Posts

Biosecurity Must Not Breach Our Rights

,

I’ve been pressing the federal government on its oversight of the fire ant eradication program. While Canberra funds half of this national program, responsibility for delivery lies with the Queensland government. Landowners are reporting serious issues — intimidation, property damage, and environmental harm — yet the department insists there’s “no evidence” of wrongdoing.

I asked questions about residents’ rights to refuse access when health or safety is at risk. What happens if someone has asthma and chemical exposure could trigger an attack? What about pets, livestock, or crops at risk? The department wouldn’t give me an answer. Even more alarming, I’ve received reports of chemicals being used unlawfully — S-methoprene dumped into waterways, aerial spraying of pyriproxyfen in areas with no fire ants — all in breach of permit conditions.

And then there’s Dawson Creek in Samford Valley where locals report native species have been killed. Where’s the environmental safety research proving these chemicals are safe for people and wildlife? The department claims the program is “supported by science,” and insists it won’t suspend funding—even when breaches occur. That’s taxpayer money being spent on a program that could be putting lives, health, and ecosystems at risk.

I’m not backing down. Biosecurity matters, yet it should never come at the expense of people’s rights, health, or trust.

If you’ve had problems with the fire ant program, please reach out — I’d like to hear from you.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What oversight is the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful in eradicating fire ants and are doing so safely?

CHAIR: I will say that we have touched on fire ants, but please feel free.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I raised this at the last Senate estimates. I’ve got quite a few questions.

CHAIR: Carry on.

Ms Sawczuk: As we mentioned a moment ago, we continue chairing the national governance—the national management group—around the program. There is a program-level meeting and also a consultative meeting. That is happening regularly, and the next national governance meeting is on 15 December. Taking on board the concerns that you raised at the last estimates hearing and correspondence that has been provided to the department but also to the program in Queensland, we have been engaging with the program to pass on the specific feedback that has been provided. They have confirmed that they are taking on board any considerations raised by landowners, but there has been no damage to property and also no unlawful behaviour in regard to accessing properties for treatment et cetera. The safety of the program is absolutely critical. It’s something that is discussed at the national management meetings in particular, and we take quite seriously any concerns that have been raised around specific treatment types, whether it’s broadscale treatment or direct nest injection. The APVMA is the authoriser of those particular treatments and can confirm that the program has been undertaking independent toxicology analysis, which has found that there is no direct correlation with any negative impacts to animals et cetera around the fire ant treatment.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’m stunned. When you say ‘take on board’, what do you mean? What action do you take specifically to hold them accountable?

Ms Sawczuk: We directly engage at all levels.

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?

Ms Sawczuk: We meet with the program to talk about the specifics.

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you meet?

Ms Sawczuk: Virtually and face to face, and quite regularly. Every piece of correspondence that has been sent through is provided directly to the program, and then we have followed in meetings to understand the specific circumstances. While there are some claims, there is definitely no evidence that would warrant concerns about anything untoward about the behaviour of the program. I appreciate that there are some sensitivities for specific landowners et cetera, but all of the treatment, and all of the action by the program, has been within the Queensland biosecurity legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been assaults on people, injuries to innocent people. There has been complete disregard for people’s health. There have been violations of the permits, which I’ll get onto. So I don’t
accept your response at all. Last time we appeared at Senate estimates on this topic, we were deluged with people saying they would contact you. Have you been contacted by residents?

Ms Saunders: We have received correspondence since our last hearing, and, as Ms Sawszuk just outlined, all that information is provided to the program, who’s ultimately accountable for delivery, compliance, assurance and oversight of the work that occurs.

Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible?

Ms Saunders: The relevant state department in Queensland is responsible. There are ongoing discussions with them in regard to the issues that have been raised, but, ultimately, it’s the Queensland government that is
accountable for delivering the program.

Senator ROBERTS: So the state is responsible but you’re funding it to do these activities.

Ms Saunders: The nation, because it’s a national program, to which we contribute funding—correct.

Senator ROBERTS: The majority of funding.

Ms Saunders: It’s 50 per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: For eradication. You don’t seem to be aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being undertaken by the state government, particularly in South-East Queensland, forcing their way onto
properties unlawfully, causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children, polluting the environment, negligently and wilfully killing fauna and pets. Are you aware of those?

