The government's proposed new biosecurity levy continues to attract criticism, with Plant Health Australia (PHA) boss Sarah Corcoran telling Senate Estimates her organisation had a number of misgivings surrounding the proposal.
"PHA members are generally concerned with the biosecurity protection levy," she said.
"Those concerns range from the way it was announced through to the approach that was taken with it," she told the Senate Estimate session.
Plant Health Australia is the national coordinating body responsible for plant health, with biosecurity management a large part of its role.
Ms Corcoran said a number of PHA members, which include peak bodies for grain, horticulture and tree crop organisations among others, had participated in consultation with the government in the lead up to them announcing the proposed levy, but the idea of a new levy had not been put to them.
"They participated in that activity (the consultation process) in good faith and at no point in that process was the concept of an industry levy raised with them."
"The way that the levy has been addressed or announced has not been in accordance with the way levies have been developed previously."
Grain Producers Australia chair Barry Large said Ms Corcoran's comments encapsulated the views of many ag-based organisations about the levy, which has come under criticism for only targeting the ag sector and not risk creating groups such as importers.
He said submissions from the ag sector to government regarding the levy displayed a rare level of solidarity among various industry groups.
"Farm representatives have consistently objected to this flawed policy proposal - be it grains, livestock, horticulture, seafood or forestry - that's trying to impose an additional 10pc charge on agricultural levy-paying producers, by July 1 next year," he said.
"Most contributors are calling it a tax, rather than a levy as we don't have any say where the funds will be used."
Ms Corcoran also voiced issues surrounding the implementation of the new levy, saying it would not work in the same way as previous fund raising arrangements.
"The usual process for levies is a partnership approach, with industry and government." Industries bring forward their priorities and essentially lead the allocation of funds and collection of levies from their producers, their members."
She said no PHA members to her knowledge put in a submission favourable to the idea of the new levy.
The issue of shared responsibility for critical biosecurity funding was raised.
"They (PHA members) would love to see risk creators being brought into the conversation and obviously contributing."
"We're talking about the transporters, the logistics, the market agents, the importers, at present the proposal is not equitable in that sense, and I think that is something that is really concerning them (the PHA members)."
Mr Large urged agriculture minister Murray Watt to listen the common views of the farm sector, in particular the concerns about re-directing funding into consolidated government revenue rather allocating it to a specific biosecurity-focused use.
He also attacked the government's rhetoric in claiming the levy was only a small impost.
"Calling it a 'modest' 6pc on producers is disingenuous, given these budget calculations don't account for the direct contributions producers make already to biosecurity through other cost mechanisms such as emergency management levies, state-based biosecurity levies and other taxes."
"Producers want better outcomes to safeguard their livelihoods, but this proposal doesn't guarantee or transparently demonstrate how the biosecurity system will be strengthened."
"Given this proposed 10pc levy/tax will ultimately be debated and voted on in federal parliament, with new legislation required, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt now has the opportunity to read the room and kill off the tax proposal, before it gets too far out of hand."