Grain Producers Australia (GPA) has questioning the Federal government's proposed 10 per cent biosecurity levy - following the release of a Productivity Commission report - declaring the proposal was unacceptable to agricultural producers.
GPA chairman and Miling grain producer Barry Large said the policy proposal was deeply flawed, suggesting it should be called out as a tax.
"The Productivity Commission's research has clearly underlined what the vast majority of Australian producers have been saying since the Federal budget in May - that this is in fact a 10pc tax, not a levy," Mr Large said.
"If it looks like a tax, acts like a tax, and smells like a tax, let's not pretend it's a levy.
"This new report reinforces our concerns that the longer this policy push persists, the more damage it will do by undermining trust and confidence in the long-term partnerships industry has established with government through the current ag-levy system - including stronger biosecurity programs."
Mr Large said GPA wants Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Federal Agriculture Minister Murray Watt to demonstrate they were listening to the industry pushback and act immediately.
"If they want to continue calling it a levy, even though the funding is going into consolidated government revenue with no transparency or accountability and producers are not the only beneficiaries, they're choosing to deepen divisions with the agricultural sector," he said.
"Biosecurity should be a bipartisan issue but this proposed tax is creating political conflict, confusion and division where none is needed.
"And this is happening at a time when farmers need to be better supported and key partnerships strengthened, to enhance biosecurity protections."
Mr Large said grain producers and other farmers also contributed millions of dollars directly to biosecurity in State levies, as well as direct financial contributions within their own businesses.
"The Productivity Commission report asks the question - is the levied sector (producers) the only sector that will benefit from the funding of the public good - and the answer is no," he said.
"This was an extremely predictable response and one the government could have easily found out, by asking farmers what they thought first, before announcing this new tax in the budget.
"The new report also shows that there's been no proper analysis or cost-benefit analysis either, to clearly justify its implementation and imposition on producers versus risk-creators - and a clear lack of any policy rationale, other than being a government cash grab."