Ms Saunders: I know you’re disappointed with the response that we give you, as a department, but I can only give you the same advice I gave you at the last hearing on these matters, and that is that we are not accountable or responsible for the issues you’ve raised, nor do we have evidence of them.

Senator ROBERTS: Since when is it okay for gates and fences, with your funding, to be broken down, with police threatening those with reasonable excuses who withhold consent—for strangers to force their way onto
properties and sneakily and deceptively distract people from their properties, with a view to spreading poison, when there are no fire ants on their property, not even in the valley?

Ms Saunders: I’m not sure what else I can add to our earlier evidence on this.

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. The landowners have been professional and peaceful. Why?

Ms Saunders: These are the responsibilities of the state government. I’d really encourage those allegations and concerns being directed to them. As indicated by the deputy, the legislation which they’re operating in
compliance with is entirely the responsibility of the state government.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re funding it. I attended another property some kilometres away from the two locations I mentioned that had multiple fire ant nests—I saw them six metres apart in places and two or three
metres apart in places—that the program refused to attend and treat. Why is that?

Ms Saunders: I can’t comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like the name of the property?

Ms Saunders: Certainly, we’re happy to take any information you have. We would relay it to state government for action, noting we have no authority.

Senator ROBERTS: A property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness, such as asthma or other respiratory
ailment, confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? Is that a reasonable excuse?

Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats and birds—if they’re exposed to the toxic chemicals, including chickens?

Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals that you’re funding represent a threat to poultry, livestock and fruit and vegetables growing on the property?

Ms Saunders: If you have a long list of allegations, we’re happy to take those allegations and raise the matters with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I will do that with most of these questions. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by
the APVMA?

Ms Saunders: I don’t have a comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Just yesterday I was told—this is so common—that the program distributed S methoprene directly into a Samford waterway, against the safety rules for application, by way of a drone. Are you aware of that?

Ms Saunders: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Aerial application of pyriproxyfen is occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have ever been identified, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint:
DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. If the permit has changed, why? Are you aware of that?

Ms Saunders: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the administering authority has already admitted to disastrously polluting a significant waterway in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, Dawson Creek,
killing extensive native water, reptile and insect species? I’ve seen that. Is that a reasonable excuse?

Ms Saunders: I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Did you take photos?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Can you produce them for us?

Senator ROBERTS: The locals can.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: What about you? You said you took photos.

Senator ROBERTS: No, the party I was with took photos.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Oh, I see.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is the environmental safety research that’s been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of their food chain? Have you
done that?

Ms Saunders: I’ll hand over to Dr Bertie Hennecke—he can probably comment further—but the program is absolutely supported by scientific evidence and safety. It’s been looked at nationally, with people who have
credible experience in this field, all of whom are satisfied with the arrangements that are in place and the chemicals that are being used for the purpose intended.

Senator ROBERTS: In distributing these chemicals, they’re breaching the permits—they’re breaching the authorisation—to use the chemicals. Does that bother you? You’re funding it.

Ms Saunders: If there’s evidence of that, we’re happy to take that evidence and take up the matter with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Will DAFF step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the Fire Ant Eradication Program?

Ms Saunders: It wouldn’t be the responsibility of the department—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re funding it.

Ms Saunders: to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding this using taxpayer money, doing injury to the environment and to people?

Ms Saunders: It’s a national program aimed at eradicating red imported fire ants. It’s that simple. We know it’s incredibly invasive and, if it were to take hold, would have catastrophic implications for the country. That’s
why we’re doing it.

Senator ROBERTS: So why are you putting lives and the health of humans and the environment at risk?

Ms Saunders: We don’t have evidence of that.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like some?

Ms Saunders: As I’ve said several times now, I’m happy to take information you have, and we’ll take it up with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you stop funding this program, or at least suspend funding of this program?

Ms Saunders: No, we won’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/by

Fire Ant Bureaucrats Ignorant

,

During last week’s Senate Estimates, I questioned Minister Chisholm and Acting Secretary of the Department, Ms Justine Saunders, regarding the ongoing mismanagement of the Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland.

Despite them saying that the Department has been working closely with Queensland operatives, both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders claimed they were unaware of any issues within the program. They stated that they had seen no evidence of mismanagement by those on the ground in Queensland.

