Article by Conor Fowler, courtesy of The Weekly Times
09.02.2026
An Australian farming leader says the federal government is using the industry as a “piggy bank” to cover its expenses, amid proposed export revenue hikes of up to 77 per cent for some sectors.
The government plans to shift the full cost of regulating agricultural exports from taxpayers to industry over the next three years, on the back of rising prices due to increasing complexities in trading and inflationary pressures.
The government said the transition was necessary to ensure vital export regulatory services were sustainably funded, with the cost recovery arrangements set to be introduced from July 1 this year.
Documents released by the Department of Agriculture show it expects to rake in 58 per cent more in export fees from the dairy sector, over four years; 38 per cent more from meat; and 33 per cent from horticulture.
Costs for the seafood and egg industry would jump 77 per cent over four years.
Australian Meat Industry Council chief executive Tim Ryan said the proposed changes resembled a “cash‑grab by a monopoly service provider, not a modern, productivity enhancing system”.
“The release of the (draft Cost Recovery Implementation Statements) confirms that the government’s approach to ‘sustainable’ funding of agricultural exports is to let DAFF’s expenses grow unchecked and simply use industry as a piggy bank to cover their unsustainable expense bill,” he said.
“The CRIS proposals retrofit fees to internally determined expenses and include new charges for existing activities without addressing the underlying cost growth.”
Mr Ryan said the changes risked slower export growth and weaker market diversification.
The government is providing $48.7m in supplementation over the three years to support the transition.
AUSVEG chief executive Michael Coote said the proposed changes weren’t “just a one-off, isolated increase” but happening at a time when unsustainably high costs were “one of the top reasons two in five vegetable growers are considering leaving the industry”.
“While AUSVEG also notes the government is planning to improve export service efficiency, so far we haven’t seen any detail of how and when this will occur, which is a bare minimum requirement if the government, as monopoly export regulatory service provider, wants to raise fees and charges.”
National Farmers’ Federation interim chief executive Su McCluskey said “realistically, the cost of these changes will be passed onto producers”.
“We understand that regulating exports costs money. However, our members have expressed concern that current export regulatory processes are inefficient and these fees will be used to unreasonably support the broader departmental cost base,” she said.
Consultation is now open on the structure of fees and charges, how the proposed fees may impact businesses, and the rationale for charging including activities being transitioned into cost recovery. It closes March 6.
