Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:57:50 to 2:17:50
Eradication efforts for yellow crazy ants in Queensland are discussed alongside broader biosecurity funding models. The session covers cost recovery, self-assessment charges, and competitive neutrality concerns regarding Australia Post.
Topics: Biosecurity, Cost recovery, Grants administration
Speakers: Speaker 13, Justine Saunders, Hon Richard Colbeck, Senator Susan McDonald, Unknown Speaker, Allison Jones, Senator Ross Cadell, Speaker 1, Speaker 15, Speaker 5, Victoria Anderson
>> Thank you very much. Um look, on a more positive note, yellow crazy ants, uh we're actually dealing with them really well in Queensland.
>> And we got red flower ants and yellow crazy ants.
>> That's [clears throat] why I wanted to talk about them. Just the opportunity to talk about crazy ants. Uh cans in particular has been very successful. a real community-based um treatment plan. Uh in Townsville though the the funding is facing a funding cliff and uh it's set to expire um on the 30th of June 2027. So that's the $24.8 million saving native species program uh provides funding for yellow crazy ant management in Queensland. Um given that we are making real inroads, I think there's actually a chance that we will get to eradication. Um I just want to see if you are aware of what's going on and if there is a plan, budget allocations, uh any ideas around how to ensure operational continuity for the Townsville City Council uh yellow crazy ant program.
I think I'll have to take that one on notes. I don't have any information on that in
is that that's a DQ project and funding.
>> It absolutely is. And I know I'm I'm pushing the envelope, but we talk about all these invasive species in a it affects a production. It affects livability. we are within striking distance of actually eradicating it. And so I I do you're absolutely right, Minister. It is a DQ program. But one of my great frustrations with government is the lack of it was the siloing of of agendas. And I just wanted to get this on the agenda that we are we are really close to actually eradicating an invasive species that does massive harm to, you know, native animals, agricultural regions, and um wanted to
>> Senator, I'm meeting with TQ this week, later this week. So, I'm very happy to check in with him about the status of that work.
>> Yeah. Thank you. and and um I would ask them for an update on on just how excellent the work is in the outbreak areas and it would be really nice if there was just one invasive pest that we could take off the list.
>> Noted. Thanks.
>> Uh so that was about funding and also I just want to draw to your attention that the treatment occurs in the dry weather. So that limits the amount of time that we've got to do it to mid year. Um and again, you know, some urgency um because we've now missed, you know, we we've finished this dry season, so we've only got uh the one there. And um yeah, I really applaud the work of the invasive species uh team, the Townsville City Council team, and just >> pleading for some support. Thank you.
Is that all for out? >> All right, from finishing on B seaman and yellow crazy ants. Thank you all. >> Oh, sorry, Senator.
security stuff this morning on the costs for the
>> Yes.
uh self assessment charge. >> Um because on parcels,
>> yes, we did add a bit more. I just want
to verify the the data that we got this because there there's two sets of numbers that are coming through. One and I think we're talking different years. Um so I can try and straighten those out to start with. >> so the there was two numbers given this morning uh uh 60.6 million and 60.47 what I just want to confirm what year
>> Can you remind me Senator what figures you're referring to again
So, Senator Monica Collins, uh, first assistant secretary, biocurity operations. Uh, and so I think, um, I picked up some of that discussion this morning. I think you're right. We're talking about different years. >> Yeah. >> Uh, so recovery for the 202526 financial year was 60 million, just over 60 million. And uh in 2627 we're estimating uh recovery of 67 million and that would be based on almost 177 million uh declarations of self assess clearance items.
okay so the um the numbers that I have here expenses for the self- assessment charge are 57.1 in FY26 against revenue of 65.5. So the the the complaint here is over recovery which is the conversation we were having this morning. Um, and um, I think from the discussion, my memory this morning, you received the ANAO report in May of 2026. the report talks about over recovery. The industry is saying this financial year is again going to over recover. They're talking a rate of uh 38 cents being the new charge, but the cost to DAFF at 33 cents. So 5 cents per unit over recovered.