When asked directly about what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” for the program’s failings, they declined to comment—which would suggest that such a determination should be a matter for the courts.

In light of this, I am calling on anyone with evidence of mismanagement or misconduct by program officers to urgently send it to both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm

Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Email: senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au

Ms Justine Saunders

Acting Secretary

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

GPO Box 858

Canberra ACT 2601

Email: justine.saunders@aff.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move onto fire and a broad overview of the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful because we’re using federal funds in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. 

Ms Sawczuk: We’ve been very closely monitoring the delivery of the program as the chair of the national management group, and also as a key party to all of the governance program and the technical committee. We have also been working with Queensland, and the program specifically, by providing compliance and enforcement officers some assistance around communication.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve been providing them to Queensland?  

Ms Sawczuk: Yes, we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are their duties? 

Ms Sawczuk: To provide, for example, assistance on a compliance and enforcement framework, noting that there were a number of detections of importance; having a look at the compliance and enforcement activities done around that; and also working with the program to assess the triggers and the risks, if any of them are being met as a result of the detections. We’re also working with them to strengthen communications. We’re looking at the messaging that is getting out, particularly some of the success stories but also some of the targeting of the right messages. And because we are the national management group committee chair, we’re providing some advice on governance and cost-sharing arrangements. We work very closely with them to monitor the program, given that there is a significant investment, but also given that we do have that national coordination role in the governance. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’d like to go with this. We do provide a lot of federal taxpayer money for this Queensland program—it’s largely Queensland. Is this government aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being used by the states and of breaches of regulations on pesticides, particularly in South-East Queensland? I’m sad to say that they’re forcing their way into properties and causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children? Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No, we’re not.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s going on; that’s right. Since when is it okay for gates and fences to be broken down with a police presence, threatening those with reasonable excuses who withheld consent to strangers forcing their way onto properties with a view to unlawfully spreading poison when there is not a fire ant within cooee— this is in breach of pesticide regulations. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley and other places, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. I’ve talked with the landowners. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: We’ve got no evidence to suggest unlawful conduct or misconduct by the program in undertaking the compliance activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I send you evidence?  

Ms Saunders: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: Sorry, can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers—that’s fire ant eradication program officers—if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of the legislation under which the program operates, in terms of the compliance enforcement. They’re state laws, and the question is better directed at the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Biosecurity Act says that they can have a reasonable excuse and then they cannot go onto the property.  

Ms Saunders: We’re not applying the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act in relation to this program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, state.  

Ms Saunders: I’m not familiar with their legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think it’s a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness such as asthma or other respiratory ailments confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? 

 Ms Saunders: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on facts that I’m not familiar with and/or are the responsibility of a state jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals present represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats, birds—if they are exposed to the toxic chemicals?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?  

Senator Chisholm: Again, I’m not aware of any existence of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your truthfulness. It’s very helpful. I’m not trying to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This is very serious in Queensland. Why is aerial application of pyriproxyfen occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have been identified, ever, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse, Minister, to obstruct when the administering authority has already disastrously polluted a significant waterway in the Samford Valley—you’d be familiar with the beauty of that valley—near Brisbane, killing extensive native marine, reptile and insect species?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals have already been shown to not discriminate between insects and have already wiped out thousands of native ants and native bees and their hives?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware. By the way, I’m not expecting you to be aware. Thank you.  

Ms Saunders: Also, nor do we have any evidence, Senator, that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. I’ll get people to contact you about it. Where is the environmental safety research that has been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of the food chain? Is there any?  

Ms Saunders: I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who is responsible for determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: That’s a state matter. You’d have to ask the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t it be up to a court to decide this crucial question?  

Ms Saunders: Once again, that’s a matter for state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and—what’s the other ‘f’?—Forestry step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the fire ant eradication program in Queensland thanks to the use of federal funds? Are you responsible?  

Ms Saunders: I’ll repeat my comments. No, they are matters for the state.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your direct answers. I’ll get someone to contact you. 

/4 Comments/by

A Collaborative Approach to Fire Ant Eradication is Needed

,

Before the election, I met with Sarah McGuire and other concerned landowners and introduced our fire ant policy. Sarah is a knowledgeable advocate for landowner rights and understands the fire ant eradication program details.

