THE SUSTAINABLE Biosecurity Funding model announced in May this year has collected an additional $11.3 million in fees and charges from importers in three months.

Federal minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry Murray Watt said the figure is part of a total $97.4 million raised from importers since the “new regime” came into effect on 1 July.

The federal government’s Sustainable Biosecurity Funding model was included in the 2023-24 Budget, handed down in May.

From 1 July 2024 the cost of the new sustainable funding model is to be covered 44% by taxpayers, 48% by “risk creators” and 6% by the direct beneficiaries of the biosecurity system. But on 1 July this year importers started paying higher fees and charges.

Mr Watt said in a statement in May that the 2023 increase would “ensure importers contribute more fairly by meeting the real cost of biosecurity clearance”.

And in a statement this week, three months after the change came into effect, Mr Watt said importers, as “major risk creators”, are now “paying their fair share” and the funds would go directly back into the biosecurity system.

“I was shocked to find that the biosecurity budget we inherited was on track to fall by about 25%, because it was built on temporary, short-term funding,” Mr Watt said.

“At a time when we face more biosecurity threats, I couldn’t believe – and wouldn’t accept – that the Coalition had locked in annual biosecurity funding cuts of almost $100 million every year.”

Mr Watt said biosecurity fees and charges had not been properly reviewed since 2015, which meant importers weren’t paying the full cost of the services they received.

“I listened to calls from producers to charge importers more, seeing as imported shipping containers and other goods are one of the largest creators of biosecurity risk.

“For all the Opposition’s talk about container levies – which they scrapped when in office – they did absolutely nothing to make importers pay their way.

“With our changes, for the first time, importers are starting to pay their fair share.”

The increased costs to importers under the sustainable funding model has received criticism from some corners of industry because, according to some opinions, importers are paying more without seeing an improvement in services.