This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Industry, agriculture & resources
Australian farm, forestry and fishing producers would start paying a new biosecurity levy to help fund national protection against pests and diseases, adding about 6 per cent of total system costs.
Australia’s biosecurity system needed a more sustainable funding base, with taxpayers and importers covering more than nine in every ten dollars even though producers directly benefit. This bill creates a new producer levy to raise about 6 per cent of costs and lets rates be set and adjusted in regulationsRules made later by government that would set the levy rate and decide which products or producers are covered..
In the 2023-24 Budget, the government said Australia’s biosecurity system needed steadier long-term funding because producers benefited from protection against costly pest and disease outbreaks while taxpayers and importers were still covering most of the bill, and debate sharpened as threats such as foot-and-mouth disease near Australia’s borders were cited alongside warnings from opponents that a new farm levy would lift food costs. The bill responded by creating a producer levy to fund about 6 per cent of system costs, passed the House in March 2024, but the package did not complete Parliament and was discharged from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list of business to be dealt with; this bill was removed from it, which meant it did not finish the process. in February 2025.
The main criticism was that the levy makes Australian farmers pay for biosecurity risks largely created by imports, adding another cost to producers already under pressure and potentially flowing through to food prices. That case was raised broadly by Coalition speakers and several crossbench MPs, who mostly argued the burden should fall on importers or general revenue and some also said the bill was poorly designed and inadequately consulted on.
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
3 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
350 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australian farm, forestry and fishing producers would start paying a new biosecurity levy to help fund national protection against pests and diseases, adding about 6 per cent of total system costs.
The bill would add the biosecurity levy on top of some existing industry levies, so producers already paying a prescribed levyAn existing industry levy that some producers already pay, which this bill says the new biosecurity levy could sit on top of. could also be charged this extra amount.
The government would set the levy rate later in regulationsRules made later by government that would set the levy rate and decide which products or producers are covered., letting it change rates for different products when circumstances change instead of locking one rate into the ActThe main law passed by Parliament; the bill would put the levy framework into an Act and leave some details for regulations..
The levy could be extended by regulation to more primary industry products and to nursery production inputs, with exemptions allowed, such as for growers below a minimum production amount.
The levy would be calculated without counting GSTA broad sales tax that is excluded when working out the levy, so the charge applies only to the price before GST., so if a price includes GSTA broad sales tax that is excluded when working out the levy, so the charge applies only to the price before GST. the biosecurity levy would only apply to the GSTA broad sales tax that is excluded when working out the levy, so the charge applies only to the price before GST.-free part.
The BPL is one component of the larger 2023-24 Budget measure ‘Strengthened and Sustainably Funded Biosecurity System’ which would implement the Government’s election commitment to sustainably fund Australia’s biosecurity system. The BPL will generate revenue to contribute around six per cent of the costs of a sustainably funded biosecurity system. It will supplement much larger contributions from taxpayers and importers, that between them will contribute more than nine out of every ten dollars needed to fund our biosecurity system. The Bills enable BPL to be payable by producers of agricultural, forestry and fisheries goods and products, whether produced for domestic or overseas markets.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies explanatory memorandum
The effect of subsection 7(1) would be to impose BPL on products or goods, or on a transaction, act or thing in relation to a product or goods subject to an existing levy under the old levy law (as defined in section 4 of the proposed Act); or regulations made for the purposes of Part 2 or 4 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 2024; and the existing levy provision prescribed by regulations made under this Act.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies explanatory memorandum
By providing for certain BPL settings to be located in the regulations, rather than split between the Act and the regulations, the proposed Act would increase accessibility for industry in understanding BPL settings and would provide the necessary flexibility for rates of BPL to be adjusted where necessary and appropriate.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies explanatory memorandum
The effect of this section would be to allow the regulations to provide for circumstances under which a BPL would not be imposed in relation to one or more specified products or goods. For example, an exemption may be applied to a BPL in circumstances where a producer is growing less than a certain amount of product.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies 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) Levies explanatory memorandum
Context
In the 2023-24 Budget, the government said Australia’s biosecurity system needed steadier long-term funding because producers benefited from protection against costly pest and disease outbreaks while taxpayers and importers were still covering most of the bill, and debate sharpened as threats such as foot-and-mouth disease near Australia’s borders were cited alongside warnings from opponents that a new farm levy would lift food costs. The bill responded by creating a producer levy to fund about 6 per cent of system costs, passed the House in March 2024, but the package did not complete Parliament and was discharged from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list of business to be dealt with; this bill was removed from it, which meant it did not finish the process. in February 2025.