Landholders in SE QLD need more control over fire ant measures on their properties.

One Nation supports stronger efforts to eradicate fire ants, and believes working closely with landholders is key.

We’re calling for local workshops and tailored biosecurity plans. Landholders should have the right to refuse government programs if they can show effective alternatives.

Policy Release

Landholders should have more control of measures to manage and eradicate red imported fire ants on their properties and more assistance to comply with difficult biosecurity requirements.

One Nation Senate candidate for Queensland Malcolm Roberts said local farmers in the southeast Queensland were struggling with difficult fire ant restrictions imposed by authorities which impacted their profitability.

“Landholders in southeast Queensland need more control over what happens on their properties with regard to fire ants,” Senator Roberts said. “While One Nation supports a stronger overall effort to contain and eradicate red imported fire ants, we believe these efforts would be more effective if authorities worked more closely with landholders rather than just imposing blanket restrictions and rules for everyone.

“We’re calling for a series of local landholder and farmer workshops at which they can work with authorities and decision-makers directly and troubleshoot these issues. We’re calling for the development of individual fire ant biosecurity plans, approved by the landholder, tailored to the unique operations of every property. Implementing and complying with these plans would be the responsibility of the landholder.

“Local landholders should be able to refuse government baiting and chemical programs provided they are able to demonstrate other effective control methods with the support and guidance of authorities, and ensure fire ants cannot spread. For those who have had the pest successfully eradicated, authorities should be able to quickly provide certification to this effect and remove unnecessary restrictions on the movement of produce from these properties.

“Landholders also have concerns about the dangerous nature of some chemicals being used by the National Fire Ant Eradication Program, and want alternatives that directly target fire ant nests rather than blanketing their entire properties with these pesticides.”

Senator Roberts said One Nation would give landholders more control over eradication efforts on their properties.

“Our policy will support individual biosecurity plans for each property, with responsibility for compliance resting with the landholder,” he said. “They have every reason to ensure a pest-free property, and should be helped (and supported with funding if necessary) to implement them and comply with them. One Nation also plans to vigorously pursue questions into the effectiveness of the NFAEP, with a focus on landholder concerns, when Parliament resumes after the election.

“We will also investigate options for farmers whose profitability has been impacted by fire ant eradication to be compensated for their losses.

“One Nation has always supported the right to farm. One Nation has always known that farmers are the ones who know their land best, and how to best look after it. The NFAEP and biosecurity authorities risk alienating the very landholders they are trying to help with this heavy-handed top-down approach that ignores the wealth of expertise farmers and landholders possess.”

/1 Comment/by

Questions Raised with APVMA on mRNA Vaccine Approvals

,

During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.

I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.

I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.

Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.

I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines? 

Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick. 

Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA? 

Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit? 

Dr Trainer: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit? 

Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material? 

Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them? 

Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in? 

Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity. 

Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question. 

Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that? 

Mr Fennessy: To the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers? 

Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice. 

Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness. 

Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!  

CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. 

/by

Amending the Biosecurity Act — What Does it Mean?

This bill is seeking to provide biosecurity officers with increased powers. With everything we’ve been through over the past few years, I decided to ask for clarification on the bill. I questioned how these new powers could be used and whether there was a risk of discrimination against arrivals into Australia, particularly those who have chosen not to receive medical procedures such as the COVID-19 injections.

I am concerned these amendments would ensure the collection of data from all incoming travellers to support intelligence-gathering and evidence-based predictions of potential biosecurity risks.

Minister Watt offered assurances in the Senate Chamber that there is no intention of using the bill to discriminate against people based on medical status or ethnicity. He also assured me that this bill did not allow for collecting or retaining health information.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status?

Senator Watt: I’m just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I’m certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that’s really about trying to check where they have been and whether they’re repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It’s more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they’re repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I’m sure you’d agree that they’re the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on.

Senator Roberts: Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question?

Senator Watt: The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers.

Senator Roberts: You said ‘could’ and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19?

Senator Watt: That’s right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status.

Senator Roberts: My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained?

Senator Watt: In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It’s not a matter of—sorry, I’ll just clarify this. There’s nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn’t arise, because it can’t be retained for that purpose at all.

