Imported Food Charges (Imposition—General) Regulation 2015

The regulation relies on several defined terms that are imported from other legislation. A compliance agreement has the same meaning as in the Imported Food Control Act 1992. It is an agreement between an importer and the regulator (typically the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) that sets out the conditions under which the importer can self-assess compliance with food safety standards. An approved arrangement has the same meaning as in the Biosecurity Act 2015; it is a broader biosecurity management arrangement covering various activities, not just food safety. This regulation also introduces a specific subset of approved arrangement called a Class 19 Arrangement, which is an approved arrangement that provides for the person covered by the arrangement to assess documents to manage biosecurity risks associated with containerised sea freight, and does not require the person to carry out biosecurity activities at a particular place. The significance of the Class 19 Arrangement lies in how it affects the calculation of the ongoing administration charges under item 4 of the table. The term imported food matter is defined broadly as a matter connected with the administration of the Imported Food Control Act 1992. The regulation uses the composite term relevant arrangement or agreement to mean either an approved arrangement or a compliance agreement. This composite term is critical because the ongoing charges in items 2, 3, and 4 of the table all turn on whether a person is covered by one or more relevant arrangements or agreements, and on whether at least one of them is a compliance agreement. The conceptual structure of the charges is hierarchical: item 2 applies when a person has two or more relevant arrangements or agreements (at least one being a compliance agreement) and at least two of them existed immediately before the start of the financial year. Item 3 applies to a standalone compliance agreement (the first such in the financial year) where the person is not covered by any approved arrangement at the time the compliance agreement first covers them. Item 4 is a residual category covering other combinations of relevant arrangements or agreements where at least one is a compliance agreement, but the circumstances do not fall within items 2 or 3. The indexation mechanism in section 6A uses the Consumer Price Index (All Groups, eight capital cities) and works by multiplying the existing dollar amount by an indexation factor (the ratio of the index number for the reference quarter to the index number for the base quarter), then rounding to the nearest dollar. This means charges will increase automatically each year in line with inflation, except where specifically excluded.

This regulation directly affects any person or business that imports food into Australia and either holds or applies for a compliance agreement under the Imported Food Control Act 1992, or holds an approved arrangement under the Biosecurity Act 2015. The charges in the regulation apply to the person who is the applicant for the compliance agreement (for the application fee under item 1) or the person who is covered by the relevant arrangement or agreement (for the ongoing administration charges under items 2, 3, and 4). Importantly, the note to section 7 provides that an agent of a person who is liable to pay a charge is jointly and severally liable with that person to pay the charge, under the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Regulation 2015. This means that customs brokers, freight forwarders, or other intermediaries who act on behalf of importers may be directly liable for the charges if the importer fails to pay. The regulation therefore imposes compliance and financial risk not only on the principal importer but also on their agents. The largest financial exposure falls on importers who hold multiple arrangements or agreements, particularly those with at least one compliance agreement and two or more relevant arrangements or agreements that existed before the start of the financial year. Such importers face an annual charge of $3,316 under item 2. For importers with a single compliance agreement and no approved arrangement, the charge is $2,857 if the agreement is in force before 1 January, or half that amount if it comes into force on or after 1 January. Importers with a compliance agreement plus one or more approved arrangements (but not falling within item 2 or 3) face a complex sliding scale depending on the timing and the nature of the first arrangement (whether it is a Class 19 Arrangement). The exemptions in section 8 reduce the compliance burden for those who already pay biosecurity charges under the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (General) Regulation 2016 or the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (Customs) Regulation 2016, specifically for the administration of approved arrangements. Importers who are parties to an existing compliance agreement or covered by an approved arrangement are exempt from the application fee for a new compliance agreement. This regulation predominantly affects importers of high-risk food products that require a compliance agreement, as well as importers who also have biosecurity management arrangements. The costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices for imported food, although the amounts per importer are relatively modest compared to the overall cost of imported goods.

