It was a sad day for Queenslanders yesterday, with yet another ruthless attack on residents and property owners by police and bio-security officers. The NFAEP relentless desire to distribute toxic, poisonous chemicals in areas where there are no fire ants led to uniformed police (employed under a commercial arrangement as agents of the Department of Primary Industries) to jump fences, ignore due process and individuals right to (peacefully) obstruct an officer on private property in the Beechmont and Witheren areas of southeast Queensland.
Section 336 of the Biosecurity Act 2014 states:
336 Obstructing designated officers
(1) A person must not obstruct a designated officer, or another person or a detection animal helping a designated officer, exercising a power under this Act unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(2) If a person has obstructed a designated officer, or another Person or a detection animal helping a designated officer, and The officer decides
to proceed with the exercise of the power, The officer must warn the person that – It is an offence to cause an obstruction unless the person has a reasonable excuse; and The officer considers the person’s conduct an obstruction.
The term reasonable excuse is not defined in legislation and MUST be what an ordinary person considers reasonable under the current circumstances.
Most ordinary people I talk to consider distributing toxic, poisonous chemicals, in areas where no fire ants exist, on private property without owners consent, as a reasonable excuse to obstruct.
This is supported by science and Dr Joshua King’s open letter of concern where he states:
‘Underlying the entire eradication program, as currently being carried out, seems to be the assumption that eradication is feasible and ultimately justifies the methods being used to attempt to eradicate and prevent further invasion of Australia by the fire ant. It is very important to note that, in the face of ongoing introductions, no eradication program has ever succeeded in
preventing fire ant establishment and spread over larger areas and longer time spans. This is not anecdotal but has unfortunately been repeatedly demonstrated. The clearest example is, of course, the successful invasion of the southern US, in the face of one of the largest invasive insect eradication programs in history. Ultimately, the attempts at eradication and prevention of
further invasions by fire ants have not only failed but the very actions taken to eliminate the fire ant ultimately hastened its establishment and spread. Given the reality of this extremely challenging invasive species, and the lessons that failed eradications have taught us, it is extremely important that the National Fire Ant Eradication Program consider the costs and benefits of enacting widespread toxic baiting program. It is especially important that the potential
ecological costs (and other non-target impacts) of enacting such an eradication program in areas that are not yet invaded be weighed against the actual outcome of an invasion’.
To be clear, it is very difficult to present a reasonable excuse when the NFAEP officers and police appear at your door, unannounced. This is because you need to act on your right to obstruct them and isolated and alone, with 6+ biosecurity officers and two police officers misrepresenting their power and denying due process is hard to manage. Not only must you communiate you wish to obstruct, as is your right under section 336 of the Biosecurity Act, you must be convincing enough for the biosecurity officer to consider your conduct an obstruction. This makes people uncomfortable. If you say you aren’t violent they will continue to the chemical distribtion. If you are in this situation you need to be loud and clear.
‘I verbally inform you I wish to obstruct, as is my right in section 336 of the biosecurity act. Do you acknowledge that I wish to obstruct?
They will respond with something like:
‘Are you violent or will you physically assult us’
This is a loaded question but practicing your response will help. Try,
‘I am not not violent but will continue to obstruct you, in any way possible should you choose not to recognise my verbal instruction that I obstruct you, as is my right in section 336 of the biosecurity Act. Will you please acknowledge that you accept that I will obsrtuct you?’
You need to think of actions you can take to obstruct under these circumstances. A hose, sprinkers, how are you going to obstruct them enough so they acknowledge you are obstructing?
I promote a proactive approach using stat dec’s and registered mail. It is important to realise the NFAEP and those empowering this lunacy are extremely dedicated to the distribution of toxic chemicals regardless. They will misrepresent their power, lie, cheat, and deny due process if they can get away with it. They are ruthless, consider us as all fools and have a mantra of dely, deny and discredit anyone who trys and stands in their way.
So whether you choose to represent yourself or sign up with advocacy through AAG, it is important to send letters, signed and witnessed by JP’s, scanned and sent via email and certified copies sent registered mail to their postal address. They can’t ignore and must engage, they can’t repond so will just ignore.
Biosecurity Act 2014, Chapter 1, Part 3, Section 12 states:
Community involvement in administration of Act This Act is to be administered, as far as practicable, in Consultation with and having regard to the views and interests Of, public sector entities, local governments, industry, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders under Aboriginal tradition and Island custom, interested groups and persons and the community generally.
Reach out if you require help with the paperwork. I can help you either as part of the Advocacy Group or I can assist you to present your documentation yourself.
Subscribing to this site does not mean you are represented by AAG and are automatically included in the service, you must organise a Service Agreement to be signed witnessed and posted to the NFAEP.
Leave a Reply