/by

Minister Watt continues to duck and weave on Foot and Mouth Disease

The PM has made a mistake in giving the Agriculture ministry to an accountant and lawyer from the Gold Coast. Even so, the country still needs to be ready for the worst. Our agriculture and economy depends on it.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, my intention in advancing this motion was to protect the people’s interests from the economic devastation that will result from foot-and-mouth disease if it enters Australia. There is no time to waste. It is a distinct possibility that, given the substandard response from this government, foot-and-mouth may be in Australia before the next sitting. Suspending standing orders to debate this matter today was essential, and I thank Senator Gallagher and the government for this.

Senator Whish-Wilson yesterday suggested that this matter could wait for discussion at the inquiry into the government’s foot-and-mouth response. No, it can’t. That’s weeks away. We need to act now to get these vaccines into Australia.

I know the minister appeared on radio earlier this week and alluded to the ‘scaremongering’ coming from some people around this issue. It is not scaremongering to want to save the life blood of hundreds of communities in rural Australia. It is not scaremongering to want to preserve $80 billion in exports. It is not scaremongering to want Australia to provide our beautiful red-meat protein into the international market to feed the world. It is not scaremongering to want to protect the thousands of jobs, including union jobs in transport, that the livestock industry supports.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister give the job of agriculture minister to an accountant and lawyer from the city? That decision was a gross insult to the Australian agriculture sector. The minister’s actions in his very first test show that the minister hasn’t a clue. The minister misleads and uses false slurs to cover up his own deficiencies and to divert attention from his deficiencies. The minister misled the Senate and the public when he answered my question on bringing vaccines to Australia just in case. The minister replied that this would cause Australia to be considered as ‘having foot-and-mouth disease’—rubbish! Having the vaccines here is not considered having foot-and-mouth. Using them is, and clearly these vaccines would not be used unless we had an actual outbreak. I’ve repeatedly called on the minister to correct his reply, and he continues to ignore that request. Truth doesn’t matter.

The minister misled the Senate when saying vaccine production had to wait until we knew the strain that had arrived in Australia. That specious reply ignores the likelihood that the strain we could have in Australia is going to be the same strain present now in Bali. If we’re making vaccines for Bali, make some more for us and store those vaccines in Australia, ready for any outbreak that comes here from Bali. Minister Watt’s answer ignores the simple question: if we need to know the strain before making a vaccine, what are the million doses of foot-and-mouth vaccine Australia is storing in the UK right now that he told us about?

The minister called into question my support for vaccines yesterday in another diversion. The minister was clearly not listening. In my question last Thursday, I did reassure the public that these vaccines are safe. The first thing I did in drafting my questions was to check that and to add the fact that it does look after people’s safety. I have never spoken against vaccination. I have spoken strongly against, and will continue to speak strongly against, experimental gene based treatments for humans, with grossly inadequate safety testing. Experimental vaccine injections have caused so many horrendous human injuries and deaths the government has had to implement a compensation scheme. In contrast, the foot-and-mouth vaccine is not an mRNA gene based vaccine. It is a normal vaccine, a real vaccine. According to New Zealand health authorities, it’s safe to consume meat and milk from a vaccinated animal.

So once again for clarity, before the minister misrepresents me again, I’m suggesting we get these one million doses of vaccine that we already own, and any others we need to produce for this strain, stored here in Australia, ready to vaccinate 48 hours after a foot-and-mouth outbreak occurs, should one occur. Taking this precaution will meet the procedure in the minister’s own manual. It’s on page 18 of the foot-and-mouth AUSVETPLAN edition 3 manual, in case the minister wants to look it up.

I asked the minister to explain why these vaccines are being stored in the UK rather than Australia. The minister has failed to explain this very strange decision, despite repeated requests. In the event of an outbreak, it will take seven days to get the vaccines here from the UK. Yet vaccination is supposed to start after 48 hours. After one week it will be too late. The livestock industry will be done for. He said he had tabled a response. He did, but it was scant and did not answer my basic questions. Was he really badly advised or did he lie? We need the truth. People need the truth. There are two issues now thanks to Senator Watt: foot-and-mouth and trust and truth, because of what he has done and not done and what he’s said and not said.

