More than a dozen advocacy groups have been "lobbying the crossbench hard" in recent weeks to prime the Senate as the final battleground to block the government's controversial Biosecurity Protection Levy legislation.
The bodies are hoping for the Bill to be referred to a Senate Committee to both prolong the debate and open a forum for a robust and public interrogation of the issues, including its impact on producers.
The "new tax" is expected to pass the lower house as soon as next week.
The crossbench and staffers were said to be "supportive and understanding" around some of the more controversial aspects of the Bill after briefings with farm groups in the private meetings.
These include collected money being funnelled into consolidated revenue, a "flawed" funding model design and lack of "equity" compared to the contribution of "risk creators" in calling for a container levy.
The groups, ranging from peak to commodity representatives, have overwhelmingly requested a hard block of the legislation while some have suggested palatable amendments to give the senate room to move.
With the Coalition certain to vote against the Bill in the upper house, the Greens will then hold the balance of power.
A Greens spokesperson said its position was still being finalised and would then need Party Room approval.
However, current signals suggest the Bill is likely to be referred to either the Rural Affairs and Transport Committee or Finance Committee with a 30-day turnaround as the levy is due to begin on July 1.
The crossbench must also weigh up advice from the Agriculture Department, Labor and environmental and other interest groups.
A compounding factor is the black and white legislation has only been available for dissection since late February.
The prospect of poor optics around blocking a Bill that could enhance biosecurity may point the crossbench to seek amendments to sticking points rather than stopping its progress.
They are also considering "blind spots" in the farm lobby pitch.
Although the Senate will not make a decision until Nationals leader David Littleproud addresses the lower house, the previous Coalition government abandoned well-progressed plans for a container levy.
Further aspects include that the $48.5 million to be collected from producers each year is a small part of an overall $800m sustainable biosecurity model and that, while recognising farmers already pay a slew of levies - there is uncertainty about whether any contribute directly to border control.
A recent offer by importers to pay the producers' levy contribution comes with the caveat that the government would try to reduce port fees for importers and exporters in return.
Further aspects are the large sums of money being permanently baked into budgets to fight invasive species and other revenue raising settings introduced elsewhere, like increased small import charges.
However, it is believed a Productivity Commission report and National Farmers Federation-commissioned independent research from ANU's respected Crawford School highlighting inequity issues are being taken seriously.
Grain Producers Australia chief executive Colin Bettles said he has approached senators and MPs to get across the finer details as to why so many farmers were strongly opposed to the Bill.
'We need elected representatives to take time to listen and understand our concerns about the real consequences of this fundamentally flawed proposal," he said.
"And how this Bill will negatively impact all producers at a time when we're already under immense pressure to produce food more cheaply for families, in the middle of a cost of living crisis."
Meanwhile, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt told ACM Agri that while he expects Coalition opposition to the Bill in the Senate, he hopes other senators will consider recent modelling changes "reflecting industry feedback during the consultation process."
"We obviously made changes to how the levy will be calculated and also announced an advisory body to provide producers with a say over how (the levy) will be spent," he said.
"I think we have ended up with a reasonable compromise where we are asking producers to chip in a small amount to protect their livelihoods."
The advisory body was announced earlier this month and will be made up of industry representatives but, while some believe it a "genuine gesture" others think it is "politicking."
It is also believed the government is formulating contingency plans should Senate delays mean the Bill was not green-lighted by July 1.