>> So
>> um so I mean they're >> concerned about the continued over recovery which has been happening for a
while. Next point in terms of I know this language has been used in ANAO report but but the position is really that the revenue that we collect really reflects the cost of doing business. It's the cost of actually managing the biocurity risks. So where the where the revenue and what has been expended where it doesn't match up in the SAC pathway has predominately been because we've done forecasts of what we anticipated the trends to be. as as the secretary said this morning trading predictions on volumes and we have simply not been able to adequately resource to that volume to manage the biocurity risk so and if I can give you an indication of how how there's been such a significant shift before we had the sack introduced we would deal with.24% 24% of incoming sack sack movements.
>> Sorry, which how much percent
>> 24% had had some risk management strategies attached to it. So that was clearly inadequate knowing we were seeing increased significantly increasing biocurity risk coming through that pathway. Y >> as a result of sack um the measure that's been put in place that's allowed us for much more proportionate risk based approach. We've increased our inspections by 38%. And increased our assurance activities I think in 2526 32,723 activities which is still small proportionate to the actual volumes. But
>> so what is it in terms of of volume? So I so we can match them side by side. >> You said24%. >> You've increased it by 38%. What is the
actual new number? Uh so in uh 2026 27 we're uh expecting 177 million
consignments. You remember that number before?
>> Yep. Uh in 202526 we had 164,300 uh,526 declarations. In 2024 25 we had 150,314,522
Senator, so between 2425 and 2526, we've seen declationation volumes increase by nearly 26%.
>> And that was that was the first year of charging. And so that goes back to your
>> so 2425
>> 25 26
>> and so that goes back to your earlier question. So in that year we only charged for three out of the four quarters. Uh so we didn't charge for the full year. We also had that 20 uh over 20% increase in volumes which was higher than what we had estimated and we're also building the teams to conduct those sack activities. So we had quite a lot.
>> So from 2425 to 2526 you had a 20% increase in volume.
>> That's right. Yeah. And so because it's uh collected on a per declaration um obviously the more declarations you get the more revenue you get. Um but equally um in addition to those um increase in inspections and assurance activities uh the non-compliance um results that we're finding really matches what our concern was for this pathway. Uh and so prior to the SAC reform program, we had about just over 1,200 reports um uh submitted in 2023 24. And since then, those number of non-compliance reports uh for 202526 have increased to 3,292 non-compliance reports for the pathway. So the SAC uh pathway makes up for a significant um proportion of the effort in our non-compliance system as well. um which confirms that we've got uh that pathway being um used is what we're finding from our intelligence um is that that pathway is sometimes being used to circumn the biocurity controls.
>> So what did what fees did Australia Post pay in 2526?
So, Australia Post pays a um flat fee and I can refer you um Senator uh to a budget um estimates um Senate question number 26-0518 um where we provided a response to this but Australia Post is um Australia's sole international um uh male union provider and so because there's one provider we we charge a single flat fee Uh and that's $15.3 million um compared to the uh SAC pathway where we've got multiple um players uh importing under the SAC pathway and so that's where we charge to the
>> So they pay a flat fee regardless of
volume. So, Australia Post pays a flat fee and that was calculated during the 20 23 24 um federal budget um based on the risk and the and the biocurity effort required to manage the risk in the Australia Post International Mail
>> So, in terms of competitive neutrality, how do you calculate the I mean what what number of um items across the board does that
cover? Uh so in in terms of competitive neutrality as I said uh they're two separate pathways they look different one you've got one provider one you've got many providers uh the calculations were made very
>> but that's what the many providers are worried about they're bringing stuff in they're paying a a rate per piece
>> yeah and so
>> and Australia Post is paying a flat rate for it doesn't matter how many pieces
>> uh so they're paying a flat rate for um biocurity services to be provided for the um management of biocurity risk on the international pathway, international male pathway. When the SAC fee was set up, uh the department did look at a range of different alternatives in terms of what was the best approach, the most costefficient and effective approach to uh charging that fee on that pathway. Uh and there were other options such as can we charge it offshore or can we charge it through the the ICS um in the AVF system and it was found that uh none of the other alternatives that uh were looked at were actually feasible. Um this one was the most uh feasible and most straightforward and to give you an indication I think um uh the number of companies uh so I think there's about 90 um uh invoices that will invoice per quarter. So sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. So, we're dealing with um 90 um invoices as opposed to um you know, a lot of the um uh traffic on that pathway is people going online e-commerce um shopping. So, we really had to do uh the work to find out what's the most cost effective feasible way of administering
Yes, but the cost per unit for Australia post to deliver something across the border is significantly cheaper than it is for the private sector, which is the point that I'm trying to get to. And in obviously the industry is concerning concerned about it because they have to compete with them. And so having to the sack charge versus Australia Post basically having a global amount that gets charged regardless of what their
>> Just uh checking on times there.