The minister’s briefing on foot-and-mouth last Tuesday appears to have made a factual error. It was in a casual reply, so I’m only going to mention this in passing. The comment was made that foot-and-mouth disease stays resident on hard surfaces for hours. The American College of Veterinary Pathologists briefing sheet on foot-and-mouth puts the residence period at one month. Between hours and one month, there is a hell of a difference—a huge difference. If it’s indeed one month then the protocols we’re following for foot-and-mouth need to be much stronger, more like the disinfectant protocols the government rushed to implement for COVID.

Some of these issues can be covered during the Senate inquiry. Vaccines, though, cannot wait. We must have them here now. We must have stronger airport screening now. How can it be that, after all these weeks the virus has been in Indonesia, we still have several international flights arriving directly from Indonesia all at the same time and then no flights for hours? If you do not have the staff to check every passenger from infected areas, Minister, here’s an idea: work with the airlines to stagger their arrivals so we can screen every single person.

I have no confidence that this minister, in being in charge of the department, is working from a set of protocols that are designed to stop foot-and-mouth. Rather, these protocols seem to be about looking as if government tried to stop foot-and-mouth. Perhaps this has something to do with the Left’s policy to reduce livestock to save on carbon dioxide production. A 43 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide output below 2005 levels by 2030 must include substantial reductions from agriculture. I’ll speak to this absolute nonsense, this garbage, on many occasions in the years ahead. For today, let me say that cows are not climate vandals. Graziers are wonderful custodians of the land, as Senator Nampijinpa Price just pointed out. The government is not a wonderful custodian of the land.

I’m aware there is work that suggests that foot-and-mouth will not spread amongst feral pigs and other feral animals that can get foot-and-mouth because of the sparse population. What utter rubbish! These researchers-for-hire clearly have not been to the national parks I’ve have been to. Nobody in the government seems to care that infestations of pests in national parks encroach on farmland, putting hardworking farmers under enormous strain, when all they want to do is grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Why the political Left want to stop farmers feeding and clothing the world is beyond me—and it’s clearly beyond Senator Nampijinpa Price. I know your climate gods need the ritual sacrifice of farmers to reach a target that makes no scientific sense, no moral or ethical sense, no human sense. And, really, how can rewilding productive farmland be more desirable than feeding and clothing the world and the people on our planet?

This agenda dovetails very nicely with Premier Andrews’s recent agriculture bill, which allows the Premier to declare quarantine on part or all of rural Victoria based on the threat of a disease outbreak. Animals can be culled on the threat of getting a disease. Farmers can be told what they can and can’t produce. Lockdowns can be hard border lockdowns extending for years. Victoria is coming for their graziers in the name of sustainability. All it will take is one disease outbreak. What could that outbreak be? If every rural media outlet in the bush is not getting onto their local Labor member or Greens candidates and asking them, ‘What is the go here?’ then I don’t know why they’re not doing it.

There’s a story here. It’s a story that is so much more than an inexperienced minister with no knowledge of his portfolio tripping over the first hurdle. It’s more than a minister who refuses to accept he’s made a mistake and, as a result, refuses to fix it. That’s not honest. It’s more than Australian farmers being thrown under the sustainability bus by wealthy city dwellers anxious to make others pay for their climate religion. It is about the very future of our Australian agricultural sector, and that’s terrifying.

Minister Watt made this an issue by misleading the Senate. Quoting others about foot-and-mouth disease does not change a thing with what’s happening with the government. Continually derailing the discussion and diverting the discussion onto what other people are doing or not doing does not answer questions. It shows the man lacks accountability and responsibility. And I will continue to do my job for the people. I’ve been elected by the people—not the people that Senator Watt quoted. It’s easier to get a human being vaccinated in this country than to get a cow vaccinated. We have one flag above this parliament. We are one community and we are one nation. Labor, in its policy on foot-and-mouth disease, is a clear and present danger to agriculture.

/13 Comments/by

Minister to front up and explain potentially misleading the Senate – Foot and Mouth Disease

https://youtu.be/SkE4j44_wcw

If Foot and Mouth disease enters Australia it will cost the industry an estimated $80 billion. Minister Watt’s response to foot-and-mouth disease has been half-baked and dangerous.

