The Greens have put a major dent in the government's controversial biosecurity protection levy plans, declaring the party will be voting against the legislation in the lower house.
In delivering a two punch blow, it will also push Labor to introduce a container levy "as a matter of priority" to ensure importers "pay their fair share."
In a second reading speech in parliament's Federation Chamber on Wednesday, Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown said the matter was of significant public interest and concern and that amendments to a suite of bills intended to help create a sustainable biosecurity funding model would be pursued in the Senate.
More than a dozen advocacy groups have been "lobbying the crossbench hard" in recent weeks.
A "key concern" for the Greens is the funnelling of collected levy funds into consolidated revenue, instead of the Biosecurity Imported Food and Exports Certification special account, and a lack of transparency and oversight in how the money would be allocated and dispersed.
With the Coalition certain to vote against the Bill in the upper house, the Greens will hold the balance of power but are certain to reserve a final position pending consultations with government.
Ms Watson-Brown said the legislation in its current form "needs work" and increased accountability after "too much money has been wasted" fighting outbreaks from consolidated revenue, such as the invasive red fire ant.
This includes "clear performance measures" against contributions made by primary producers.
She also said the new levy, scheduled to be introduced on July 1, was being pushed onto farmers already doing it tough, including being "forced by the supermarket duopoly to accept rock-bottom prices" for fresh produce.
"It's also reasonable that some farmers are asking why they should pay a levy on the basis of food production when this food passes up through a supply chain where numerous other interests profit from the work of farmers, but in this bill they are not being asked to also contribute," she said.
However, Ms Watson-Brown said the government had somewhat reflected concerns in committing to a taskforce made up of agricultural groups but "we're yet to see the full detail on how this would work or allay farmers concerns."
The matter is expected to be scrutinised by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.
While Liberal and Nationals MPs, including deputy whip Sam Birrell and former Deputy Prime Minister's Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce, expectantly spoke against the bill in droves, tellingly Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie and Independent Federal Member for Indi Helen Haines also backed the Greens stance.
Dr Haines also called on Labor to address "head on" why it will not support a container levy on importers.
"To date they have indicated that it is complex and that such a levy could risk Australia's free trade obligations," she said.
"This may be the case, but primary producers and farmers calling for this are yet to be given a wholly definitive answer, and they need one.
"I urge the government, via the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to communicate a clear and final answer on this point. Let's get clarity."
She also said the government must take its biosecurity protection levy "back to the drawing board" to consider the serious concerns of farmers in order to win their "support, cooperation and backing."
"To make biosecurity work in this country, it's critical to have the full support of farmers," she said.
Last month, the federal government refused to reveal to ACM Agri whether it has or has not provided or received guidance relating to a long-awaited container levy being introduced in Australia due to legal privilege.
Any new levy would also need to satisfy requirements under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Free Trade Agreements.
The agriculture sector has been calling for a sea-freight import charge to be introduced for several years.
While the government was unwilling or unable to provide information around any legal advice that has or has not been provided to Mr Watt, a spokesman said that it had increased revenue from importers by increasing full import declaration charges on July 1 last year.
Ms Haines is also concerned that a departmental report included in Office of Impact Analysis documents published in May last year recommended that the proposed new tax would not impact producers as "some of the biosecurity protection levy cost applied to producers would be passed through the domestic supply chain to consumers."
In Senate estimates earlier this year, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt said the government was "making importers pay their fair share in a way no other government has done."
"We have chosen a range of ways to recoup the funding," he said.
"The biosecurity protection levy is one of them. There has been an increase on the passenger movement charge. We've introduced a small charge on certain items coming through Australia Post that weren't previously charged for biosecurity.
"There's a range of ways that we've come up with the funding, but we did feel that producers, as significant beneficiaries of the biosecurity system, should be asked to pay a very small contribution towards a system that keeps their livelihoods intact."
