Biosecurity with Dr Sam Nelson

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Chris Rowley

Hi, Chris Rowley here. I’m the Media Manager at GrainGrowers and today I'm talking with Dr. Sam Nelson, our Policy Manager, Technical about all things biosecurity. So I guess the first question, Sam, for you is how important is biosecurity to Australian growers and why should they care about it?

Dr Sam Nelson

Thanks, Chris. We've been asking specific questions around priorities for grain growers in the last few years in our Annual Policy Survey and in amongst it all, biosecurity comes up as one of the key issues that growers are looking for action on. Now it's both the issue around the risk about what's on the horizon, but also what's here in the country. I mean, there's been a recent report from ABARES just saying that the cost of managing existing pests and weeds is around about, across all ag industries, is around about $5.3 billion a year. And about 72% of that cost is the cost of actually going out in the field to actively manage these pests and weeds. So it's a big cost to industry and you don't want to see more pests and diseases come in to create additional work for you. And the other part of it, though, is that for growers, we need to have confidence in the biosecurity system for it to operate properly. It really relies on people being willing to engage, willing to report something new, something different that you've seen in the field, and so that we can get officials to come and respond. If someone leaves it, then, you know, that creates another risk. So everyone needs to have confidence in the biosecurity system.

Chris Rowley

Has it been operating properly, Sam? I mean, I guess is one of those risk and reward things. There’s some very poor outcomes for growers with an incursion, for instance. But how has it been working? How is it funded?

Dr Sam Nelson

Well, I think that's a good question. And I think in terms of the way that it's funded and managed, there's different parts to the biosecurity system. So if you think about the way that it's funded as taxpayers, you pay for the Commonwealth Government’s work in actually looking at what's out beyond the border, what might be coming in, understanding, sea container movement, understanding potential threats and then being able to look and review threats when they're actually at the border. A State Government’s also funded by taxpayers and they do the work on the ground. So when something arrives in the state of Victoria, it's the state government resources that are there involved in actually responding to the biosecurity incursion. But then also as a grower, you also pay for biosecurity through levies. So you contribute to Plant Health Australia in your levies and Plant Health Australia plays a really important role in actually doing on the ground biosecurity programs through the grains biosecurity program, but also in terms of preparedness and having the facilities, the resources and so forth in place for when there is a biosecurity incursion.

We also pay as levy payers our R&D levy and the R&D levy goes to GRDC and they invest in R&D that relates to, understanding pests and diseases and being prepared, but also the existing pests and weeds that we have in place and managing for those. And in some states there's additional levies paid to the State Government for particular biosecurity programs related to the grains industry. And of course as a grower, you're spending money being out in the field looking for pests, spraying out weeds and doing all of those other things. So in terms of the biosecurity system, growers pay for it in a number of different ways and it's managed by different agencies in these different ways.

So it's a very complicated system and it's important that it's funded and it works well together. And all of these pieces mesh together like cogs in a wheel.

Chris Rowley

Okay. There's been recent discussion about the funding of it and how sustainable it is going forward. A fair bit of debate about people saying that they already paying a fair amount of money for that, the changes that have been proposed by the government. Why have they come about and, you know, should growers be concerned about additional costs placed on them?

Dr Sam Nelson

Yeah, no, it's a good question. And biosecurity, I think our focus as GrainGrowers is particularly at the federal government level. So understanding biosecurity at the pre- and at-border and for a number of years now we've seen relatively stagnant funding but also funding that comes through in terms of projects. So the funding is only ever limited to sort of like four year blocks, and that's made it difficult for the government to really respond and step up to the growing biosecurity threats that we're seeing.

You know, we're seeing increased freight movements, we're seeing increased issues around weather events and associated with climate change. All of these change the biosecurity risk. And we haven't seen that investment change to better, to appropriately address the changing risks that we're seeing. And GrainGrowers… So for a couple of years now, GrainGrowers has been calling for a reset in biosecurity system to make sure that it's better able to address these new and emerging threats. And that reset is both in terms of activity on the ground, but also making sure that there's funding and, you know, that continual funding to make sure that there are the resources in place and there's action being done to address these growing threats.