Transcript

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate requires the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on Thursday, 4 August 2022 to provide an explanation of not more than 10 minutes as to:

(i) answers provided to Senator Roberts after question time on Thursday, 28 July 2022 which appear to have misled the Senate, as detailed in Senator Roberts’ letter hand delivered to the Minister on Friday, 29 July 2022,

(ii) the failure by the Minister to bring foot and mouth disease vaccines to Australia ready for an outbreak should one occur, and

(iii) the failure by the Minister to provide suitable biosecurity precautions at Australian airports to prevent foot and mouth disease entering Australia;

(b) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (a); and

(c) any motion under paragraph (b) may be debated for no longer than one hour, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

Motion moved by Senator Roberts 3 August 2022 and agreed to by the Senate

Foot-and-mouth disease is a clear and present danger to the Australian livestock industry. If foot-and-mouth disease enters Australia, our exports will be suspended for several years, which will cost the industry $80 billion. This will be devastating to rural communities. Farmers will not survive. Regions will be decimated. The country will suffer as a whole. The federal government will be on the hook for huge social security and assistance packages, as well as for compensation for culled animals. The animals would like to express their desire to not be shot and burned.

This will not only bankrupt farmers; it will negatively impact the affordability of meat protein. If you think meat is expensive now—once we destroy a large part of the Australian beef industry, prices will go beyond the means of everyday Australians to afford meat. This is not a rural issue. Foot-and-mouth disease will affect every Australian through the cost of meat and dairy and through the additional burdens on the taxpayers to meet compensation and social security expenses.

Minister Watt’s response to foot-and-mouth disease has been half-baked and, quite honestly, dangerous. He has also, I believe, misled the Senate. I gave the minister a chance to correct and clarify his remarks, in a letter hand delivered to the minister last Friday requesting an attendance by close of business last Monday. The minister ignored that letter. The minister must attend the Senate to explain answers that he has given to my question without notice; they could constitute a misleading of the Senate.

Last Wednesday, 27 July, in questions without notice, my first question was in respect to the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine being held in the UK and read, in part: ‘If foot-and-mouth disease arrives in Australia, the short-term response would be to start vaccination.’ The minister’s reply included the statement: ‘The reason you don’t vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot-and-mouth disease.’

As a result of that misleading reply from Minister Watt, I have had to contend with suggestions on social media that I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our beef industry. I said no such thing. The minister was given an opportunity to correct the record, and he has not.

Minister Watt also stated that ‘what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia to keep the disease out, and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia’. I of course support assisting Indonesia with their foot-and-mouth disease response. They’re neighbours of ours. We need to support them. We also need to support them for humanitarian reasons. However, I might make the observation that this response presupposes that we know the strain in Indonesia and can access that vaccine if suitable. If we know the Bali strain, then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving to Indonesia here in Australia right now, in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought foot-and-mouth disease with them?

Minister Watt went on and made the statement that ‘we don’t necessarily know what strain of disease we would have in Australia’ and that we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine. If we need to know the strain before ordering the vaccine, then what about the million doses we already have in the UK? What strain do they protect us against, and at what cost? I received a call from the minister’s office last Thursday advising that we would receiver an answer to the question the minister took on notice regarding how many vaccines Australia has stored in the UK, to which the minister gave an indicative answer of one million. That answer did not arrive, and it’s been a week now.

Why are these vaccines being stored in the UK? How much are we paying to store them in the UK, when they should be stored here in Australia? Page 18 of the foot-and-mouth disease AUSVETPLAN, edition 3, states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection. In question time Minister Watt suggested that the vaccines could be here from the UK in seven days and that this was sufficient. However, the government’s own manual indicates that vaccination would be an appropriate response after just 48 hours. Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold foot-and-mouth vaccines in a similar way, then why not? It seems to be proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.

I’d just consider some other points as well. I note that the briefing last week by Minister Watt’s staff said that the virus stays for just hours on surfaces. Other sources in the United States reliably say that the virus stays on surfaces for a month. Therefore, if quarantine measures are not adequate—and it means they are not—then we need the protection of a vaccine. This is about food security for the people in this country—fellow Australians. It is about food prices and cost of living. It is about humanitarian support for the Indonesians. It is about support for our farmers, for our whole agricultural sector. As I said, if foot-and-mouth disease breaks out here it will cost us a suspension that is estimated to be around three years, costing $80 billion in lost exports. It also will gut our agricultural sector and tarnish our reputation—all because we are not being told the truth and we are being misled, and that compares with a few million dollars on a vaccine, which is the lowest-cost option for us to protect our farming industry and our farmers.

