Importer cost-recovery biosecurity model coming by end of the year: Agriculture Minister David Littleproud

David Littleproud and the government have been under increasing pressure about the nation's biosecurity funding, which the agriculture industry says is insufficient compared to the cost of an outbreak, the risk of which has increased exponentially in the past two years.

But Mr Littleproud said the Inspector-General of Biosecurity had informed him biosecurity funding was adequate for now, and refused to be browbeaten into spending money for the sake of spending money.

"Any decision we make on biosecurity, shouldn't be from emotion, shouldn't be from the sidelines - it should be from the science," Mr Littleproud said.

"No one who is asking for more money knows what they want to spend it on, because they don't have the science."

National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar reiterated his organisation was regularly meeting with the same departmental staff and scientists who were advising the Agriculture Minister - including DAWE biosecurity deputy secretary Andrew Tongue and Chief Veterinary Officer Mark Schipp - and NFF was fully aware of the risk.

Mr Mahar also rejected Mr Littleproud's claim the agriculture industry was asking for money without any idea about what to spend it on.

"What we want is a sustainable funding model to support biosecurity in the long-term," Mr Mahar said.

At the start of 2020, the government scrapped its proposed importer levy, which would have raised $120m for biosecurity every year, due to concerns the pandemic would have on importing businesses.

The levy would have taxed importers $10 per 20-foot container and $1 a tonne for imported non-containerised cargo.

Mr Littleproud revealed the government has ditched the levy proposal in favour of a cost-recovery model, which he wants "up and going by the end of the year".

"We are at a stage now where the roundtables and consultation is about done, and we've finally got the [import] industry to understand the risks," Mr Littleproud said.

"They understand that we need to move towards this because we're going from around 5 million containers to about 8.5 million containers by the end of the decade.

"Different importers will pay different prices and that'll depend on what service we have to provide."

The cost-recovery model would be more transparent than a levy, Mr Littleproud said, and would allow importers to "what they're paying for".

Mr Mahar said a cost-recovery model imposed on importers - not primary producers - was a step in the right direction, but wanted to see more details before giving a final verdict.

READ MORE:

Start the day with all the big news in agriculture! Sign up below to receive our daily Farmonline newsletter.