Budget announces a stronger, sustainably funded biosecurity system
The explanatory memorandumThe supporting document that explains what the bill is meant to do and how the government says it would work. says the levy package was part of the 2023-24 Budget measure to put Australia’s biosecurity system on a more predictable long-term funding base.
Australian Parliament House ↗Government introduces the producer biosecurity levy bill
The government introduced the bill as part of a package to make producers contribute a new share of national biosecurity costs.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Foot-and-mouth disease threat near Australia’s borders sharpens the case for biosecurity funding
During debate, MPs pointed to the recent foot-and-mouth disease threat close to Australia as a concrete reminder of the economic damage a major outbreak could cause.
Hansard ↗Opposition brands the levy a fresh food tax
Coalition MPs argued the measure would shift importer-related costs onto farmers and flow through to grocery prices during a cost-of-living squeeze.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at third reading, sending the producer levy package on to the next stage of Parliament.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is discharged from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list of business to be dealt with; this bill was removed from it, which meant it did not finish the process.
The bill was removed from the Senate Notice PaperThe parliamentary list of business to be dealt with; this bill was removed from it, which meant it did not finish the process., leaving the proposed producer-funded levy without final parliamentary approval.
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 reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading 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 bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 74 to 65.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading 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 reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the levy makes Australian farmers pay for biosecurity risks largely created by imports, adding another cost to producers already under pressure and potentially flowing through to food prices. That case was raised broadly by Coalition speakers and several crossbench MPs, who mostly argued the burden should fall on importers or general revenue and some also said the bill was poorly designed and inadequately consulted on.
Criticism was substantial, but it centred more on who should pay and bill design than on opposing biosecurity protection itself.
Farmers paying for import risks
Critics argued the bill puts the cost of managing pests and diseases onto Australian producers even though imports are a major source of the risk. They said biosecurity is a national protection function and that importers, or the budget, should bear more of the cost instead of farmers.
Extra costs for producers and consumers
Opponents said the levy would squeeze farm margins during a cost-of-living crunch and could be passed through into higher grocery prices. They described it as a fresh tax on regional Australia and warned it would add pressure to sectors already carrying heavy costs.
Poor design, detail and consultation
Some critics said the bill left too much to later regulationsRules made later by government that would set the levy rate and decide which products or producers are covered., lacked transparency about how the levy would work in practice, and had not been properly consulted on with affected producers. They argued it should be revised or sent for closer scrutiny before proceeding.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Passed 74 to 65. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 62 to 77. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
The House rejected the opposition’s alternative biosecurity funding proposal, allowing the bill’s second reading to continue without that statement being added.
Senate
Moved by McKenzie. Defeated 30 to 35. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This rejected the critical part of the motion and left the Senate without endorsing the call to scrap the proposed biosecurity levy package.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ms King supports the bill, saying it will create a new biosecurity levy to fund CommonwealthThe federal Australian government, which would collect and use the levy for national biosecurity work. biosecurity work and help protect farmers, the economy, and the environment.
Read in Hansard ↗Ramsey says the opposition will not back the bill because it wrongly makes farmers pay for biosecurity checks on imported goods instead of charging importers, and he says the levy lacks detail, consultation and a clear method of collection.
Read in Hansard ↗Haines opposes the bill and says she will vote against it because she thinks the levy is badly designed, inadequately consulted on, and unfair to farmers in regional Australia.