Chris Rowley

Okay. I guess the thing is that growers agree it needs to be sustainable going forward and that we need to be on the front foot to address these risks. The government and the conversation it’s had the new biosecurity levy has said that industry will just pay 6% of the costs. I mean, in terms of the benefit gained by industry, is that a small cost or is it an equitable approach to try and get a sustainable system going forward?

Dr Sam Nelson

It's a good question, Chris.And so I think thatthere's a number of thingshere at play.So at the last budget, the government,the government indicated that there wasgoing to be a substantial increasein biosecurity funding and a sustainableincrease in biosecurity funding.

So that pushed out the budget going forward and we're seeing increased revenue streams going into biosecurity from taxpayers, but also from increased cost recovery, from inspections of containers and of mail and so forth. So there's a significant increase and a sustained increase in biosecurity funding. The biosecurity protection levy, which is the levy that the Government is proposing that farmers pay, is going to be, they're saying that it's equivalent to about a 10% charge on the levies that were paid in 2020/2021. So we're still—GrainGrowers is still seeking confirmation on exactly what that charge is from the government.

And it's our estimates indicate that it's going to be about $0.40 per metric tonne of grain, assuming wheat costs you know, I think wheat comes in at around $400 a tonne. So it is not an insignificant cost and that's of concern because we don't actually have much detail around how is it going to be collected and how is it going to be spent.

So GrainGrowers, we're trying to be pragmatic about this. There's a proposal in place, we've got concerns and we're trying to work through those concerns with government. And key amongst that is actually making sure that the government is held to account, that the government is held to account in terms of what money gets collected through these charges, being clear around what the charges actually are. But then also being clear around how that money gets spent. And also how is the money being spent, what's what's being paid for? What value are growers getting out and are going to get from the levies that they pay?

So these things are being worked through. We have concerns. We do see it as part of that bigger picture that there is going to be sustained funding for biosecurity and that funding is coming from taxpayers as well as better cost recovery arrangements. But there are still questions going forward. Okay, look, it seems like everyone wants the system to work and be secure. Are growers creating the risk or there are other players in this that should be contributing more, more dollars into the pot on the basis that they create the risk for biosecurity? Yeah, no, that's a question that's being asked for quite some time around, around biosecurity and biosecurity funding The concept of a container levy or a risk creator levy has been around since about 2017 when there was a review of biosecurity. It's called the Craik Review. And in that proposal there was a flat-- it was suggested that there's a flat $10 a container charge that would be applied to any container and that would then go to funding the work that the Commonwealth Government does on biosecurity. Now there's been a range, there's been a whole series of discussions since then around is the container levy the most appropriate way of charging it? You know, are there other ways of attributing cost to these risk creators? And what's come through in the budget is the Government's going to increase the inspection costs for containers, but that increased inspection cost doesn't actually cover off on that extra bit. The extra bit that the government does in terms of the backroom stuff, looking at what are the risks, understanding container movement and doing all the background to understand, you know, the exposure of Australia to risks from pests and diseases. So that bit is still unfunded and that's, that's the gap that we have to try and find the funding for. The container levy is very attractive, though. I mean a container, that's the thing that creates the risk, that's the thing that carries Khapra beetle into the country. And so, by charging the risk creators, you're targeting the person that's going to potentially be creating that charge for you. So it is something that’s very attractive from a from a policy perspective around directly attributing a cost. but that's the issue there though is that questions exist still as to whether or not legally under international trade rules we can apply a charge to a container and that's where we're looking for the government to come back, and be transparent with us. Be clear about what advice they have around: Can you actually charge that cost? Is it something that we can do or is it going to land us in hot water in terms of trade issues?

