Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Hansard source

We all understand the importance of a world-class biosecurity system, and the role it plays in protecting our people, our economy, our unique environment and our way of life from devastating exotic pests and disease outbreaks. Maintaining a robust system is fundamental to protecting our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industry sectors, forecast to be worth $86 billion in 2023-24, and the 1.6 million jobs they support across the nation. Our world-class system also supports almost $80 billion worth of exports each year. Australia has one of the best-regarded biosecurity systems in the world. We are free of many of the crippling diseases and pests which impact other countries, such as foot-and-mouth disease, lumpy skin disease, khapra beetle and the devastating Xylella, which has wiped out generations of vineyards in Europe.

But a strong biodiversity system doesn't just happen; a strong system cannot maintain itself. Australia has 25,760 kilometres of coastline to monitor and protect, with an increasing focus on our most northern borders. There is an increasing volume of mail, cargo and travellers arriving from overseas. All of these pathways are biosecurity risks. The vigilant effort and operations required to monitor and keep our borders protected is costly and ever present. Fundamentally, that is why the government is investing an extra $1 billion over the next four years and an extra $267 million every year after that to make our biosecurity system stronger and more sustainable. This investment is locked in. It is permanent, now and every year into the future. This is something that has never happened before. These bills are an important part of our sustainable funding model, along with more funding from taxpayers and significantly increased contributions from importers. The bills are underpinned by the principle that strong biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it.

The government is taking consultation on the biosecurity protection levy seriously. It's not just a box-ticking exercise. We took time after the May budget to listen to the industry feedback. We have addressed industry concerns about levy and charge design, the imposition of the levy and the charge, and the transparency and accountability of biosecurity funding. The government heard industry's concerns about the initial design. In response, we have acted. Rates will be set using a common and equitable basis for industry sector products and goods and be calculated on a proportional share of total gross value of production. Details of each commodity's levy rates will be set out in regulations and subject to consideration by the Governor-General in Federal Executive Council.

To give context, the proposed rate of biosecurity protection levy imposed on the sale of bananas would be in the order of 0.0958c per kilogram of bananas. That's 1c for every 10.4 kilograms of bananas produced. We anticipate that the proposed rate of biosecurity protection levy imposed on the slaughter of pigs at an abattoir in Australia would be in the order of 18½c per head, against an average price of around $250 per head for a bacon pig.

The final proposed levy rates are dependent on consultation with industry on the proposed imposition points for levied products. Government has listened to feedback from industry that they want the interruption to their business operations to be as minimal as possible. They have said loud and clear that they want imposition and collection arrangements to be as simple as possible. Taking this on board, imposition points will mirror agricultural levy arrangements as far as possible to minimise business impacts. We also listened to feedback that imposition points should be streamlined so that the levy is only applied once throughout the supply chain. This will be particularly important for the cattle sector, where, without any streamlining of imposition points, an animal could be levied multiple times throughout its life. We are working to develop the most appropriate arrangements with industry to support industry, businesses and farmers.

Perhaps most significantly, the government has listened to industry's feedback about improving confidence in how biosecurity funding, including from the biosecurity protection levy, will be used. We have taken this feedback on board, and we have announced a new sustainable biosecurity funding advisory panel. The panel will give our producers, for the first time ever, a say on biosecurity priorities and transparency on how biosecurity funding is spent. Importantly, this oversight is not just for the $50 million to be raised through the biosecurity protection levy but for the $800 million annual biosecurity budget as a whole. This has never been done before, and it responds to longstanding industry concerns about priority setting. The panel is in addition to the government's earlier commitment to annual public reporting on biosecurity funding expenditure and outcomes.

While biosecurity protection levy funds will not be directly appropriated to the Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry, the additional contribution to consolidated revenue means that we can provide the permanent increases in ongoing appropriation funding announced in last year's budget. More specifically, this funding will support the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to continue to undertake biosecurity activities as part of a risk based approach to managing the risks of pests and disease entering Australia.

It is not just down to producers to contribute more. Under the changes we have introduced, risk creators, like importers and travellers, are also contributing much more to biosecurity funding. Under our sustainable funding model, the contribution from importers will increase by more than 35 per cent, or more than $102 million, per year between the former government's last year of office and 2025-26. We are raising the same amount from importers as the National Party said it raised through its failed container levy, where it did not raise a single cent.

