This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Industry, agriculture & resources
Australia would get a new way to collect biosecurity protection levies and charges from agricultural, forestry and fisheries producers, including goods sold in Australia or overseas.
Australia’s biosecurity system needed more sustainable funding, while producers who benefit directly were not yet making a modest direct contribution. This bill creates the collection and enforcement system for a new biosecurity levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. on agricultural, forestry and fisheries producers, including through collection agents.
Australia’s biosecurity system was already funded mainly by taxpayers and importers, but the government said producers who directly benefited from pest and disease protection and access to premium export markets were not yet making a modest direct contribution, so it pursued a more sustainable funding model in the 2023-24 Budget. This bill responded by creating the collection and enforcement machinery for a new biosecurity protection levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. across agriculture, forestry and fisheries supply chains, and the package moved from budget commitment and impact analysis to introduction in February 2024 and House passage in March 2024.
The main criticism was that the bill would put a new biosecurity cost on farmers and other producers even though critics said imported goods create much of the risk, so the charge could squeeze farm margins and lift food prices. This argument was raised strongly by Coalition and crossbench speakers, with some critics also saying the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. was poorly consulted on and should have faced more scrutiny before proceeding.
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
Australia would get a new way to collect biosecurity protection levies and charges from agricultural, forestry and fisheries producers, including goods sold in Australia or overseas.
Middlemen such as buyers or processors could be made responsible for paying the same amount on a producer’s behalf, making collection easier across farming, forestry and fishing supply chains.
People or businesses that pay late could face a daily penalty based on a 2% monthly rate, although the Agriculture Department SecretaryThe senior official who can require information, approve forms, and in some cases waive penalties under the bill. could waive some or all of it.
Producers and collection agents could be fined or penalised if they do not lodge required returns, notices, or records, with infringement notices and civil penalties available for less serious breaches.
The Agriculture Department SecretaryThe senior official who can require information, approve forms, and in some cases waive penalties under the bill. could demand documents and information to run the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system., while staff who misuse protected business or personal information could face criminal or civil penalties.
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 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 and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum
This section would enable collection agents to secure payment of levy or charge imposed in relation to products or goods. Collection agents would facilitate the efficient and cost-effective collection of a significant proportion of biosecurity protection levies and charges.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum
For example, the Secretary may decide to remit the whole or part of an amount of a late payment penalty in circumstances where the person or business did not make a payment on time for reasons beyond their control. Matters beyond a person’s control could relate to business, family or personal, financial, or medical matters.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum
Infringement notices and civil penalties would be used to allow the Department to respond proportionately to levy payers, charge payers and collection agents who are non-compliant with their obligations under the Act. Infringement notices and civil penalties, in addition to the criminal penalties, would allow for proportionate and appropriate penalties for contraventions of the proposed Act.Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum
The Secretary may require from a person information or documents relevant to the operation of this Act or the rules;Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s biosecurity system was already funded mainly by taxpayers and importers, but the government said producers who directly benefited from pest and disease protection and access to premium export markets were not yet making a modest direct contribution, so it pursued a more sustainable funding model in the 2023-24 Budget. This bill responded by creating the collection and enforcement machinery for a new biosecurity protection levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. across agriculture, forestry and fisheries supply chains, and the package moved from budget commitment and impact analysis to introduction in February 2024 and House passage in March 2024.
Impact analysis for the Biosecurity Protection LevyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. is published
The Office of Impact Analysis published the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. impact analysis, giving formal policy support to the plan for producers to cover about six per cent of system costs.
Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum ↗Budget commits to a sustainably funded biosecurity system
The explanatory memorandum says the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. package formed part of the 2023-24 Budget measure to strengthen and sustainably fund the Commonwealth biosecurity systemAustralia’s national system for keeping pests and diseases out and protecting agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and trade..
Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces the biosecurity levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. collection billThis bill does not set the size of the levy itself. It sets up how the levy would be collected, enforced, and administered.
The minister introduced the bill as part of a package to collect and administer a new producer levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. intended to support sustainable biosecurity funding.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at third readingThe final stage of debate in the House on a bill before it is sent to the other chamber or finished., advancing the plan to use levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. rules, collection agents and modern enforcement powers to gather the new charge.
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
Recorded vote: 74 to 67.
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 readingThe final stage of debate in the House on a bill before it is sent to the other chamber or finished., which completed passage through that chamber.
Third readingThe final stage of debate in the House on a bill before it is sent to the other chamber or finished. 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 bill would put a new biosecurity cost on farmers and other producers even though critics said imported goods create much of the risk, so the charge could squeeze farm margins and lift food prices. This argument was raised strongly by Coalition and crossbench speakers, with some critics also saying the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. was poorly consulted on and should have faced more scrutiny before proceeding.