Read in Hansard ↗Webster opposes the bill, saying the biosecurity levy unfairly makes farmers pay for risks created by importers and other sectors.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 4 support
“As I said, government, industry and the community: three pillars.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We can argue about fairness and the prospect of a new tax year after year till the cows come home.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Government's structural reforms to biosecurity funding will bolster the Australian biosecurity system and ensure it continues to be recognised as among the best in the world. This package of bills will establish a new legislative framework that contributes to us maintaining our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, and protecting our farmers, economy, and environment from biosecurity risks, now and into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government's structural reforms to biosecurity funding will bolster the Australian biosecurity system and ensure it continues to be recognised as among the best in the world. This package of bills will establish a new legislative framework that contributes to us maintaining our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, and protecting our farmers, economy, and environment from biosecurity risks, now and into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
20 speakers · 20 oppose
“This is a bad bill and it should be condemned.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“If you ever needed an example of the disconnect between the Australian Labor Party and regional Australia, this bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, is it. My National Party colleagues have queued up to speak on this bill because we have rarely seen a bill unite our farming sector like this one does. It is not positive for Labor. The peak bodies in agriculture and horticulture, as well as farmers in my electorate of Mallee, oppose this levy—specifically the element of hitting farmers for the costs brought into their farm gate by importers.”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 ↗
“Let's be really frank here: this is just another Labor government tax. It's either another direct tax on farmers or a tax on fresh food, as the member has just spoken about. It's cost-shifting by the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But what this says to farmers is, 'For your labours and your endeavours in the job that you do'—which is an inherently moral and good occupation, one of feeding and clothing people—'we're going to find another arbitrary tax and flick it your way.' When really, if you gave some diligent thought about how to do it, you would find so many better alternatives that would be able to fund the $153 million.”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.”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. When it comes to the international playing field, we're expected to pay a levy as we export into foreign countries. Why shouldn't it be the same way in the opposite direction, for those importing? There should be user-pay arrangements whereby the person, business or country that's bringing those products in is responsible. And, quite frankly, they expect to pay.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The member for Riverina is so correct: it is unfair. The government is happy to take the money in the coffers from the work that our farmers do and then, on the other side, punish them for the work that they do. 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 ↗
“But that's why bills like these are so abhorrent. Farmers can't control the weather. They can't control if their crop gets destroyed by hail or by flooding or by any other disaster. But we can control the inputs and the impost that we put on farmers. This is putting an unacceptable impost on farmers.”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 ↗
“Today I stand alongside my fellow coalition colleagues in resolute opposition to Labor's biosecurity protection levy, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. This is simply a fresh food tax. It is a poorly disguised attack on our farmers, a burden on Australian families and a missed opportunity for collaboration on a critical national food security issue.”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 ↗
“I rise this evening to speak on and strongly oppose the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024.”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. Once this is there, we'll get a lot of low-margin food and fibre production, which may have a margin of only 10 per cent or lower, depending on what the commodity prices are, coming in.”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
“I hold concerns that these bills are not good for regional Australia and they're not good enough for the farmers in my electorate. I'm concerned about the consultation process that the government undertook in designing these bills, a process that does not demonstrate to me truly good governance. I will be voting against the bills at this time, until I can see that the government have listened to the farmers and primary producers that are so vital to feeding and clothing all of us.”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 ↗
“I will be opposing the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the other legislation which ushers in a new tax for Australia's farmers. Our farmers make an extraordinary contribution to the life of our nation. They feed and clothe Australians and many people around the globe. They battle drought, floods, bushfires, plagues and way too much government red tape. Agricultural production has been a crucial plank in the economic success of Australia. In 2022-23 the value of agricultural exports reached $79.9 billion, which was a record high. Given this extraordinary contribution, it is outrageous that our farmers should be slugged with a new tax to pay for biosecurity, which is the responsibility of all Australians, not just farmers. It's also concerning that, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, the government is going to add to agricultural production costs, which will end up making this crisis even worse.”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 reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading 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 reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 74 to 65.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, 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 reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Discharged from Notice Paper
Discharged from Notice PaperThe parliamentary list of business to be dealt with; this bill was removed from it, which meant it did not finish the process.
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