Chris Rowley

Okay. It seems a fairly logical way of doing it. But I guess if there are issues around, it's best to know now and then start the discussion with the government to try and work a way around it. In terms of the way the proposal has been put together, Sam, does GrainGrowers have any problem with how the government has worked to try and get this proposal together, given that given the fact that everyone wants the system to work properly and the work properly takes some funding?

Dr Sam Nelson

Yeah, Chris. It is a bit of a point of frustration for all of us in terms of the way that the proposal was put together. I think there's been a number of industries have raised their concerns with the lack of consultation that occurred in the lead up to this proposal being developed. And I mean, for a major policy proposal like this, you'd expect a few rounds of consultation, to work through and understand what the issues are to establish a clear framework around how levy rates are set. You know, make sure that there’s equitably in terms of the way different industries are charged. There's still holes in terms of how do farmers associated with industries that don't collect levies, how are they going to be charged. We still see gaps in what's being proposed in a number of different places and including around equitably in terms of the levy rates and how they're set. We believe that this proposal could benefit from greater consultation and we believe that there's still opportunity for more consultation to occur. It’s better that this is a good proposal that's been developed on the back of sound consultation, there's clarity around the frameworks, around how charges are set, everyone knows where they stand, we also have clarity around the framework for spending the money and we understand what the performance arrangements are going to be, how's the government going to report on the standard of biosecurity that gets delivered as a consequence of the levy? So, yes, we do believe that there's opportunity for better consultation and there can be some further consultation and improved discussion between industry and government as this proposal gets developed further.

Chris Rowley

Okay. Look it seems like it's in everyone's interest to get this thing right. I mean, we're an island nation and once things get in here, there's an opportunity for them to spread and cause issues. We have a great barrier there already. A good biosecurity system is another layer on top of that, which is fantastic. What are the next steps from here, Sam, given the fact that there's ongoing discussion around the biosecurity levy and I guess industry is saying they want to have some control over the money that they're contributing and understand where it's going. But what are the next steps in the discussions with government?

Dr Sam Nelson

Well, I think the government's just run a period of open public consultation, which closed around middle of October. and so at the moment the Government's going through a process of reviewing all of that feedback and including feedback from GrainGrowers around what should be done and what's the best path forward. However, the government set itself a very, very distinct timeframe in getting the levy in place by the 1st of July next year, so the 1st of July 2024. So really we're looking that the Government's going to have to, you know, put in place some legislation and or put legislation to Parliament in the next few months in order to meet that 1 July 2024 timeframe. We've heard signals back from the Government around they are interested in in making sure that budgeting around biosecurity is more transparent and it's clearer, that they're going to be reporting on how the money is spent and what money gets collected. We've also heard the government talking about developing performance measures around biosecurity. So these are all things that, it's good to hear about. And we're really looking to be more closely involved as this proposal goes forward. But certainly over the next few months, we expecting to hear more and see more. So yeah, expect to see it crop up in the headlines before the end of the year.

Chris Rowley

What happens if they can't make progress on this, Sam? What would happen if they just can't get agreement from industry? Are they just going to put it in place regardless?

Dr Sam Nelson

I think that's the real challenge that we face. That whilst we might dispute some of the fundamental principles behind the levy that as growers, we're not the risk creators and there's a whole range of beneficiaries from good biosecurity, You know, there's the, the general public and people's ability to enjoy themselves in the outdoors the environment Australia's natural assets, that they're being protected. There's a whole range of beneficiaries here. And so whilst we might dispute that we should be paying for biosecurity the government has the mandate to be able to put this into legislation. And so the challenges for us to make sure that we work with the government to be able to get the best outcome that we possibly can from it. So that's what we'll be concentrating on over the coming months.

Chris Rowley

Okay. It sounds like good biosecurity is really in everyone's best interest. So thanks. Thank you for talking today and talk to you soon.

Dr Sam Nelson

Thanks very much, Chris. Thanks, everyone.