Posts

Fire Ant Program: Chemical Sparks Concern

,

After raising concerns about the use of Pyriproxyfen in the fire ant prevention program, I was told by CEO Scott Hansen (APVMA) that it should not be used as a preventative measure—even after I pointed out that this is exactly what’s happening in South-East Queensland under the Queensland Fire Ant Eradication Program. I also presented evidence of widespread breaches of the permits governing the use of these chemical poisons.

In addition, I raised concerns about confusion in the permits regarding the use of chemicals near and in waterways, particularly given that S-Methoprene is highly toxic in marine environments.

Mr Hansen made it clear that treatment responsibilities fall under state jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth does not exercise oversight over how these chemicals were used. While there is a Commonwealth–State partnership, he explained that governments rely on international safety data rather than local studies. He confirmed that permit requirements are currently under review.

Mr Hansen also advised that complaints can be submitted through the Adverse Experience Reporting Program, and noted that there are currently 28 reports under consideration relating to fire ant concerns.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. My questions are about red fire ants and about the chemical side of things. I note that the permit number PER87728, related to the permitted use of the chemical pyriproxyfen, says, ‘Do not apply as a preventative for red imported fire ant control.’ This being the case, why is it being spread widely by aerial and ground application to properties where no fire ant activity has ever been identified by people from the national fire ant eradication program, in breach of the permit?

Mr Hansen: That’s an issue I think we talked about last time. The prophylactic use of that chemical is not available under that permit and that needs to be referred to the control-of-use authority, the Queensland
government.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the effect of this chemical, pyriproxyfen, to persons who have respiratory or autoimmune diseases when applied in close proximity to them?

Mr Hansen: If applied as per the label it’s quite safe, but if applied in close proximity to them then there would obviously be concerns for them.

Senator ROBERTS: What Australian research has been done in relation to the effects that this chemical has on humans?

Mr Hansen: All of those products are either variations of existing registered products or under permit and have been assessed against the safety criteria for humans, but, again, all of those uses are as per the label
requirements, in terms of our assessment for safety to people and safety to the environment.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve said that they’ve been assessed relative to Australian requirements, but that doesn’t mean that Australian research has been done, does it?

Mr Hansen: No. In some cases, we’ll use international benchmarks and international research—that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that the first Australian permit number, PER90213, related to the permitted use of the chemical S-methoprene, says: ‘Do not apply where fire ant populations are not evident or no longer evident.’ This being the case, why are people from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program insistent on applying the chemical on properties where no fire ant activity has ever been or is evident, in breach of the permit?

Mr Hansen: That sounds as though it’s in breach of the permit conditions and should be raised with the Queensland government with regard to control of use.

Senator ROBERTS: Why must baits be laid only where it is not possible for poultry to have direct access to the baits? Is it a poison to birdlife? What about our native birds?

Mr Hansen: I’m not able to answer that one.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the impact on birds?

Mr Hansen: Again, all of the assessments as to environmental impact will have been taken into account, with regard to controlling those risks, via the conditions on the permits. I don’t have that permit in front of me. There are 13 permits that we have issued, at the moment, with regard to chemicals for use in the red imported fire ants control program.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of questions that might shock you if I raise them, but, in the interest of speed, I will continue. I’m confused by this permit because, on one hand, it says that treatment may be applied
into waterways up to 1.5 metres from each bank, yet, in the same permit, it states that the chemical is very toxic—emphasis on ‘very toxic’—to aquatic life. How can both of these statements apply? Waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane have already been contaminated and the aquatic life wiped out.

Mr Hansen: I’ll have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems a contradiction: you can apply it close to waterways but you can’t apply it in waterways, and it’s very toxic.

Mr Hansen: It is, but there is a slight difference between ‘close to waterways’ and ‘in waterways’. But let me take that on notice and have a look at that permit for you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What action have you taken to prevent a repeat of the contamination of waterways?

Mr Hansen: Again, once we set the directions on the permit, it’s the state and territory governments whose responsibility it is to control and ensure that the permits are used in accordance with those instructions. If we
receive information that that’s not the case, we forward it to the control-of-use authority—in this case, the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: What agency in Queensland would have responsibility and do you have direct oversight of them?

Mr Hansen: Not oversight. All states and territories are partners in the national registration authority scheme, and we supply that to Queensland DAFF biosecurity.

