This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Industry, agriculture & resources
Australian exporters of agriculture, fisheries and forestry products would face a new biosecurity protection charge on exports to help fund national biosecurity work.
Australia’s biosecurity system lacked a sustainable funding base, leaving taxpayers and importers to cover almost all costs even though producers directly benefit from strong pest and disease controls. This bill creates an export biosecurity charge so producers make a modest contribution, with regulationsLower-level rules that would set the charge rate, decide who pays it, and create exemptions without changing the main law. setting rates, who pays, and any exemptions.
Australia already had a national biosecurity system, but the government argued in the 2023-24 Budget that it needed a more predictable, long-term funding base because taxpayers and importers were still carrying most of the cost of guarding agriculture, fisheries and forestry against costly pest and disease outbreaks. This bill was introduced in February 2024 to make exporters contribute through a new charge, then ran into sharp parliamentary opposition over its impact on farmers and fresh food prices, passed the House in March 2024, and was discharged from the Notice PaperThe list of business scheduled for a parliamentary chamber; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active on that list. in February 2025.
The main criticism was that the bill makes Australian farmers and exporters pay for biosecurity risks largely created by imports, which critics said would squeeze producers and could lift food prices. This case was raised broadly by the Coalition and some crossbench MPs, with several also arguing the model was poorly designed, thin on detail and not properly tested with industry.
Catherine King MP introduced this bill. It was supported by Labor; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
350 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australian exporters of agriculture, fisheries and forestry products would face a new biosecurity protection charge on exports to help fund national biosecurity work.
The charge rate would be set in regulationsLower-level rules that would set the charge rate, decide who pays it, and create exemptions without changing the main law., so governments could adjust what exporters pay without rewriting the Act.
Regulations could decide who in an industry must pay the charge, such as the product owner, the grower, or another relevant person.
Some products or producers could be exempted by regulation, including small producers below a set production amount.
The charge would be calculated without GSTThe broad sales tax that the bill says should be ignored when working out the biosecurity charge., so exporters would not pay the biosecurity charge on the GSTThe broad sales tax that the bill says should be ignored when working out the biosecurity charge. part of a sale price.
The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection charges that are duties of customs in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products that are exported from Australia.Second reading speech
provide for the rate of BPL to be specified or worked out in accordance with regulations to ensure that the rate can be set, and where appropriate, be changed to account for existing circumstances; andAgriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges explanatory memorandum
Allowing the regulations to prescribe the charge payer for each BPL charge would enable the relevant charge to be paid by the most appropriate person in the circumstances. For example, the charge payer could be the owner of the good or product at a point in time, or the grower of the product, or another relevant person in the industry.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges explanatory memorandum
This section would allow the regulations to provide for circumstances under which a BPL would not be imposed in relation to one or more specified products. For example, an exemption may be applied to BPL in circumstances where a producer is growing less than a certain amount of product.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges explanatory memorandum
This section would ensure that BPL is not paid on amounts of GST. For example, if the sale price of a product was $4.40 including GST, the BPL would be calculated on a sale price of $4.00 as the GST exclusive value.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had a national biosecurity system, but the government argued in the 2023-24 Budget that it needed a more predictable, long-term funding base because taxpayers and importers were still carrying most of the cost of guarding agriculture, fisheries and forestry against costly pest and disease outbreaks. This bill was introduced in February 2024 to make exporters contribute through a new charge, then ran into sharp parliamentary opposition over its impact on farmers and fresh food prices, passed the House in March 2024, and was discharged from the Notice PaperThe list of business scheduled for a parliamentary chamber; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active on that list. in February 2025.
Budget commits to a sustainably funded biosecurity system
The explanatory memorandumThe document that explains what the bill is meant to do and how its provisions would work. says the bill package was part of the 2023-24 Budget measure 'Strengthened and Sustainably Funded Biosecurity System' to deliver the government's election commitment on biosecurity funding.
Australian Parliament House ↗Government introduces an export charge to fund biosecurity
In the second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. speech, the government said stronger biosecurity needed predictable long-term funding and presented the new charge as a way for producers to make a modest contribution.
Hansard ↗Coalition brands the measure a tax on farmers
During debate, Coalition speakers said they would oppose the package because it would make Australian farmers pay for biosecurity costs linked to competing imports.
