Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make it be contribution on the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the related bill. There are some genuine concerns with what the government is doing with this package, concerns which I don't think are resolved by the material we've been provided with, and so I'd like to indicate that I will be opposing the bill.

As I understand it, the background here is that the government has decided to increase revenue for biosecurity through two channels: expanding cost recovery for low-value imports and putting a special levy on domestic primary producers. I have three concerns with the government's approach and these are shared, obviously, by a number of my colleagues in this place. The first mirrors those concerns raised by the Productivity Commission in their 2023 paper on Commonwealth industry levies. That paper demonstrated the incredible growth in industry levies in recent years and how they represent a form of microtaxation, which can be an inefficient revenue source that impairs broader efforts to support private sector investment, innovation and productivity growth. That paper provided a framework for testing the case for industry levy proposals, to ensure that they target a public good effectively and aren't simply imposed as a revenue-raising measure. Of the 11 tests, the biosecurity proposal passes just three of them. This suggests that the department has not worked through the framework or considered how the proposal could be redesigned or improved to address concerns.

The second concern reflects issues raised by Sasa Vanek and Robert Breunig at the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute. Their paper, which was published last month, notes that the proposed approach is not a suitable way of dealing with a negative externality, such as a biosecurity threat. Instead, they proposed two alternative approaches, both of which reflect policies which are grounded in economic science and are already used by the Commonwealth in various portfolios. One approach is to charge those who create the externality—in this case, importers and international travellers—by taxing those who create the greatest biosecurity risk and aligning their private costs with the social costs. The other approach is to recognise biosecurity as a public good and fund it accordingly through consolidated revenue. Both of these approaches resolve the problem and do so in a more efficient way than that proposed by the government.

The third concern reflects the process by which this legislation was developed and consulted on. I understand that there's significant concern in the industry about this issue, but my particular concern is the failure of the government to follow its own processes and best practices in policy development. The government launched the Office of Impact Analysis back in November 2022, with some fanfare about collaboration, transparency and ensuring sound, evidence-based policy. But it's clear that departments haven't got the message, as the OIA assessment of the biosecurity levy proposal makes clear. It was rated as 'adequate' and fell short of the good practice standard which is expected of legislative proposals due to the lack of analysis of impacts, including properly quantifying the costs and qualitative impacts of the policy, and also its approach to consultation.

There's a clear lesson here for government about the need to take its own processes seriously, and I do mean that this is a lesson for the whole of government. The problems with this policy are similar to the problems seen in other portfolios, and it's a worry that these problems are becoming more common over time. Surely we should see lessons being learned and practices improving, rather than the opposite?

In conclusion, this bill falls far short of what the community expects of the government and so I will be joining with my good friends in the National Party in opposing its passage.

See this speech in context