A storm is brewing over who should pay to keep pests and diseases out of Australia.
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) says farmers already pay their "fair share" and it is importers of products like cars and whitegoods, as well as taxpayers, who should pick up any additional tab for Australia's biosecurity.
Ahead of next week's federal budget, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has flagged a change to the way biosecurity services, such as X-ray surveillance in mail centres and sniffer dogs at airports, are funded.
Senator Watt has repeatedly said he wants a new funding model for biosecurity that "shares the cost between taxpayers, risk creators, and beneficiaries of the system".
Risk creators are understood to be importers, while beneficiaries are expected to be the farmers and exporters that have access to premium markets based on Australia's reputation for being relatively disease-free.
But NFF chief executive Tony Mahar said instead of farmers, beneficiaries of biosecurity should be considered "taxpayers and the community".
"I've not heard [Senator Watt] say farmers are going to pay more. I've heard him say taxpayers and the community are going to pay more," he said.
'Farmers already paying their fair share', says NFF
Mr Mahar said farmers were already paying for biosecurity through export fees.
"What we're arguing is that farmers are paying their way and it's about time, if people value a healthy strong biosecurity system, then we need to start making people pay for that as well," he said.
Mr Mahar said there were economic and environmental benefits to a strong national biosecurity system.
"We're talking about native species that are maintained and protected from disease and pests that might come in through a leaky biosecurity system, and the broader community also benefits from things like going and having a picnic and not being bitten by fire ants," he said.
"[Farmers] are already paying export charges and services.
"What has not been, in our view, paid well enough is the risk creators … these are the white goods, importers, the car manufacturers, which we've seen have issues and concerns around imports of cars that have been carrying disease … all of these sorts of things where the creators haven't been paying their fair share.
"Farmers are already paying their fair share."
All will be revealed on budget night, says Watt
The ABC has contacted Senator Watt's office to seek further clarification and response to Mr Mahar's comments.
Speaking in Brisbane last week, Senator Watt refused to rule out asking farmers to pay more for biosecurity services.
"We'll be able to say more about exactly how much we're spending and who will pay for it on budget night, which isn't too far away," he said.
"But what I can guarantee Australian farmers is that under the Albanese government, we will continue to have a world-class biosecurity system," Senator Watt said last week.
"What I want to achieve, through the budget negotiations, is a higher level of biosecurity funding than this country has ever had and a more certain level of biosecurity funding than we've ever had.
"That's what I'm working towards and that, I think, will be very much welcomed by farmers."
Senator Watt said the federal government allocated about $600 million a year to biosecurity services, but in recent years had been called upon to top up as demand for services increased.
Importers were to be targeted before COVID hit, says Littleproud
Speaking to ABC's Afternoon Briefing, Shadow Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said, when in government, the Coalition had planned to increase cost-recovery for biosecurity for exporters and importers.
"As part of this transition to full cost-recovery … exporters were going from a subsidised model to a full cost-recovery model by 2024–25," Mr Littleproud said.
"But for importers who posed most of the risk, that was on a risk assessment of who posed the greatest risk, now that consultation was basically completed before COVID hit but we paused because of COVID, we didn't want to hurt industry and so after COVID was clear we took the step to make sure this could be implemented in December [2022]."
In 2018, the Coalition government announced a container levy that would have charged importers $10 per shipping container.
But the levy, which would have raised $325 million over three years, was axed following a backlash from a consortium of industry groups including the Minerals Council of Australia, Australasian Railway Association, Cement Industry Federation, and Gas Energy Australia.
The group claimed the levy would create flow-on costs for consumers.
Earlier this week, it was revealed two foreign travellers had their Australian visas cancelled after failing to declare they were carrying high-risk foods when entering Perth's airport.
A statement from Senator Watt said: "On April 15, a traveller was found with more than 6.5kg of pork and more than 1kg of fruit and plants. A second unrelated traveller was also detected on March 13 with more than half a kilogram of pork and salami and just under 1.2kg of beef."