Senator ROBERTS: Just for your information, it’s not working in Queensland, because only yesterday the program’s staff used a drone to dump poisons directly into a waterway.

Mr Hansen: I heard that evidence being given earlier.

Senator ROBERTS: Why has there been no Australian environmental impact study done in relation to the application of both of these chemicals?

Mr Hansen: Because if we can run off the back of good international data we will do so, if it makes sense to do so. If we need to tailor it to the Australian environment, then we do do so before we make a decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t it been done?

Mr Hansen: In that case, it would be either that we are confident in the ability to use the international data for our assessments or we’ve been able to tweak the international data to factor in Australia’s native wildlife and environment.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not being critical of you, because you have got limited authority in Queensland, but how do you know that Queenslanders are complying with it?

Mr Hansen: That’s something for the control of use, and, unfortunately, we don’t police the control of use; that’s for the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no accountability? I’m not saying you’re—

Mr Hansen: There is, but it’s at the state and territory government level.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. The federal government gives them money and the states use it without oversight.

Mr Hansen: I think that there is a shared oversight there. The use of chemicals under permits that we issue sits with the state and territory governments—in this case, the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that in 2001, when fire ants were discovered in Brisbane, a decision was made to attempt eradication based on a study and modelling predictions made by USA’s RIFA program which predicted that the ants could spread throughout the majority of Australia? An off-label permit may be applied for to use a chemical in a way that is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions for minor use, for emergency use or for the purposes of research. Is that true?

Mr Hansen: The last piece, on the permits, I’m confident about. The first piece I’m not sure about.

Senator ROBERTS: What evidence was provided, do you know, to support the proposed limited permits? Was it data from the failed USA RIFA program?

Mr Hansen: I think it would have been environmental data and human toxicology data from around the globe with regard to those chemicals. Given the fact that the majority of those chemicals were registered products that are now being used in an alternative way, we would have looked at the original suite of data that was provided when they were registered as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like your answers. They are direct. The chair will be very happy, I’m sure. In 2001, according to Mr Craig Jennings, the principal policy officer at the Fire Ant Control Centre, the total area to be baited during the eradication program was to be 71,000 hectares. Within the area, he said, 1,236 properties were found with infestations. By August 2004, over one million property treatments had occurred and the area had ballooned to 850,000 hectares. If the off-label permit allows for limited use, how did the APVMA consider this expansive area as limited?

Mr Hansen: There are two pieces on that. The first piece is that whenever permits expire they come back up for consideration and we look at the scope and scale of the program and how they’re going to be used. On that front, we are currently reviewing a suite of the key permits that we have in play at the moment because there’s obviously been an indication from across the program for a rapid ramp-up of both size and scale of response and we need to make sure those permits remain appropriate to that size and scale.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you do your due diligence to make sure Queensland is compliant, or how do you get the evidence to change the permit-use factors?

Mr Hansen: We look at what the proposed use pattern is. What kind of area are they talking about it being used for? How are they looking to apply it? How frequently are they looking to apply it? We factor all of that into our health assessment and environment assessment and work out if it is still appropriate for use.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you go on site up in Queensland?

Mr Hansen: No, we don’t. We get the plans that they submit to us with regard to how they intend to use it and we run that against our assessment criteria.

Senator ROBERTS: In addition to pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, permits for Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil were provided by the APVMA—two highly toxic chemicals. On 3 October 2024, the APVMA made a regulatory decision to remove the use of Chloypyrifos for most agriculture and pest use ‘due primarily to worker health and safety and environmental risk that the APVMA does not believe can be mitigated’. There was a 12-month phase out period for remaining products. Has this poison use now ceased?

Mr Hansen: The permit held for Chlorpyrifos expires in line with that phase-out date.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2000 a number of products for use around the home were cancelled. In 2019 all home, garden and domestic uses of Chlorpyrifos, as well as uses which could result in exposure to children, were
cancelled. Why, if they knew of concerns, did the APVMA allow the use of these chemicals in treating homes, farms, parks, sporting fields and agricultural land?

Mr Hansen: Because the requirement for that treatment was people who were qualified and trained to carry out the treatments as opposed to allowing people to buy it off the shelves from their local retail stores and do it themselves.

