Opinion: Biosecurity levy block underlines farmers' Labor pains

On May 11, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Murray Watt made a far-reaching announcement that theoretically ended the live sheep by sea export industry and elicited widespread rage and disappointment from the agriculture industry.

The ban is a legacy ALP policy formed in 2018. But while it was a longtime coming Mr Watt understandably thinks he will unlikely face a harder ministerial duty.

The forced shutting down of an industry is a brutal business and only the hardest of hearts would not sympathise with those losing their livelihoods.

Which is why ag stakeholders have expressed disappointment that the government's briefing on the 2028 shutdown date was delivered to them with animal welfare groups also on the call, cheering on the move while quizzing lawmakers why it would not be sooner.

The lingering allegation and optics is that Labor is as mindful of the impact of its decision-making on-farm as well as on inner city green and niche vested interest groups.

That the government denies this accusation without either enthusiasm or detail bites for the ag industry.

Then on May 14, as the government machine was revving towards announcing the budget that evening, crossbench senators told Mr Watt that they would be opposing the equally contentious biosecurity protection levy legislation prior to its scheduled tabling later in the day.

The news would have somewhat sideswiped the minister after a Labor-led Senate inquiry report last Friday suggested the BPL should be passed by the upper house, although it was accompanied by a dissenting report.

Mr Watt was also eyeing the week as signalling a shift by somewhat putting both the levy and live sheep issues in the rear view mirror to shift government focus, and that of the industry, to sustainability and reducing on-farm emissions under the Agriculture and Land Sectoral Plan.

Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson told ACM-Agri that while the party supported bolstering biosecurity, it would not cop a BPL "to specifically tax farmers" and that the BPL was poor policy in principle and design and had zero buy-in from the agricultural sector.

The seriousness of the Greens' stance cannot be underestimated as a key consideration for its party room, following private industry meetings earlier this year, was how supporters and political enemies would assess a move to stop legislation that sought to beef-up enviromental protections.

But Mr Whish-Wilson ultimately opined that the BPL's consultation was rushed and inadequate and pondered why Labor had not included supply chain stakeholders who benefit from farmers' food and fibre, like "the profiteering supermarket duopoly", were not also being slugged.

Mr Watt returned serve by saying that the Coalition and Greens had consigned taxpayers to foot the bill for increased biosecurity funding "instead of an industry contribution" and that it was a "shame" the agriculture industry does not feel the need to contribute to the government's sustainable biosecurity model.

There are several ways to look at the BPL conundrum and the open-minded would suggest they all have some merit. It is that sort of issue.

But there is a common theme in many of the arguments lodged by industry over the government's handling of the BPL and its pre-COVID-era live sheep policy. These include a lack of consultation, equity, upfront economic and scientific evidence and, in the case of sheep, flexibility in acknowledging improvements to the industry since 2018.

But it is doubtful that a then broke Deparment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry thought that far when offering the idea to Mr Watt in 2022.

And certainly, DAFF officials grilled at the BPL senate committee inquiry last month, and just three months before it was to be operational, exposed how much work was left undone and how ad hoc its formulation has been. And senators were clearly not impressed.

This included Independent Senator for the ACT David Pocock who asked for the government's legal advice as to why it would not introduce a sea-freight import charge, or container levy, to be tabled for the committee.

He was told the minister may use a public interest indemnity trigger to stop the advice being handed over, Mr Pocock replied that he hoped the advice would be provided, saying that "if this whole thing (BPL) is hinging on you telling us that. I'd love to see it".

The report was not provided.

ACM-Agri subsequently asked DAFF what area of government provided the legal advice, what was the lawyer's area of speciality and if it was even provided by a qualified lawyer.

Its response has been that "legal advice is obtained in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2017". It was a step forward, however, with the department in February not even willing to acknowledge that it had received the legal advice.

There are clearly heads being scratched over the secrecy around the issue.

Meanwhile, there was a $63m package delivered in the May 14 budget to kickstart the agriculture and land sector sustainability journey, but while the industry has some reasonable clues as to the direction the government might take, it says it remains mostly in the dark.

There is no doubt Mr Watt has put a lot time and effort into the program's architecture and is holding a summit next week to fill in some of those gaps.

But, again, announcing the policy, filling in the details later.

Like the renewables rollout, live sheep ban, the BPL, water buybacks and a handful of other things including the government's radical restructure of where farmers can source workers.

There is no doubt that Mr Watt and the government have secured great benefits for agriculture, particularly in growing market access, sustainable biosecurity despite the BPL resistence, labour to a point, sustainability and decarbonisation with the promise of more to come, drought-resilience and traceability and, with his other hat on, natural disaster preparedness and mitigation of the impacts of severe weather.

But it can also be argued that some of the bigger wins ag has enjoyed since May 2022 when Labor won government are more a by-product of wider government targets or policy, like reopening trade into China and its war on supermarket prices as a cost-of-living concern more than concern about farmers rates which is nothing new.

The $22 billion Future Made in Australia budget announcement emphasised that the government is focused on critical mineral extraction and needs an economy-wide effort to hit net-zero targets. Its releasing of hundreds of millions to build a clean energy workforce from scratch a slap in the face for an $80b industry that has been asking for polices to increase attraction and retention of workers for years.

The government likely made the snap live sheep announcement on a Saturday because that was the spot available and the minister wanted to announce the plan before industry found out on Budget night.

It also promised that enabling legislation to stop the live sheep trade will be introduced in the current term of parliament.

The timing then becomes interesting. There is little doubt the Coalition will fight the red-hot ag issue all the way and the Senate tearing the policy apart, finding gaps and issues as it did the BPL is not something Labor wants before entering caretaker mode.

Admittedly it is less likely to be blocked given the Greens support the ban, but the party has also called for an end to all live livestock exports by sea. And Labor does not want this narrative stealing headlines in the cattle country of WA and Queensland where it needs to win seats to not fall into minority government - or worse.