Hansard ↗Debate widens over food prices and industry opposition
Speakers on 20 March argued the charge would lift fresh food costs and pointed to broad opposition from agricultural and horticultural groups.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The third readingThe final vote in a chamber before a bill moves on to the other chamber or finishes passage there. was agreed to, sending the bill to the Senate after it cleared the House of RepresentativesThe lower house of federal Parliament, where the bill was passed before going to the Senate..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is discharged from the Notice PaperThe list of business scheduled for a parliamentary chamber; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active on that list.
The bill did not complete its Senate path and was removed from the Notice PaperThe list of business scheduled for a parliamentary chamber; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active on that list., leaving the proposed export charge unmade.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Committee (21/03/2024): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 74 to 67.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third readingThe final vote in a chamber before a bill moves on to the other chamber or finishes passage there., which completed passage through that chamber.
Third readingThe final vote in a chamber before a bill moves on to the other chamber or finishes passage there. agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill makes Australian farmers and exporters pay for biosecurity risks largely created by imports, which critics said would squeeze producers and could lift food prices. This case was raised broadly by the Coalition and some crossbench MPs, with several also arguing the model was poorly designed, thin on detail and not properly tested with industry.
Criticism focused more on who pays and how the scheme is designed than on the goal of stronger biosecurity.
Farmers paying for imported-risk biosecurity
Critics said the bill puts biosecurity costs onto Australian producers even though much of the risk comes from imported goods, and argued importers or general revenue should carry more of the burden instead.
Higher costs for producers and consumers
Opponents warned the charge would act like a new tax on farm businesses, adding to existing cost pressures and likely being passed through to consumers in higher food prices.
Poor design, weak detail and consultation
Some critics said the bill leaves too much to later regulationsLower-level rules that would set the charge rate, decide who pays it, and create exemptions without changing the main law., was not properly consulted on with farmers, and could create unnecessary administrative burden without clear assurance the money would directly strengthen biosecurity.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 74 to 67. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ms King supports the bill and says it is part of a broader package to create sustainable biosecurity funding for Commonwealth biosecurity work.
Read in Hansard ↗Ramsey says the opposition will reject the bill and scrap the levy because it unfairly makes farmers pay to inspect imports, when the cost should fall on importers.
Read in Hansard ↗Haines opposes the bill and says it should not pass until it is sent back for proper committee scrutinyA detailed review process by a parliamentary committee to test the bill and hear concerns before it proceeds. and the farmers' concerns are addressed.
Read in Hansard ↗Webster says the National PartyThe rural-focused political party whose MPs in the draft argue the bill unfairly shifts costs onto farmers. will oppose the bill because it unfairly makes farmers pay for biosecurity costs that should fall on importers and the broader budget, and she says Labor has not shown genuine industry support or provided enough transparency.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 4 support
“I know, Deputy Speaker Andrews, that you'll be interested to hear about my recent trip to Darwin on 4 March to look at the laboratories, where we saw the incredible work that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry staff do in fighting something as simple as the fruit fly. That's why a strong and well-funded biosecurity system is crucial to Australia, and it's why I rise in support of the three connected bills: the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024. These bills will help to safeguard Australia's biosecurity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 (Charges Bill) is part of a package of bills to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of a new Biosecurity Protection Levy to support Commonwealth sustainable biosecurity funding.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Together, the package of bills will establish a new legislative framework for implementation and management of the biosecurity protection levy to support the government's commitment to sustainable biosecurity funding and the benefits it brings to all Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
20 speakers · 20 oppose
“The opposition has made a clear decision. We will scrap the levy if it should get through the parliament. We will scrap the levy and replace it with an incoming levy on containers. Costs will be met by the importers and rightly passed along to the terminal purchaser. The last person in the chain, the one that actually wants that bottle of truffles, should be the one paying the biosecurity levy. That's as it should be. It's simple, transparent—the user pays—and perfect. That's what the coalition will do, should we get into government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, this biosecurity levy is yet another blow for our farmers, and it yet again shows that Labor is robbing the regions to buy votes in the city.