![The ag industry says importers should also be liable to help fund the proposed biosecurity levy. Photo by Gregor Heard. The ag industry says importers should also be liable to help fund the proposed biosecurity levy. Photo by Gregor Heard.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/5Q2j7ezUfQBfUJsaqK3gfB/c4386042-8912-4213-bc74-16a4cbfa5258.JPG/r0_560_6000_4000_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
MORE than 50 agricultural producer representative groups across sectors as diverse as grains and livestock through to aquaculture and horticulture have penned an open letter to the Federal Government voicing their opposition to the proposed 10 per cent biosecurity tax.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
The government has proposed what it describes as a levy on the ag sector to raise further funds for biosecurity.
The agricultural sector has been deeply unimpressed by the move, saying that with the levies raised going into consolidated revenue rather than a specific biosecurity fund it amounted to little more than a new tax.
There was also displeasure that those creating the biggest risk of biosecurity incursions, importers, were not being subject to additional levies, such as a proposed shipping container levy.
The unusual display of unity saw a signed letter sent to the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, treasurer Jim Chalmers and minister for agriculture Murray Watt calling for 'an immediate and urgent reversal of the fundamentally flawed tax on producers'.
The letter also pointed to Productivity Commission research that supported the claims the proposed impost should be regarded as a tax, not a levy.
Peak body Grain Producers Australia was one of the organisations that signed up to the letter.
"Australian producers take biosecurity seriously on our farms every single day," said GPA chair Barry Large.
"That's why we already pay significant amounts to fund biosecurity protections directly within our own businesses," he said.
"We also pay directly through other compulsory industry levies that raise hundreds of millions of dollars - including biosecurity levies."
He said GPA had no problem with the government's push to bolster its biosecurity programs, but said the funding arrangement needed to be different.
"We've been calling for increased funding and protections to make the system better and fairer for producers with increased accountability and shared responsibility, but this proposal in its current form is grossly unfair and fundamentally flawed and needs to be reversed."
The livestock industry has generally been more measured in its commentary on the levy, but organisations have stepped up to sign the letter.
WoolProducers Australia chief executive Jo Hall said producers, processors and exporters all along the livestock supply chains are strongly opposed to this proposed tax being introduced.
She said recent commentary about cost-of-living pressures and pricing transparency had highlighted the fact farmers are also doing it tough.
The wool industry in particular has endured a difficult 12 months, with a drop off in world values.
"Farmers are facing ever increasing pressures to produce food that's affordable, and the highest quality in the world, whilst others rake in record profits," she said.
"This move by the Federal Government will only amplify these production pressures by hitting farmers with another tax that's nothing more than double dipping and cost-shifting on biosecurity."
Summer Fruit Australia chief executive Trevor Ranford said he was pushing for a more equitable system where the costs are shared more evenly.
He said producer representatives are subsequently calling for an immediate reversal of the government's flawed, 'one-size-fits-all' tax proposal, to prevent these unintended consequences.
"This decision would help start the process of repairing the damage that's already been inflicted on trust and confidence in the existing levy system, and key partnerships with producers," he said.
The letter has addressed this issue specifically, calling on government to provide the actual criteria used within its modelling that saw it label agricultural producers the only 'beneficiaries' of the biosecurity system and not others within the community who also benefit from strong biosecurity and food security.
As well as the joint letter the groups have launched a fund-raising campaign to help them continue their fight against the proposal.