David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Considering the current cost-of-living crisis affecting Australians, can the minister explain the rationale behind the government's reasoning for introducing a food tax via the biosecurity levy, which is set to commence on 1 July, and how does the government anticipate this measure will align with the broader economic interests and welfare of the Australian people?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Van, for your question regarding a really important issue—how the government should fund our biosecurity services moving forward. I appreciate you having contacted me directly about this issue in general. You understand, I'm sure, like all of us, that it is vital that a country like Australia maintains strong biosecurity protections. It was only shortly after our government came to office that we faced the risk of foot-and-mouth disease entering Australia, lumpy skin disease and many other biosecurity threats.

It's only through the hard work of our biosecurity officers in airports, ports and elsewhere around the country, as well as through the great efforts of farmers and others in rural Australia, that we're kept safe from various diseases.

When we came to office I was pretty horrified to learn that the former government had not built in long-term ongoing funding of our biosecurity protections; in fact, the funding for biosecurity was on track to fall by, from memory, around 25 per cent despite the fact that those threats were increasing. So what the government did at the last budget was to significantly increase taxpayer funding for biosecurity protections and dramatically increase the charges that we were placing on importers for the biosecurity services that we provide—something the former government had never been prepared to do. The former government said that we needed stronger biosecurity and were not prepared to make importers pay the full cost of those services.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're taxing farmers.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It sounds like Senator Hume still has a problem with that. She might like to talk to her National Party colleagues, who say we shouldn't have done it.

When it comes to the levy, what we decided was that, given farmers are significant beneficiaries of our biosecurity protections, it was reasonable to ask them to make a modest contribution towards the cost of those services, which will be six per cent of the overall biosecurity funding, with 43 per cent being borne by taxpayers and 48 per cent by importers. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Van, first supplementary?

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I do agree that biosecurity is incredibly important. Recommendation 35 from Dr Wendy Craik's report Priorities for Australia's biosecurity system calls for an industry stocktake of national biosecurity system investment and for the results to be made public. Can the minister justify the new levy without having conducted a formal stocktake of the industry's contributions, and will the government commit to implementing that recommendation?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Van. Certainly I'm aware that the department of agriculture has undertaken a large amount of work in the biosecurity protection space since that report was delivered by Ms Craik to the former government several years ago. I would be confident that the work that addresses that recommendation has been done, but I'm obviously happy to go back and have a look at that.

What we established in the work leading up to the budget was that we did need to lock in ongoing, year by year funding for biosecurity in a way that the former government was never prepared to do, so we could have that certainty around biosecurity funding, and that the cost of providing those services should be shared by the taxpayer generally, by importers and by asking producers to make a small contribution to the cost of those services. As I say, the overall cost that we will recoup from producers is about $50 million in a budget of several hundred million dollars.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Van, second supplementary?

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. In last year's budget the government committed to assessing and determining the compatibility of a container levy on entities responsible for biosecurity risks with Australia's obligations under the World Trade Organization. Could the minister offer an update on the progress of this investigation? When is completion of this assessment expected?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Van. Again, this issue around a container levy goes back to that report that was delivered by Ms Craik several years ago to the former government. You may remember that at one point the former government promised to introduce a container levy, then they decided it was all too hard and they scrapped it. I notice that now they're promising to bring in a container levy, even though they weren't prepared to do it when they were in office.

What we've done instead is to focus on the charges that we know we are legally authorised to charge importers by making them pay the full cost of the biosecurity services that we provide. We are continuing to examine a container levy, but, as I've previously indicated, there are some World Trade Organization legal issues that we need to work through to ensure that we can charge a container levy. As soon as that work is completed, I'll of course update the chamber.