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition cannot support this bill in the cost-of-living crisis we find ourselves in. It doesn't make sense when there are sensible alternatives to be had—ones that were going to be implemented by the former government and ones that this government, if it had the courage of its convictions and if it understood the pressures it was putting on families, would change its mind about and go back to a path of charging those that pose the biosecurity risks to this country, not Australian farmers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The federal coalition firmly opposes Labor's biosecurity protection levy, also known as Labor's fresh food tax. This is a tax that will increase cost-of-living pressures and drive up food prices, impacting families across Australia. This legislation is another example of the Labor government biting the hand that feeds it. The levies will charge Australian farmers for the biosecurity costs of importers. In what universe would the Australian government tax their own farmers to pay for foreigners to bring their products to this country to compete with our own? Ultimately, farmers will be forced to pass on costs if they possibly can, which will mean families will spend more on their fresh food.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There was a much better solution that was proposed by the previous government: a container levy. The principle of that was you make the importer, the person who wants to come in and compete, pay. We're a trading nation—I'm not arguing for protectionism—and if we want to send our goods overseas, we've got to wear the fact that people are going to try to import agricultural goods into this place to compete. But our system said to the Australian farmer, 'We're going to make the person who's importing the food pay.' This new piece of legislation makes the farmer pay a proportion of that. That is a deeply unfair and flawed principle.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In Western Australia, we only have just over 100 dairy farmers left to produce great quality fresh milk. What we don't need is the next tax—and what I see as a lack of respect for what we do in applying this tax in the first place. How many other countries that we export to charge their local farmers for biosecurity measures from the products that we export into those countries? How many other governments actually do that to their farmers? But that is what we've got here: a government that says, 'We're going to tax you farmers to pay for the risk created by those people who are going to put those other products'—I'll use dairy again; there's a lot product that come from overseas—'on our shelves.' They compete with our products every day. What this government is doing is saying: 'Too bad, so sad. You not only have to compete with them on the shelf; you also have to pay for the biosecurity risk that they pose to this country.' This takes some real beating, doesn't it? It just confounds you to think that a government would show this level of disrespect and contempt for its farmers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What I can't work out with this bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, coming forward is that it's yet another cost. It's the easy way out. Seeing that the farming industry is basically putting the money on the plate for Australia—just like the coalminers are and the gas exporters are—then actually help us to do our job and we'll earn you more money. Don't just come in and put your hands back in our pockets to take more money out. This is an isolating industry, and a biosecurity levy is something which is incredibly clumsy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm tired of hearing from farmers right across my electorate who are already struggling under this government. They need help right now—not another Labor policy that makes things even worse. I will not support this package of legislation and I call on the minister of agriculture to do his job, and to put Australian farmers first for a change. It's time to reverse course and to scrap this tax.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Yet here we are, talking about slugging our farmers—our hardworking cockies; the best in the world, make no mistake—with what Labor calls a levy, but I'll call it what it is: a tax—a tax on them to do what? To pay for the biosecurity of their competitors' products coming in from overseas and going onto the same shelves as their own products.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These decisions are not good enough, and I cannot in good conscience support these bills as they are here today. I could not go back to my electorate, look at the people in the face and tell them that I am fighting for regional Australia if I support these bills as they stand today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition strongly opposes this bill, and I support the Leader of the National Party's amendments. In my final contribution—and my apologies to the member who has attended—I'll say this: could those opposite please think about the farming sector? The continual attacks on them and the failure to support them has them exasperated right now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am vehemently against this. I support our agricultural sector. I believe strongly in biosecurity measures; don't get wrong. One infestation of a foreign product, pest, disease or pathogen in our ag sector could bring it down. I get that. We need to protect that. But it's not the responsibility of our domestic Australian farmers, the people doing the right thing, to pay to protect against foreign pests coming into Australia; it should be the responsibility of the person importing that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It makes absolutely no sense, and we will overturn this. We will change it once we get back into government. I urge all the farmers to get out there leading up to the next election and let everybody know what this government has done to them. But I would expect most people, whether farmers or not, would know what this government has done to them, because they are hurting. We will overturn this because it is unfair. Those people who create the risk should be paying for the levy. We will change that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill also lacks detail, like many of the government's bills. We don't know how the levy will be collected. We don't know who the affected producers will be. This is the standard formula for this government: 'We'll work it out after we pass the bill.' That's not acceptable for our farmers and for our community. It is another example of the Albanese Labor government making life harder for the Australian people, making it harder to put food on the table for farmers and for the Australian community.