consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders before implementing this BPL.' That's obscene. How does a peak body put that as its first recommendation to a government that has this brain position? You've got a peak body saying, 'We weren't consulted.' Now, of course, the government have a right of reply and will put their position. This is the industry body. These are the state bodies of Western Australia. I cannot find anyone, whether it's the National Farmers Federation or any others, that is claiming that this tax is fair and equitable for Australian farmers. It's a disgrace and it's a sham. The last point in their recommendation is about 'a lack of transparency and appropriation of funds collected towards the industry biosecurity'—there's a lack of transparency. Not only are they saying that there was no consultation but they are saying that it just doesn't make sense. This tax does not make sense.

I do not intend to delay the House any longer. I think I have articulated well enough that this is a tax that is not deserved by a primary industry sector that serves our nation professionally, with integrity, and adopts new technologies in a very sophisticated way to give them global competitiveness. This is an industry that deserves the support of government. This is not an industry that deserves to be treated like this by a government that hasn't consulted. I cannot fathom why the government that sits opposite me today would design a tax to advance an international competitor coming into our market when the same position for us when exporting commodities into other markets is a cost that we bear internally. It's a disgrace.

See this speech in context