With the recent decision by the agriculture minister Julie Collins to scrap the Biosecurity Protection Levy we go back to square one with a grossly underfunded Biosecurity budget.

Vaccinating small holder cattle in Indonesia.

And once again the issue of biosecurity with an election coming becomes a political football – but who is actually listening?

The risks for agriculture with an underfunded biosecurity system are enormous.

A Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak would cost the Australian production and processing sectors $14.6 billion in year one, or $82 billion in a full blown outbreak over 10 years.

A Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) outbreak would also cost the livestock sector $7.39 billion in year one in lost market access. (See tables here and here)

Today and for the last three years both these diseases are still out of control and spreading through the Indonesian archipelago, our closest neighbor. That may be a long way from Canberra but its only 500km to Darwin.

The likelihood of a number of exotic diseases reaching Australia has been steadily increasing towards 40 percent.

In the event of an exotic disease outbreak Australia is treated as a whole, we cannot compartmentalize the outbreak. Our trade protocols are country specific, not State or Zone specific. The whole country loses market access until the disease is eradicated.

The former agriculture minister Murray Watt made a genuine attempt to give biosecurity funding a major boost to over a billion dollars and a more sustainable funding model with his proposed BPL legislation.

It is certainly reasonable that the risk creators such as importers help pay for a robust biosecurity system. The previous Inspector Generals for Biosecurity have clearly pointed out that budgets for the last 25 years have not kept up with the rising level of imports and air travel.

But it is also a reasonable proposition that agriculture which is certainly the major beneficiary of a robust biosecurity system also contribute more.

Both farmers and Australian processors have certainly the most at stake, the most invested and the most to lose when a disease outbreak occurs.

It simply makes good business sense to invest more if we can achieve a system that properly protects us.

I am sure Murray Watt in hindsight would admit he could have handled the levy and its design better and engaged a better process to bring on board industry.

The livestock Peak Bodies have long recognised the need for a dedicated portion of the statutory levy to help fund biosecurity and quality assurance systems, so it is disappointing that more consensus was not achieved when the levy was designed.   

Political football

Biosecurity sits within DAFF (the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries) with oversight and budgetary control.

The Minister has also a level of control and influence over the department.

There is flexibility to move funds from different sectors according to priorities and issues.

The department is also subject to efficiency dividends. Or in other words a cost cutting operation to reduce expenditure. A very mild version of Elon Musk’s DOGE operations.

Both sides of politics have been guilty of underfunding Biosecurity for the last 25 years. To some extent this is understandable when you consider only one percent of the Australian population are now farmers whose vote is often taken for granted. There are certainly problems having Biosecurity in a government department like DAFF.

Beale Review

The comprehensive Beale review of 2008 listed over 80 recommendations to build a stronger biosecurity system.

A key recommendation number 16 was to merge AQIS, Biosecurity Australia, Product Integrity and the Animal plant and health division into an independent statutory authority known as National Biosecurity Authority.

This key recommendation was agreed in principle but not followed through by Government and should be revisited by Peak Councils and politicians.

Container legislation

The proposition to introduce a container charge to help fund Biosecurity with our ever increasing level of imports was well supported by the Peak Bodies in the past.

It was drafted into legislation in 2018-9. Unfortunately it was defeated in the parliament and there is no doubt that the stevedores and port authorities have much more influential lobbyists walking the corridors of parliament than the poorly funded agricultural sector.

The chances of this legislation being re-introduced and passed – who knows?

We need our Peak Bodies to help guide the policies for both parties. It is disappointing ag leadership is calling the defeat of the biosecurity levy a victory when they haven’t provided solutions that will get across the line. That is the role of good advocacy. Provide the solutions!

Where to from here?

Exotic disease incursion will cripple our livestock and plant industries. Our processing sector and exports of agricultural exports will grind to a halt.

Having a properly funded biosecurity system should be the number one priority of the peak councils and NFF. Even if we have to contribute more as the major beneficiary.

Biosecurity needs to stop being the political football it currently is with grand funding announcements that are rarely ever delivered.

The NFF and RMAC have a role to play to build some industry consensus on providing solutions to both sides of politics. Revisiting the comprehensive Beale review of a Statutory Authority may be part of the solution.

The need to properly fund biosecurity is urgent. It should have been done yesterday.

Murray Watt made a genuine attempt to fix the system and failed. The search for the perfect fairest system should not get in the way of the immediate need.

Otherwise our Agricultural leadership will be guilty of the old adage: “Nero fiddled while Rome burned”.

Markus Rathsmann is a cattle producer from Mt Ringwood Station in the Northern Territory and a past-president of the former Cattle Council of Australia.