What we know about the new 10pc biosecurity levy on farmers

From July 2024, a new levy will be introduced "equivalent to 10 per cent of the 2020-21 levy rates".

So for example, a grass-fed cattle producer will pay an extra 50 cents per head, for a total of $5.50.

A cotton producer will pay an extra 22.5c per 227kg bale, while an apple producer will pay an extra 18.45c per kilo, and so on.

READ MORE: Farmers get long-term biosecurity funding, but cop 10pc levy hike

Senator Watt was quick to point out that farmers will only contribute 6 per cent ($47.5m) of the overall biosecurity measures.

Importers will contribute 45pc ($350.9m), while taxpayers will pay 44pc ($363.6m). Online shoppers have been hit with a new biosecurity levy for items under $1000, which will be roughly 40c an item, that will cover 3pc ($27.1m) and Australia Post will cover the remaining 2pc ($15.4m).

Biosecurity cost-recovery fees for larger importers were increased by $5 and the passengers departing Australia will see tickets increase by $10, some of which will go to biosecurity.

"I understand that produces might not be thrilled about the idea of contributing a bit more towards our biosecurity system," Senator Watt said.

"But the reality is that with this new levy, which is only 10 percent of the existing levies that farmers already pay, they will get the biggest injection of biosecurity, funding that our country has ever seen.

"Importers will still pay nearly half the cost of our biosecurity services, with taxpayers picking up almost the rest of it with a small contribution from producers.

"I'm quite happy to go to the average taxpayer whether it be a shop assistant or a hospitality worker and ask them to make a contribution for a strong biosecurity system through their taxes. But I think it's only fair that we ask producers to chip in a little bit as well, given they are beneficiaries of the system."

Many within the industry expected the government to announce a $5 to $10 container levy on importers, which had been proposed and later scrapped by the former government, who cited the pressures of COVID-19 on importing businesses.

Senator Watt said the container levy was still on the table, but there were international trade law issues that had to be worked through.

"I'm quite open to the idea of importing an import or container levy once we've done the work to make sure that it can legally stand up," Senator Watt said.

"We want to have a good, proper look at that, work out the trade law ramifications to make sure that legally it can stand up. We've begun the work to make sure that importers pay their fair share of biosecurity services, but we're also going to further explore the possibility of an import or container levy as well.

"We need to make sure that it's robust and can stand up legally. But we're definitely not ruling it out. It's just that it takes a bit of time to work these issues through and we want to do it properly.

"We saw what happened last time a government went off and knee-jerk announced a container levy and then had to back down."

In short, it hasn't been decided yet. The government will consult with the industry over the next 12 months to work out the best way forward.

It could be done through a new levy, it could be an expansion of current levies, it could be done through new legislation.

Several industry groups have raised concerns that separate levy cannot be introduced without consultation or increased without a vote by producers.

"This will be a new biosecurity protection levy that will be applied to domestic farmers, foresters and fishers," Senator Watt said.

"We felt that the simplest way to implement this was by imposing an additional levy of 10 percent on the existing levies that farmers and others already pay. This will be a separate standalone entity, but it'll be collected in a similar manner.

"We will consult with the industry and the RDCs about the implementation of this. We understand that this is a change and we need to consult on its implementation."

READ MORE: Farmers: New biosecurity levy is a 'bitter pill to swallow'

The government is really hammering home that it has been the agriculture industry that called for long-term sustainable biosecurity funding and that producers still only contribute a small amount compared to importers.

Speaking at an agricultural industry post-budget breakfast, Senator Watt read excerpts from several biosecurity submissions from organisations in the group, who all referred to biosecurity being "a shared responsibility".

"I've been saying in the lead up to this budget that biosecurity is a shared responsibility and we all have a responsibility to contribute to the system, whether it be taxpayers, importers, travellers or producers," Senator Watt said.

"The NFF along with a lot of other industry groups in their submission to our consultation said that the cost of paying for biosecurity should be shared between importers taxpayers and they even mentioned agricultural producers.

"What I'd say to farmers, who will be paying a little bit more for this, is that as a result, they will get the most biosecurity funding that our country has ever seen to protect their industries and protect their livelihoods.

"By paying another few hundred dollars a year - which is probably what works out for most small farmers - they will get over a billion dollars of extra funding for biosecurity.

"That's a small investment to make sure that they're earnings and their livelihoods are protected.

"I think it's important to recognise what a historic moment this is for the agriculture sector to finally have a government that delivers sustainable biosecurity funding for the future."