Senator ROBERTS: The material safety data sheet for pyriproxyfen states that the chemical is for R&D use only. It has a rating of ‘H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects’ and ‘P273 Avoid release to the
environment’. Section 13 says: ‘Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal and do not discharge to sewer system.’ The APVMA is most certainly aware of this, and so why, for 25 years, has it
permitted these chemicals to be used?

Mr Hansen: Again, we would have conducted the assessments against the controlled use under the program and determined that they met the safety criteria.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get, on notice, access to those records, please?

Mr Hansen: We can see what we can provide, definitely.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many people work within APVMA?

Mr Hansen: 226.

Senator ROBERTS: The APVMA has certain powers to manage and monitor compliance with the AGVET legislation and undertake enforcement activities when required. Is that correct?

Mr Hansen: Enforcement of the control of use in each state and territory is the responsibility of that state or territory.

Senator ROBERTS: So what I just said is not correct?

Mr Hansen: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you monitor compliance at all?

Mr Hansen: No, we don’t monitor the compliance. We work in partnership with states and territories. We make the assessments as to what’s safe and how to manage the risks of chemicals that are required. We put those
controls onto a label. We then work with the states and territories, and they ensure it’s being complied with and they monitor—in part with other, broader scale monitoring programs like the National Residue Survey—to ensure that we’re seeing compliance across the board.

Senator ROBERTS: So no powers have been used by the APVMA—you don’t have any powers to ensure compliance, even within the permits granted?

Mr Hansen: We have powers to ensure compliance with regard to people who are selling, distributing and using registered products. But, in terms of the control of use of a registered product or a product under permit,
that role and responsibility sits with the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no public register for people to report their experiences with baiting?

Mr Hansen: There is. It’s called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. It’s on our website. We’ve received 28 reports over the past year. They range from concerns about the impact on pets to their own health to
the environment. All of those have been assessed, documented and forwarded up to the Queensland government as the controlled use agency.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you name that program again, please?

Mr Hansen: The Adverse Experience Reporting Program.

Senator ROBERTS: Who specifically is responsible at the APVMA for the authorisation of these chemicals?

Mr Hansen: Ultimately, the power in the legislation sits with me, and then I delegate it down to suitably qualified and technical people to make the assessments and make the judgements.

Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the final decision?

Mr Hansen: It’s whoever the delegate is on individual permits. It could be a range of people across the organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Name the dangers of these chemicals. What has the APVMA done to monitor their impact on the environment and wildlife and the impact on the health of the communities affected?

Mr Hansen: Again, if we had evidence and data supplied to us that suggested—if they’ve been used in accordance with the permit conditions—that there were impacts, we’d reassess those conditions. If we’re getting
evidence that it’s been used not in line with the permit conditions, then we raise it with the controlled use authority, that being the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: What recourse have you got if you learn that they’ve done nothing about it?

Mr Hansen: Ultimately, we have to consider whether we renew the permit, and at that point in time we consider whether the instructions and the conditions on the permit are able to be followed by those that have
sought the approval for use.

Senator ROBERTS: So you might either cancel the permit or not renew it—

Mr Hansen: Or not renew it—yes.

Senator ROBERTS: depending upon whether it’s deliberate noncompliance or whether it’s impossible to comply with.

Mr Hansen: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Over a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on a program that’s failing to eradicate fire ants. It has completely failed. They’re now into the Darling Downs and into the Murray-Darling Basin. They’re up in Central Queensland. They’re in northern New South Wales. It’s been a complete failure. The eradication has completely failed. Not only that but it’s done enormous damage environmentally and to the human community. When will the government stop wasting money and destroying the environment at the same time, and hurting people and hurting animals?

CHAIR: I don’t know that that’s a question for the officer. I’ll let the minister have a crack.

Senator Chisholm: We disagree with you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: On the basis of what evidence?

Senator Chisholm: I know that there was evidence given earlier—and I wasn’t here for that; I apologise. But I know Minister McCarthy was. The reality is that the work is slowing the spread of fire ants, compared to what we’ve observed internationally. We think that work is important, and we’ll continue to work with the Queensland government on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I challenge you on what you just said. You said that the work is slowing the spreading. By definition, that means eradication has failed—completely failed.