The primary duty imposed by this regulation is the obligation to pay the prescribed charges. This duty arises under section 6, which fixes the amount, and section 7, which identifies the person liable. There is no discretion; the charge is payable as a tax. There is no duty to provide information or to lodge returns under this regulation itself; such duties would arise under the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Regulation 2015 or the parent Act. The only rights explicitly created by the regulation are the rights to exemptions from liability under section 8. A person is not liable to pay the application fee for a compliance agreement (item 1) if they are already a party to another compliance agreement in force under section 35A of the Imported Food Control Act 1992, or if they are covered by an approved arrangement under the Biosecurity Act 2015. This prevents double-charging for a person who already has an existing compliance arrangement with the regulator. For the ongoing administration charges under items 2 and 4, the regulation provides a more nuanced exemption: the charge is not payable if the person has paid, for the same financial year or part, the corresponding charge under the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (Customs) Regulation 2016 or the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (General) Regulation 2016. Specifically, item 2 exemption links to biosecurity item 13 (administration of approved arrangements), and item 4 exemption links to biosecurity item 13AB. This prevents overlapping charges for the same regulatory activity across the two different legislative schemes. There is no equivalent exemption for item 3 (standalone compliance agreement), which is consistent because item 3 applies only where the person is not covered by an approved arrangement, so no double-charge would arise. The regulation also creates a kind of right to predictable charge increases through the indexation formula, but this is really a mechanical adjustment rather than a substantive right. The indexation factor is calculated using a formula that references the Consumer Price Index, but the formula is set by the regulation and the Minister has no discretion once the CPI is published. This gives importers certainty about how charges will increase over time, though the increases themselves are a burden. There are no rights to object, review, or appeal the charges under this regulation; any challenge would have to be brought under administrative law or the parent Act.

This regulation does not itself create any penalties or enforcement mechanisms. It is purely a charging instrument. However, the fact that the charges are imposed as taxes means that failure to pay will result in the government using standard debt recovery processes. The note to section 7 points to the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Regulation 2015, which provides for joint and several liability of agents. That collection regulation would prescribe how the charges are collected, including any late payment penalties, interest, or recovery proceedings. While not detailed in this regulation, the enforcement framework would typically involve the issuance of notices of assessment, demands for payment, and ultimately legal action for debt recovery. Because the charges are classified as taxes, the Commonwealth can also use garnishee notices, offsets against other amounts payable by the Commonwealth, and other enforcement powers available under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 or similar legislation depending on how the collection regulation is structured. There is no criminal penalty for non-payment within this regulation; the consequences are civil in nature. For importers, the practical enforcement risk is that the regulator (the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) may refuse to enter into or renew a compliance agreement if charges remain unpaid, effectively blocking the importer from accessing the self-assessment pathway for imported food. Similarly, an approved arrangement under the Biosecurity Act 2015 could be suspended or cancelled if charges are not paid, though that would be enforced under biosecurity legislation, not this regulation. The regulation imposes no obligation to keep records or provide information; such duties would arise under the collection regulation or the Imported Food Control Act 1992. The real deterrent effect is that unpaid charges will accrue and the importer will eventually face recovery action, possibly including court-ordered seizure of assets. For agents who are jointly and severally liable, the enforcement risk is significant because they can be pursued directly without the need to first exhaust remedies against the principal.