How much does it cost us to store these vaccines in the United Kingdom? This is about Minister Watt looking good, not doing good—all mouth and no substance.

Minister forced to explain potentially misleading Senate about Foot and Mouth disease
/3 Comments/by

Minister forced to explain potentially misleading Senate about Foot and Mouth disease

The Senate this morning has voted in favour of my motion requiring Senator Murray Watt, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to explain how he hasn’t misled the Senate in answers regarding foot and mouth disease.

The Minister must attend the Senate at 9:30am Thursday to explain.

In a hand delivered letter which he did not respond to, I asked the Minister to consider how his answers were not misleading the Senate. Official Government biosecurity measures state that vaccination of affected and proximate livestock should occur within 2 days of an outbreak.

Despite this, Minister Watt appears to maintain that holding 1 million non-mRNA cow vaccines in the United Kingdom, which would take 7 days to get here, is good enough. It isn’t.

It begs the question, why does it seem to be easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow?

We also have to ask, why is the Government colluding with the Greens to keep a non-mRNA vaccine for Foot and Mouth disease out of the country? Why is Labor being so slow to act on keeping Foot and Mouth out of the country?

Do they want a Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in the country to destroy our livestock industry so we all have to eat the bugs?

Minister to front up and explain potentially misleading the Senate – Foot and Mouth Disease
/6 Comments/by

Letter to Minister Murray Watt: Potentially misleading the Senate on Foot and Mouth

The Hon. Murray Watt

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

MG 61

Australian Parliament House

Dear Minister

Minister I am writing to ask you to reconsider answers given during question time on Wednesday July 27th and ask you to consider how your answers were not misleading the Senate.

Last Wednesday July 27th in questions without notice, my first question was in respect of the Foot and Mouth Disease vaccine being held in the UK and read in part “If foot and mouth disease arrives in Australia the short-term response would be to start vaccination”.

Your reply included the statement “the reason you don’t vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot and mouth disease”.

I did not say vaccinate livestock now, I said IF foot and mouth does arrive then start vaccinating.

As a result of your reply I have had to contend with suggestions on social media I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our export industry. I said no such thing.

  1. Please correct the record.

Minister my first supplemental question went to the adequacy of the vaccine stockpile. Your reply included the statement “what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia, to keep the disease out and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia.”

I of course support assisting Indonesia with their Foot and Mouth disease response. However I might make the observation this response presupposes we now know the strain in Indonesia and can access a vaccine that is suitable.

  1. If we know the Bali strain then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving Indonesia here in Australia in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought FMD with them?

If we ultimately do not need those vaccines I am sure Indonesia will be appreciative of receiving our stockpile to assist with their outbreak. One Nation are happy to be good neighbours.

Minister your reply to my second supplemental, which asked why the FMD vaccines could not be stored in Australia ready for an outbreak, included the statement “we don’t necessarily know what strain of the disease we would have in Australia and (paraphrasing), we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine”.

  1. If as you said, we do need to know the strain before making the vaccine what are the million doses we already have in the UK?

I acknowledge the call from your office on Thursday advising we would receive an answer to the question you took on notice regarding how many vaccines we have in the UK – to which you gave an indicative answer of one million.

  1. This response has not been received yet and I would ask that it contains details of strains for which we have completed vaccines stored in the UK together with respective quantities.

On page 18 of the FMD AUSVETPLAN Edition 3 it states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection;

  1. Minister why did you suggest the vaccines could be here from the UK in 7 days and this was sufficient, when your own manual indicates vaccination would be an appropriate option after just 48 hours?
  2. Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold FMD vaccines in a similar manner please provide an explanation as to why.

Minister, I make the observation that it is proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.

I thank you for your attention to this matter and would request a response by COB Monday 1st August 2022.

Yours Sincerely

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

/by

Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program

, , ,

Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.

I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?

[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?

[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.

[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?

[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.

[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?

[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.

[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.

[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.

[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.

[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.

[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.

[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…

[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?

[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.

[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?

[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.

[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.

[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?

[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?

[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?

[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?

[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?

[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.

[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.

[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.

[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.

[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.

[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Oh, right on time, Senator Roberts.

/by