THE government's controversial biosecurity protection levy has again come under attack with a highly-respected industry advocate and recipient of a national biosecurity prize urging the government to abandon the plan.
The levy, scheduled to begin on July 1, was recently rejigged by government to be based on the gross value of production for each commodity "to ensure it's more equitable and more transparent."
However, an the Australia National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute has released a briefing paper finding that the revamped levy "does not pass critical scrutiny" and was "at odds with standard tax practice."
It said that "given the list of weaknesses of the proposed BPL, an alternative policy approach is desirable" and suggested several options including a setting targeting importers.
"A tax on those who create the most biosecurity risk could be introduced to align the marginal private cost with the marginal social cost, creating an efficient market outcome," it said.
"The revised policy's approach of setting the levy according to industry GVP is at odds with standard tax practice".
National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said the report supporter producer concerns that the levy is "a flawed policy."
"The Minister has shown a willingness to listen, having attempted to tweak the proposal in recent weeks, however it is now clear that the policy should not proceed in its current form," he said.
"Producers have welcomed increased contributions from taxpayers and travellers to biosecurity efforts.
"And have made it clear that we are more than willing to work with government on ways the agricultural sector can contribute to strengthening our Australia's biosecurity system, but this policy is simply not the way to do it."
Meanwhile, Trevor Ranford, a leading horticulture industry advocate and recipient of the 2022 Australian Biosecurity Award for Industry, has called on prime minister Anthony Albanese to abandon the policy that will collect about $48 million annually from "hard-working farmers."
"Primary producers have been paying their share for Australian biosecurity for the past 26 years, and this new tax is nothing more than 'double dipping' by the government to try and improve its budget bottom line," he said.
"These businesses have invested in dealing with biosecurity as part of their day-to-day routine - managing endemic and exotic pests and diseases, on-farm surveillance, on-farm biosecurity, and much more."
Mr Ranford also said he was already "seeing large numbers of growers walking away" due to high production costs, cost-of-living expenses, increased workforce regulation and recent industrial relations changes.
"And now the straw that will break the camel's back - a $50 million annual biosecurity tax," he said.
