The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) has welcomed the opportunity to provide a submission to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s inquiry into the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 [Provisions] and related bills. The AFPA and its members remain unequivocally opposed to the introduction of the government’s Biosecurity Protection Levy (BPL) and its enabling legislation. Source: Timberbiz
The key reasons for AFPA’s objections to the BPL are listed below, with further reasons and supporting details provided in its submission. Namely the proposed BPL
- will not result in sustainable funding for biosecurity, as funds collected are not hypothecated to biosecurity (going to consolidated revenue) and may be re-directed to other priorities at any time.
- does not account for the forest sector already funding biosecurity both as a taxpayer and through existing Agricultural levies. The BPL effectively taxes primary producers again.
- is a tax as that does not meet fundamental criteria of Agricultural levies.
- does not reflect “shared responsibility” for biosecurity without levy contributions from importers
- the public, and thereby governments, are the greatest beneficiaries of a strong biosecurity system as well as significant contributors to biosecurity risks through travel and trade.
The AFPA highlights to the committee that it is not the only representative body that holds this position with most of the agriculture peak bodies and associations opposing the BPL.
Public submissions available through Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s “Have your say” consultation platform, voiced serious concerns with the BPL and rejected it as the right funding mechanism to sustain biosecurity.
Separate published assessments by the Australian National University, the Productivity Commission, the Office of Impact Analysis and Frontier Economics all similarly have highlighted the BPL’s overall poor design, inefficiency and unfairness.
Changes suggested by the government following their initial post-budget consultation process in 2023, such as the BPL being calculated on Gross Value of Production or the government’s commitment to provide greater transparency in spending, have not fundamentally changed the concerns with the BPL raised by the AFPA and other industry representative bodies.
The AFPA is conscious of the pressures on resourcing our biosecurity system, we simply do not believe that the BPL represents the right funding model. As a “shared responsibility” the funding of biosecurity should aim to reflect both the benefits derived by all Australians from a strong biosecurity system (not just primary producers) as well as the biosecurity risks created through increasing levels of trade and movement of people into the country. In light of the overwhelming benefits derived by all Australians from free, biosecure travel and trade across our border, adequately resourcing the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s biosecurity responsibilities is clearly a government responsibility.
The AFPA reiterates to the committee its opposition to the introduction of the BPL, but as a responsible partner in biosecurity, it emphasizes its willingness to work with government(s) and other stakeholders to resolve how we could further support Australia’s biosecurity system.
