The government's controversial biosecurity protection levy legislation has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for scrutiny.
The levy is scheduled to be up-and-running on July 1 which means the committee has been given a sharp turnaround time to report by May 10.
It has encouraged producers and other stakeholders to table their concerns by making a submission to the inquiry.
Meanwhile, in a gruelling week for the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 [Provisions] and related bills, crossbenchers took a stand against the levy in the Federation Chamber and widely called for the introduction of a container levy to be slapped on importers instead.
While Liberal and Nationals MPs, including former Deputy Prime Minister's Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce, stood against the bill in droves, tellingly the Greens, Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie and Independent Federal Member for Indi Helen Haines also said they would also be voting against the bills in the lower house.
Debate will resume next week.
Grain Producers Australia chair and Western Australia farmer Barry Large said the inquiry was critical to explore the range of issues with the levy raised by industry.
He also said the level of opposition expressed during the debate "clearly indicated" the MPs has assessed the legislation on its merits after meeting with producers.
"From day one, GPA has said the devil's in the detail of this proposal and (the) debate clearly demonstrated this fact," Mr Large, who also met with Agriculture Minister Murray Watt this week to reaffirm opposition to the levy, said.
"The more independent scrutiny that's applied to this policy, the more questions it raises.
"A robust process is needed, and radical overhaul required, before this proposal can actually pass the fairness and equity tests and be supported by producers."
The protection levy will collect about $47.5 million from producers per annum as part of the government's new $1 billion sustainable biosecurity funding model.
Meanwhile, Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown said in parliament on Wednesday that the matter was of significant public interest and that the party was particularly concerned with 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, who have reserved a final position pending consultations with government, will hold the balance of power.
Ms Watson-Brown said the legislation in its current form "needs work" and increased accountability, including "clear performance measures" against contributions made by primary producers.
Another of those "deeply concerned" with the levy is Centre Alliance MP for Mayo Rebekha Sharkie who implored the government to replace it with a "fair" and "equitable" alternative.
She also drew the attention of the House , "and in fact the nation", to the "rather galling" lack of government speakers on the bill, and that it was debated in the off-Broadway Federation Chamber and not the House of Representatives.
"This is a critical bill on biosecurity and when I look at the list of who is speaking on it, we have a long list when it comes to the opposition and also regional members on the crossbench," she said.
"But, apart from one speaker that I can see, nobody from the government side, apart from the minister, has actually come into this place and prosecuted the argument for this tax on farmers."
There are 1965 agriculture, forestry and fishery businesses in the Mayo electorate, 1,934 of those are small businesses with less than 20 employees that Ms Sharkie said were "being squeezed out of existence" due to rising income costs, industrial relations changes and supermarket duopolies dictating prices.
She also said it was "nonsensical" that primary producers would be paying a levy for the biosecurity risks created by importers.
"No peak body is supporting this bill. None. Not one. In fact, this has united all primary production peak bodies against it," she said
"We are now coming towards the end of March. This is supposed to be implemented by 1 July. Again, it's nonsensical. It's a bad bill, it's poorly consulted on.
"The other issue is that our farmers already pay around $500 million worth of levies. This levy is wrong. The minister needs to go back to the drawing board and work with the community and work with industry to get this right."
Ms Sharkie also said while it was possible the levy could be passed to consumers, she doubts it as "farmers are not price makers; they are price takers."
However, the government last month delivered two significant announcements it hoped would assuage criticism following consultation into the legislation that had repeatedly raised issues around equity and transparency.
Firstly, it shifted from the originally proposed 10 per cent rate on top of all existing levies collection formulation, to one based on the gross value of production to draw in those commodities currently not paying levies.
It also created a new Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel comprised of agricultural industry representatives to help oversee the transition of funds through the process, however the terms of reference for that panel are yet to be provided to members.
Meanwhile, in Senate estimates earlier this year Senator 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."
Dr Haines also urged for the committee to be given "a decent amount of time" for submissions to be made to the inquiry and "real, genuine" scrutiny to be undertaken and concerns to be addressed.