This regulation operates within a complex statutory framework. It is made under the Imported Food Charges (Imposition,General) Act 2015, which provides the head of power to prescribe charges. The regulation only covers charges that are not duties of customs or excise; those are dealt with in the Imported Food Charges (Imposition,Customs) Regulation 2015. Importers must therefore consider both instruments to understand their total charge liability. The regulation cross-references the Imported Food Control Act 1992 for the definition of compliance agreement. That Act sets out the regulatory scheme for imported food, including the power to enter into compliance agreements under section 35A. The charges prescribed in this regulation are directly linked to the operation of that Act. The regulation also cross-references the Biosecurity Act 2015 for the definitions of approved arrangement and Class 19 Arrangement. This means that the scope of the charges depends on the classification of arrangements under biosecurity law, not food law. The interaction with biosecurity charges is particularly important. Section 8 provides exemptions from the charges in this regulation if the person has paid certain charges under the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (Customs) Regulation 2016 or the Biosecurity Charges Imposition (General) Regulation 2016. This prevents double-charging for the administrative oversight of approved arrangements that serve both food safety and biosecurity purposes. For constitutional purposes, the regulation expressly limits its scope to charges that are neither customs nor excise duties, respecting the requirement of section 55 of the Constitution that laws imposing such duties must deal only with that subject matter. This means that if a particular charge were held to be a duty of customs or excise, it would be invalid under this instrument, and the equivalent Customs regulation would need to apply. The indexation provisions in section 6A incorporate the Consumer Price Index published by the Australian Statistician, linking the regulation to the broader economic statistics framework. Finally, the collection of the charges is governed by the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Regulation 2015, which is separate from this instrument. That collection regulation provides for joint and several liability of agents, as noted in section 7. Practitioners must therefore read this regulation together with the collection regulation to understand the full compliance picture.

The text of the regulation indicates that it was originally made in 2015. The only specific amendment referenced in the instrument itself is the Imported Food Charges (Imposition,General) Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2025, which is addressed in the transitional provisions in Part 3. Section 9 states that the amendments of Part 2 made by that amending regulation apply to financial years beginning on or after 1 July 2025. This suggests that the amending regulation modified the charge amounts or the structure of items 2, 3, and 4 in the table in section 6. The fact that subsection 6A(1A) provides that the indexation does not apply to items 2, 3 and 4 on 1 July 2025 strongly implies that those items were introduced or substantially rewritten by the 2025 amendment and that the government wanted to fix the amounts for the first year rather than have them immediately indexed. Prior to the 2025 amendment, the regulation may have had a different set of charges. The original 2015 version likely had lower or different charges. The instrument does not disclose the full amendment history; practitioners would need to consult the Federal Register of Legislation to see the original version and any intervening amendments. The 2025 amendment appears to have been significant, creating the detailed sliding scale for item 4 and the specific carve-out for Class 19 Arrangements. The inclusion of indexation from 1 July 2024 (section 6A) was probably introduced by an earlier amendment, because the original 2015 regulation may not have had indexation. The instrument does not state the commencement date of the original regulation, but it was likely 1 July 2015 or shortly after the parent Act came into force. The only safe conclusion from the text is that the current version reflects amendments made by the 2025 Measures No. 1 regulations, and that the transitional rule ensures those amendments apply from the 2025-26 financial year onwards.

The text of this regulation does not refer to any litigation, and no cases are mentioned in the source material. As an analyst bound to ground every claim in the source, I cannot assert that any cases exist outside the instrument. It is possible that the parent Act or the Imported Food Control Act 1992 has been litigated, but this regulation itself has not been the subject of any reported judicial consideration that is recorded within the instrument. The absence of litigation history in the source is not surprising. This is a subordinate instrument that prescribes charges; challenges to such instruments are rare and would typically be brought on constitutional grounds (such as arguing that a charge is actually a duty of customs or excise and therefore invalid under section 55 of the Constitution) or on administrative law grounds (such as arguing that the charge is not properly authorised by the parent Act). No such challenge is recorded in the text. The note to section 6 of the parent Act (not in this regulation but mentioned in the simplified outline) indicates that the charges are imposed as taxes, which means they are not susceptible to challenge on the basis that no service is provided. The indexation provisions could theoretically be challenged if the CPI formula were applied incorrectly, but again no such litigation is noted. The regulation is relatively uncontroversial and technical in nature, which likely explains the absence of litigation. Practitioners should not assume that no litigation has ever occurred, but the instrument itself provides no information on that point.