Criticism focused mainly on who should pay and on consultation, not on rejecting stronger biosecurity itself.
Farmers paying for risks critics say importers create
Opponents argued the bill unfairly makes Australian farmers, fishers and foresters help fund protection against biosecurity risks that largely come from imported goods, and said importers or general revenue should carry more of the cost instead.
Higher costs flowing to farms and consumers
Critics said the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. would operate as a fresh food tax or extra production cost, reducing already thin farm margins and likely being passed through supply chains to consumers and regional communities.
Poor consultation and rushed design
Some opponents said the levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system. framework lacked detail, was not properly developed with industry, and should have been sent to committee or delayed until farmers' concerns were properly addressed.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
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 as part of a package to create a new framework for collecting and administering the biosecurity protection levyThe new levy the bill is built around. It is the charge producers would help pay to fund Australia’s biosecurity system., which she says will underpin sustainable biosecurity funding.
Read in Hansard ↗Rowan Ramsey says the opposition will reject the bill because it unfairly makes farmers pay for biosecurity checks on imports, which he says should be funded by importers instead.
Read in Hansard ↗Haines opposes the bill and says it should not pass until the government sends it to committee and properly addresses farmers' concerns.
Read in Hansard ↗Webster says the Nationals will oppose the bill because it unfairly makes farmers pay for biosecurity risks created by importers and travellers, and because industry has not been properly consulted.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 4 support
“The Nationals' amendment seeks to criticise the government for changing its mind on how the biosecurity protection levy is calculated. However, this is the result of genuine consultation with industry. Labor governments listen to feedback. As a result, we have made our new levy more equitable, more proportionate and more transparent, and we will continue to listen through the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel. As I said, I'm sure we will hear fear campaigns springing from those opposite, but I commend this bill to the House with pride.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As a cattle producer I am happy to contribute more via a levy if we can help build a stronger properly funded biosecurity system that properly protects our livestock and plant industries NOW and into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Collection Bill provides for the collection and administration of biosecurity protection levies and charges, including through the making of rules. The Bill will trigger monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, and will thus provide access to a set of modern and flexible compliance and enforcement tools, as well as information management, and offences and civil penalties.”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
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:”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.”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 ↗
“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. I know that it's biosecurity on us sending things out, but is it coming in from the other direction? Are things coming into Australia going to be hit with this levy? Is it going to hit them, or just us? Of course the answer to that is that it's pretty crook: the competition doesn't get the levy but we do. We have to make sure that what we do for our nation assists our nation to become stronger.”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 ↗
“That is why I can't understand why there are very few, if any, speakers from the Labor side. I saw and appreciate that the member for Moreton is on the list. He speaks on most pieces of legislation, and good on him for speaking. I can't understand why, when we are in a cost-of-living crisis, why every Labor member isn't speaking on this bill, particularly every Labor regional member. They should be defending what they're doing and explaining what this bill is all about, because the essence of this bill will mean that consumers will pay more at the grocery checkout. They'll pay more for their food. They'll pay more for their vegetables. They'll pay more, whether its imported food or whether it is home-grown, fresh produce.”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 ↗
“What does the Labor government do to thank our Australian farmers for the $100 billion industry and the 12 per cent of GDP, for getting out of bed before sparrow's fart? It puts another tax on them, through the agricultural biosecurity protection levy. It's a tax.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But, to make it even more ridiculous, this levy is not going to be charged on profits; it's going to be charged on revenue, which shows no understanding of the cost base, the profits or the loss that farmers go through.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will firstly give an overview of my electorate, situated in Queensland, in which the largest contributor to GDP is agriculture. Beef production is No. 2 and horticulture is No. 1. All of my growers—my horticulturalists and my graziers—are captured by this. I look around this Chamber, to my coalition colleagues to my left and my right, and I see how instrumental agriculture is to both of the members in this House. The reason why they're in this Chamber is not to have the argument, not to just participate in the debate, but to genuinely encourage this government to reconsider a very poorly constructed piece of legislation, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024. It's poorly constructed for a number of reasons. This afternoon I had the great privilege of spending some quality time with two growers from my region, who are in the parliament today for another function being hosted in Parliament House. Both of them, without prompting, raised this piece of legislation as a catastrophic concern for them moving forward.”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.”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 ↗
“I rise to make it be contribution on the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the related bill. There are some genuine concerns with what the government is doing with this package, concerns which I don't think are resolved by the material we've been provided with, and so I'd like to indicate that I will be opposing the bill.”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. Our hardworking farmers simply deserve better.”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 agreed to
Recorded vote: 74 to 67.
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 readingThe final stage of debate in the House on a bill before it is sent to the other chamber or finished. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third readingThe final stage of debate in the House on a bill before it is sent to the other chamber or finished., 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 Paper
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