By doing the right thing and making importers pay their fair share for the first time since 2015, we have already raised $256 million since 1 July 2023. This includes $33 million extra compared to what would have happened under the National Party's failed funding model. These funds go directly to our biosecurity system, protecting agriculture and the community from harmful pests and diseases that threaten trade and our way of life.

From 1 July 2024, a new cost recovery charge on low-value goods imported into Australia by air or sea will be introduced and is expected to recover around $27 million annually. Up to now, taxpayers have borne this cost, diverting crucial resources away from other biosecurity functions.

We achieve this where the previous government and the previous minister, the member for Maranoa, comprehensively failed. The Liberals and Nationals thought it was a good idea to provide short-term terminating funding for our essential biosecurity services. They thought they could do biosecurity on the cheap, locking in biosecurity funding cuts of $100 million a year. That is funding cuts of $100 million a year. It has been well documented that the former minister's financial incompetence almost broke the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It was the Albanese Labor government that put a stop to that by locking in permanent long-term funding at a sustainable level to ensure our protection from pests and diseases remains strong.

Even now the member for Maranoa, through his second reading amendment, which we oppose, has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of how our biosecurity system works and how it is funded. The member likes to talk a big game about making importers pay more towards the cost of biosecurity, but fails to acknowledge that his government did nothing and our government has done just that—made importers pay more. The member lives in a fantasy when he says that all that the incoming government had to do after the election was sign a piece of paper and it would have all been fixed. In fact, the complete opposite was true. We had to provide a financial bailout to the department last year to ensure it remained sustainable—a direct result of the member's budget failure. The member completely denies reality, in which he had over 1,300 days as agriculture minister but did nothing to make importers pay their fair share. Nothing changed between 2015 and 2022.

The member for Maranoa's silver bullet, the so-called container levy, which he still thinks is the answer, was first announced by him as minister in May 2018. It was supposed to raise more than $100 million a year to fund our biosecurity. It did not raise a single cent—not a single cent. You can't make that up.

The member continues to demonstrate that he has zero understanding of what the independent Craik review said about biosecurity funding, even though he was the responsible minister at the time. The Craik review recommended introducing a container levy or increasing cost recovery through the full import declaration, or FID, charge. The government has already done this, increasing the FID charge for sea cargo from $49 to $63 in the past year. This is more than was recommended in the Craik review, which suggested a $10 increase for sea cargo FID in lieu of a container levy.

The member for Maranoa also continues to demonstrate that he has no understanding of how the agricultural levy system works. Levies paid by industry to Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia do nothing to fund the critical biosecurity services at our borders. These levies are important, but they do not fund Commonwealth biosecurity operations at mail centres, airports or seaports, nor do they fund the technical, scientific and surveillance work that is funded through the Australian government biosecurity budget.

The sustainable biosecurity funding package is a new era for biosecurity in Australia. It recovers more than ever before from biosecurity risk creators, whether they be importers, international parcels and mail, or international travellers. Australia has never had sustainable and predictable biosecurity funding, despite this being recommended in multiple reviews and continually sought by industry and environment groups.

To finish, I'll make this point. The National Party's amendments seek to criticise the government for changing its mind on how the biosecurity protection is calculated, but that is the result of genuine consultation with industry. We listened to feedback from industry and are making our new biosecurity protection levy more equitable, more proportionate and more transparent. For the first time ever, the government is also giving industry a say on biosecurity priorities and how the Commonwealth biosecurity budget is used, through our sustainable biosecurity funding advisory panel. As a former president of Cattle Council of Australia, Markus Rathsmann, put it:

Biosecurity has been underfunded for the last twenty years.

…   …   …

The recent proposal for industry to have a seat at the table and address Biosecurity concerns has real merit and is a positive step forward.

…   …   …

We can argue about fairness and the prospect of a new tax year after year till the cows come home.

…   …   …

As a cattle producer I am happy to contribute more via a levy if we can help build a stronger properly funded biosecurity system that properly protects our livestock and plant industries NOW and into the future.

See this speech in context