The most significant trap is the complexity of the charge calculation under item 4 of the table. The provision contains five different sub-scenarios (paragraphs (a) through (e)) depending on the type of the first relevant arrangement or agreement (whether it is a Class 19 Arrangement or not) and the timing of when further arrangements or agreements come into force (before or after 1 January in the financial year). Importers who hold a mix of compliance agreements and approved arrangements, especially those involving Class 19 Arrangements, need to carefully track the order in which arrangements came into force and the exact dates. A compliance officer could easily miscalculate and underpay or overpay the charge. Second, the indexation exemption for 1 July 2025 only applies to items 2, 3 and 4. On 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2026 onward, those items are indexed, but the application fee under item 1 is always indexed (no exemption). This asymmetry could catch importers who expect all charges to be frozen in 2025. Third, the exemption in section 8 for item 2 and item 4 charges depends on having paid the corresponding biosecurity charge under specific items (13 or 13AB) in the Biosecurity Charges Imposition regulations. If the biosecurity charge is paid under a different item, or if the person is exempt from the biosecurity charge for some other reason, the exemption under this regulation does not apply and the full charge is payable. Fourth, the joint and several liability of agents under the collection regulation is a hidden risk. A customs broker who lodges documents for an importer could be pursued for unpaid charges even if the importer is insolvent. The note in section 7 is clear, but many agents may not realise the extent of their exposure. Fifth, the definition of Class 19 Arrangement is narrow: it only applies to arrangements for assessing documents regarding containerised sea freight and not requiring biosecurity activities at a particular place. An importer may mistakenly believe a particular arrangement qualifies as Class 19 when it does not, leading to an incorrect charge calculation. Sixth, the application fee exemption under section 8(1) only applies if the person is already a party to another compliance agreement or covered by an approved arrangement. A person who has previously had a compliance agreement but let it lapse will have to pay the full $194 application fee for a new one. Finally, the rounding rule for indexation (rounding 50 cents upwards) means that even small CPI increases can push charges up by nearly a dollar, which cumulatively adds to compliance costs over time.

To comply with this regulation, an importer or agent must first determine whether they are liable for any of the prescribed charges. The first step is to identify whether the person holds or is applying for a compliance agreement under the Imported Food Control Act 1992, or holds an approved arrangement under the Biosecurity Act 2015. If the person is applying for a compliance agreement and is not already a party to another compliance agreement and not covered by an approved arrangement, they must pay the $194 application fee. If the person already holds a compliance agreement or an approved arrangement, they must assess which ongoing charge applies. Start by counting the number of relevant arrangements or agreements (both compliance agreements and approved arrangements) that cover the person at any time in the financial year. If there are two or more, and at least one is a compliance agreement, and at least two existed immediately before the start of the financial year, then item 2 applies and the charge is $3,316 for the year. If that test is not met, then check if the person has a single compliance agreement and no approved arrangement when the compliance agreement first covers them; if so, item 3 applies: $2,857 if the agreement is in force before 1 January, or half that if on or after 1 January. For all other cases where at least one compliance agreement exists, item 4 applies with its sliding scale that turns on the type of the first arrangement (Class 19 or not) and the timing of further arrangements. The calculation requires precise record-keeping of when each arrangement started. If the person pays a biosecurity charge for administration of approved arrangements under item 13 or 13AB of the Biosecurity Charges Imposition regulations, they should claim the exemption under section 8 and not pay the charge under this regulation. It is also advisable to ensure that the agent (if any) is aware of the joint and several liability and that the principal importer has made arrangements to pay the charges. Because the charges are indexed annually on 1 July, compliance systems should be updated each year to reflect the new amounts. For the 2025-26 financial year, note that items 2, 3 and 4 will not be indexed, but item 1 will be. After 1 July 2025, indexation resumes for all items. The regulation does not prescribe a method of payment; practitioners should consult the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Regulation 2015 for payment procedures. In practical terms, the safest course is to maintain a register of all compliance agreements and approved arrangements, with start dates and classification (Class 19 or not), and to review the charge calculation at the start of each financial year and whenever a new arrangement is entered into or an existing one ends.