Senator Chisholm: We think the work that we’re doing is important and we don’t want to see the fire ants spread, so we’ll continue to invest with the Queensland government on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say that the work is important when it has failed? The eradication program has failed. It’s even failed as a containment program.

Senator Chisholm: We’ll continue to do our work with the Queensland government, because we think it is important.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s failed. How can it be important when it’s failed?

Senator Chisholm: You might want to give up, but that’s not what we will do.

CHAIR: I’d say at this late hour, Senator Roberts, that I would say thank you very much. That conversation will go around in circles. Mr Hansen, arrivederci.

Mr Hansen: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your concise and direct answers.

/3 Comments/by

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

Clarifying Chemical Safety Responsibilities with APVMA

,

I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.

I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS? 

Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit? 

Mr Hansen: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA? 

Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application? 

Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter. 

Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do people get hold of you? 

Mr Hansen: We’ll find a way. 

/1 Comment/by

Officials Shrug Off Fire Ant Concerns: Little Interest, Few Answers!

,

During this session, basic answers were provided, but little interest was shown in understanding the potential environmental catastrophe at hand. I was simply referred to the department’s submission to the fire ant inquiry. When I posed questions, Officials showed minimal interest in providing answers. They frequently redirected questions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and appeared unaware of the gravity of the issues raised. Some of the questions were taken on notice, but I was offered little substantive information.

It was clear that they were not fully informed on their responsibilities and showed little genuine concern for environmental protection.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask questions about fire ant treatment in Queensland. Are you aware of the many complaints that have been made about the administration of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program in Queensland, which has already resulted in massive environmental damage in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, but it also concerns residents in Currumbin, Boonah, Gatton and other places in South-East Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : The Australian government lead for the National Fire Ant Eradication Program is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. So, while I’m aware of some of those complaints and, broadly, on stakeholder interest in this really important issue, for some of those more detailed questions you may get some more comprehensive responses from that department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been in touch with RRAT, and I’m going to be asking questions of them tomorrow for the reasons you just mentioned, but I’d like to continue because this is an environmental matter. It’s a catastrophe in the making. Is the aerial dumping of toxic insecticide by helicopter into a creek system a breach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? This is exactly what has happened recently into Dawson Creek and Samford Valley, which I visited and sighted, and there’s no life in the creek. 

Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of whether that’s an issue under the EPBC Act or of the specifics of that. What I would say is that the treatments that are used in the fire ant eradication program are specifically targeted to those ants, and they’re approved by the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, who conduct a very rigorous scientific assessment prior to those approvals. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen what they’ve done in Dawson Creek and Samford Valley. It’s wiped it out. There’s nothing moving in the creek, nothing at all—no life. We’ve had similar complaints in other areas. Are you aware that independent water testing of the creek showed massive toxic pollution of the local waterways, not due to previous pollutants or other pollutants? 

Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with the details of these issues. They’ll be best handled by the agriculture department. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will this government halt the funding of the dangerous spraying of chemicals into our waterways until at least an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? I guess that’s a question for the minister. 

Senator McCarthy: I’ll certainly take on notice your concerns in regard to Dawson Creek. What I can say is our government would never want to pollute any particular area with any ill will. I think— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt of that at all. 

Senator McCarthy: So I just want to go back to the assertion in your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: There is no assertion whatsoever. 

Senator McCarthy: Okay, thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: All I want to know is will you stop the funding that’s polluting Dawson Creek and other areas until an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? 

Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to residents, there are serious conflicts of interest with the previous Queensland government. Dr Fraser, why was the program allowed to distribute huge quantities of poison into pristine environment with no environmental risk assessment completed beforehand, and why is it funded? 

Dr Fraser : To take your last question first, the program has been funded because red imported fire ants are one of the world’s worst invasive ant species. If this species remains unchecked in the South-East Queensland area and beyond, it could cover up to 97 per cent of Australia. It would wipe out huge numbers of birds, mammals and other species and cause enormous destruction to agricultural industry throughout Australia, human health and infrastructure. It is possibly one of the worst invasive species Australia has experienced, and the overseas experience is those catastrophic impacts I just spoke about. Hence, the commitment of the Australian government and the increased funding commitment by the Australian government to deal with this pest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice and provide us with the evidence backing up what you just said, please? We’ve got very concerned residents in my home state, and they have talked to people overseas, including people in Texas—fire ants are now quite common across the United States—and there’s very little damage at all. So if you could just take it on notice to provide me with the evidence to back up your claim. 

