GPA slams 'misleading' government biosecurity consultation process

Grain Producers Australia (GPA) chairman Barry Large said he was sick of continued government references to industry consultation, saying the proof of the pudding was that no industry viewpoints had been listened to.

"The references to consultation are grossly misleading and need to be called out," Mr Large said.

The senate inquiry found in favour of the contentious levy being passed by the senate, in spite of acknowledging multiple concerns raised from primary producers during the inquiry about flaws around the planned tax.

Mr Large said government needed to heed a rival report prepared by coalition senators which went the other way and recommended the bills should not be passed.

"This (coalition) report shows clearly the genuine evidence and reasons why so many farmers are standing up to fight against this tax," he said.

He said government continued to push a flawed narrative in regards to who currently funds biosecurity in Australia.

"The senate inquiry states that 'While primary producers are currently a beneficiary, they don't contribute directly to biosecurity efforts to manage the risks', which is infuriating," he said.

"Producers know they're already contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in multiple levies - including emergency responses such as Varroa - and make other direct costs to manage biosecurity on our own farms."

GPA chief executive Colin Bettles said he was deeply concerned with the consultation process, saying much of the detail of the levy was only released retrospectively.

He said the headline numbers looked good in terms of meeting with industry groups, but those groups were not fully aware of what was being proposed.

"The department (of agriculture) indicated that it had attended 82 meetings with industry groups and committees between May 2023 and February 2024," Mr Bettles said.

"It also told the committee that there were 92 written submissions to the consultation process but the pertinent fact was, the proposed levy/tax was never revealed to producers."

"We never saw, open and transparent information about what was proposed during the initial 'consultation' process."

Mr Bettles said he remained staggered how in spite of initial government reports saying all Australians would benefit from beefed-up biosecurity measures the government had flipped to place the onus of funding entirely on farmers.

"Six months after this 'consultation' process a new biosecurity tax was announced and suddenly Australian farmers are being told, not asked, to replace taxpayers and stump up another $50 million in a new levy/tax that's actually going into consolidated revenue," he said.

GPA has long argued that the major risk-creators in importers, needed to shoulder more of the load, potentially via a container levy while it also pointed the finger at vertically integrated agribusinesses.

"Direct beneficiaries of existing producer levies such as large corporate entities across agribusiness supply chains, from paddock to plates, are not paying anything, to improve shared responsibility."

He said industry was now so distrustful of government on the issue it was not participating in engagement processes, such as the government's Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel.

"Senior farm representatives have also boycotted the Panel due to the government's stubborn refusal to drop the levy/tax and escalate risks of unintended consequences."