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I do not intend to delay the House any longer. I think I have articulated well enough that this is a tax that is not deserved by a primary industry sector that serves our nation professionally, with integrity, and adopts new technologies in a very sophisticated way to give them global competitiveness. This is an industry that deserves the support of government. This is not an industry that deserves to be treated like this by a government that hasn't consulted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We understand the need for a sustainable funding model for biosecurity, but this levy is not the answer. It unfairly targets our most successful industries and risks jeopardising the very security it aims to achieve. Let's be clear: this tax is a tax on Australian success. Our farmers are world leaders in innovation and productivity. They invest heavily in biosecurity measures, from on-farm biosecurity protocols to cutting-edge technologies. This levy penalises this very investment. Imagine a scenario where a farmer adopts new biosecurity technology only to be hit with a higher levy for their proactive approach. This discourages innovation and hinders our collective biosecurity efforts.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm incredibly disappointed that we have got to this point where we are debating such an important issue and there appears to be a complete lack of empathy or understanding of the issue. This just seems to be an easy hit that makes it appear that the government is doing something—and why not let the farmers pay for it? If you're cynical enough, they're saying, 'They don't vote for us anyway, so they can pay for this.' The short-term impact on farmers is great, but the longer term impact of not having a biosecurity system in place that's robust, paid for by the people that use it and paid for by the people who are introducing risks to this country is greater. This is a very poor, second-rate proposal compared to what we could have. I'm thoroughly disappointed that we've got to this point, and I will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The legislation that has been put forward doesn't actually specify how the levy is going to be collected or what the mechanism is. This is extraordinary. As previous speakers have mentioned, it's kind of reminiscent of the Voice debate, where the government said: 'We're not going to give you any detail. Just trust us once the legislation is through.' I don't think anybody in this place should be voting for and supporting legislation which doesn't actually specify how this tax is going to be collected. It would be an extraordinary precedent that the parliament would pass a piece of legislation that allows for the collection of a tax without having specified the mechanism for how that tax would be collected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in favour of the amendment by the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Maranoa, David Littleproud. The amendment is one that effectively speaks against the bill, and that is what I am doing. I'm speaking against the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. I am doing this is because it is a fundamentally flawed bill. It is an unfair bill. It will not promote agriculture. It will not help our agricultural sector, which is what any biodiversity regulation should be doing. This will actually hold them back. It is unfair.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I won't be supporting the bill. We all understand the importance of biosecurity, but we have a system in place that is fair and equitable. As the former speaker mentioned, we pay for local land services. These are state administered bodies which also look after biosecurity. We can't expect the primary producers of the food and fibre that feed and clothe our nation and our neighbours to continually carry the can.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The Greens will be voting against this bill in the House of Representatives and reserving our final position in the Senate, pending consultations with the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 oppose
“The government must not pass this bill until it goes back to the drawing board to consider the concerns of farmers. I urge them to refer this bill to committee and to do so with care, not rush the bill through parliament. To make biosecurity work in this country, it's critical to have the full support of farmers. With that, I have no more remarks to make at this stage. I wait to see that committee being stood up and this bill going there.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I guess you can tell, Deputy Speaker Chesters, I do not support this bill. I implore the government to investigate alternative approaches that are fair, that are equitable and that are not saying to primary producers in this nation, 'You should bear the cost, to the tune of $153 million, for the risk that importers will cause.' It's not us here. It's not those who were up at four o'clock this morning milking cows. It's not our Australian farmers. It's those from overseas.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This new tax is a very poor way to treat the farmers who have done so much for our country and is a very clumsy and ill-conceived way to fund biosecurity measures. I will be opposing it, and I urge all members of the crossbench in the Senate to join me in voting against it. I also urge other members of the House of Representatives to vote against it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 74 to 67.
Third readingThe final vote in a chamber before a bill moves on to the other chamber or finishes passage there. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third readingThe final vote in a chamber before a bill moves on to the other chamber or finishes passage there., which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where the Senate or House debates whether to agree to the bill in principle., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Discharged from Notice Paper
Discharged from Notice PaperThe list of business scheduled for a parliamentary chamber; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active on that list.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (21 Mar 2024): Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Committee report (10 May 2024)
APH bill page notes