Dr Fraser : I don’t need to take that on notice. We have provided information on that, including scientific references in our department’s submission to the red imported fire ant inquiry, and we also appeared as witnesses at that inquiry as well. So that information is on the public record as part of our submission, but it is much more broadly on the public record and documented in the scientific literature, including for the United States. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware of the damage to the environment that’s already occurred through the mismanagement of this program in Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that 21 years ago there was one fire ant nest at the port of Brisbane and now they are in Northern New South Wales and all over South-East Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not familiar with that. 

Senator ROBERTS: The program is failing. 

Dr Fraser : The program has been hugely successful in limiting the spread of red imported fire ants from the South-East Queensland region. The rate of spread in Australia is miniscule compared to the rate of spread in countries like China and the US, where this species is wreaking havoc. 

Senator ROBERTS: How does spraying toxic chemicals in valleys with no fire ant nests helping to stop the spread of fire ants? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of those detailed accusations. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the dead wildlife—including native ants and whole hives of bees—illness to pets and the massive loss of the marine life yabbies in the creek that have already occurred since baiting commenced? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the threats to human health posed by these chemicals used to treat land? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not, but I am aware of the threats posed to human health posed by red imported fire ants. 

Senator ROBERTS: People have water tanks—they’re not on the reticulated water system—that use their roof. They’ve got toxins on their roof. Spraying over houses with humans in them. This is what’s going on. 

Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with these issues, and I would also not claim that toxic chemicals do not have impacts beyond the target species; however, it’s a risk management approach that is taken in dealing with these invasive species. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does the risk management include sloppy and indiscriminate helicopter usage? 

Dr Fraser : You’re aware that I won’t know the answer to that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that S-methoprene is not approved for use in the UK, because of high-risk environmental concerns? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not, but, as I’ve stated, I’m not an expert in these matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: What compensation will be made for the damage already caused by this ill-considered program. 

Dr Fraser : I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister? 

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are properties in Queensland and many valleys still being poisoned when it has been established that there are no fire ants present? 

Mr Knudson : A number of your questions go to the implementation of this program, which, as Dr Fraser has laid out, is a program of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We’re just not positioned to give you informed answers on those questions. 

Senator ROBERTS: This has become an environmental issue, with all due respect, Mr Knudson. That’s why I’m asking questions here as well as Agriculture. 

Mr Knudson : What Dr Fraser has laid out is, ‘Here’s the environmental risk et cetera,’ but the specifics on the implementation of the program are a matter for the department of agriculture. I’m just trying to say I think your energy and effort would be best focused on the department of agriculture. 

Senator ROBERTS: I have plenty of energy—tonnes of energy! 

Mr Knudson : I have seen that many times. 

Senator ROBERTS: What we’ll be doing is going into Agriculture and holding them accountable as well, but this is an environmental catastrophe—a human catastrophe. 

Mr Knudson : That’s what Dr Fraser has laid out that. We’re not saying that there are no impacts from the program; what we are saying is that it’s a really significant environmental issue that we’re trying to contain. What Dr Fraser has laid out is that there is significant evidence that the program has been effective in containing the growth and spread of red fire ants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Residents in Queensland would disagree. Let me ask my last two questions. Given that the eradication of fire ants has failed over the last 30 years in Australia and we have spent almost a billion dollars, is it time to stop this program and try to find another, environmentally safe and responsible management solution? 

Dr Fraser : The program hasn’t failed. The program has been successful in curtailing the spread of red imported fire ants by any measure, including against overseas measures. 

Senator ROBERTS: Which department appropriates the money to Queensland, and what monitoring and audit measures are there? 

Dr Fraser : There are extensive monitoring and auditing measures. As for which department appropriates the money to Queensland, that would be a question for the department of agriculture. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not your department? 

Dr Fraser : No, it’s not. 

/3 Comments/by

Fire Ants Town Hall in Samford!

,

Join us for a community forum to discuss the concerns surrounding the Fire Ant Eradication and Control Program.

Many residents have raised concerns about how the program is being conducted.

Friday, 19 July 2024

6 pm to 8:30 pm

Samford Community Centre

41 School Road, Samford

/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