>> Just a couple more questions. I just and and I'll be done.
A couple points to make just in regards to your comments about the Australia Post cost recovery fee. You know that has been subject of government consideration and in part of the biocurity sustainable funding package um resulted in an increase in funding to our department as well to meet reassess regulatory costs associated with international male pathway. So in my EO 2324 um it was determined that we would see an increase in department appropriation by 7 million peranom rather than increase the regulatory cost recovery charge applied to Australia post. that decision was made in you talk also about the Australian government competitive neutrality issue. Um that has also been considered by the Australian government competitive neutrality complaints office. Um and the report which was in November 24 um recommended either the treasurer initiates a public inquiry or the department of home affairs undertakes internal review. No public inquiry has been announced and department of home affairs indicated it will undertake a review and will engage with the department. Um but that hasn't happened
>> So there's an issue. We know there's an issue there, but nothing's happened yet.
>> No, we're not suggesting that's an issue. Obviously stakeholders have flagged that as you've pointed out. Capac and FDA have raised these concerns and have raised these concerns with the Australian government competitive neutrality complaints office. So it has been there that was the outcome of their considerations. And secondly, the issue of the the quantum that Australia post has been considered by government decision was made to increase the departmental appropriation. So it has been considered.
>> Okay. So there's there's a number of uh do the consultation with each with respect to the charges for the sack charges who sits on those panels and how are the members appointed?
So you're talking through the so the state consultation process that occurs yearly as part of the Chris. Yes. So it's open consultation with stakeholders. >> but the increase that you've referenced earlier was pure indexation
senator. But aren't there aren't there so so what is the forum for sack charge payers to raise their cost recovery
>> I think I mentioned your consultative
>> because we talked about consultative
one we do have the standard consultation when we when we undertake the quiz work year on year. Um and then we also have established now um just over two years ago is the bio security funding what's the title remind me shank. What do we call it?
>> Sustainable biocurity funding advisory panel.
>> That's exactly right. Thanks Senator for helping me out there. >> I always call it the panel.
>> Okay that's fine.
>> Yes the panel.
>> At least we know what we're talking about. Yeah, we're talking to the same. >> So, are there any SAC charge payers represented on that panel?
>> Yeah. Yes, there is.
>> There is.
>> I can go through the list of attendees if you like, but yes, there and and if I can be frank, we talk about a cost recovery routinely as part of our discussions. And um the panel actually has visibility on the preparation of our yearly report um our funding report which is um which is being finalized in fact it's just been released and the actual sack pathway I don't recall actually coming up in discussions recently.
>> So so uh it has senator come up as part of the biocurity funding expenditure report. our our CFO comes to talk to the panel um about some of the financial results and one of the entities that you mentioned before um misunders alliance they've certainly raised issues around um sack charges previously
>> but nothing in addition to what what I've just referenced today so nothing new nothing different to to the issues you've raised Senator
>> and if I can um just by way of comparison um because New Zealand has recently brought in uh charge for their low value goods pathway. Uh and just by comparison, they are charging $221 per declaration on the air cargo pathway and
that apply regardless of whether it's a post flight item or a car a package item? And I'll I'll say the two bit just to differentiate
>> that's for the self assess clearance the the figures I'm quoting. I think each country is responsible under the >> um uh international obligations to have the international mail um provider in the same way as we have Australia Post. So I can't comment on uh what they what they charge or how they're funded in
>> So going back to the report that recommended some reviews be done by the two different agencies. Is there is there a plan that you're aware of to actually get on and do that work in terms of the Australia Post charge?
>> We'd have to take that on notice and and ask the relevant agency. My understanding was uh after that um uh review was finalized and with those recommendations, I thought there was another um competitive neutrality complaint put in to that same um
organization who conducted the earlier review, but I will confirm that and uh
>> Thank you.