Last few days has seen one of the Jennings boys speak out about hay issues in southeast Queensland. Initially, the Chief Biosecurity Officer, currently listed as Dr Rachel Chay, determined that it is not worth the risk to supply fodder sourced from within the fire ant infested areas.
This has created outrage in the community.
Why does an emergency have to occur before decision makers get involved and create resolve?
Why can’t everyone in the community be treated fairly in relation to hay producers and transport?
Why does a viral social media post, ranting and raving, create resolve when other’s in the community write letters, visit MP’s and decision makers quietly and respectfully and recieve no resolve?
AAG is calling on Lockyer Valley and other interested producers to meet at a community meeting at Stockyard Community Hall on 12 April 2025, starting at 1pm, to explore an Action Plan to put real pressure on decision makers leading into the federal election.
Expanding from Dr Rachel Chay determination that it is not worth the risk to supply fodder sourced from within the fire ant infested areas and subsequent backflip.
The statement provided below.
‘The Department of Primary Industries is appreciative of all offers to supply fodder to producers affected by severe flooding in Western Queensland.
However, the department’s Chief Biosecurity Officer has determined that it is not worth the risk to supply fodder sourced from within the Red Imported Fire Ant exclusion zone.
The impacts on the agricultural industry and the economy would be catastrophic if fire ants were inadvertently transported to this area.
The department has already coordinated the procurement of approximately 1,000 bales of hay for delivery to flood-affected locations in Western Queensland.
This follows the announcement of a $5 million Emergency Fodder Support Package as part of Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements with the Commonwealth’.
The decision was over turned and David Crisafulli, Premier of Queensland, and Graeme Bolton, Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), rectified the situation and had it sorted in a few hours. Obviously, this outcome is great for people affected by the floods and the rural Queenslanders that require assisstance but this raises a lot more questions about the Department of Primary Industries and the National Fire Ant Eradication Program.
I have been in discussions with primary producers in southeast Queensland, in particular hay producers who have had additional restrictions imposed on them since cyclone Alford, particularly interstate . These people don’t want to make a big Who-Ha on social media. They just want to be treated fairly and negotiate a circumstance where they can keep their operations going and feed their family. David Crisafulli, Hon Anthony (Tony) Perrett, DPI minister, and Graeme Bolton have been less accomindating in these discussions.
The Lockyer Valley region is of huge concern for local producers of hay and correspondance from Jim McDonald MP (QLD) suggest the DPI and National Fire Ant Eradication Program (NFAEP) can’t acknowledge the scope of the problem let alone be able to address and resolve the issues. Nine producers of hay are listed as affected by the new (unjustified) mandates which have been implemented since cyclone Alford. Correspondance from the Office of Jim is shown below.
- The NFAEP advised that the NSW Government made this decision (to ban hay movements from the fire ant biosecurity zone into NSW) without reference to any current situational assessment and/or input from Biosecurity Queensland or the NFAEP.
- NSW indicated it was considering allowing the nine producers who were previously permitted to move hay into NSW to move hay earlier if information about any flooding impacts for each respective property is provided. NSW is willing to issue individual permits (with the associated fee waivered) if as a jurisdiction they can fully assess/understand any flood impacts, including:
- Did flood waters impact the property and, more specifically, production areas?
- Did flood waters impact any hay storage facilities?
- Does the property have known fire ant detections?
- Would producers provide a statutory declaration confirming provisioned information?
- Biosecurity Queensland through Plant Biosecurity and Product Integrity (PB&PI) is contacting the nine operators about these questions with the express aim of allowing these producers to resume moving hay into NSW.
- advised to contact suppliers and refer them to PB&PI to ensure contact with their officers occurs. An officer from PB&PI’s Toowoomba office was also contacting all 9 producers.
- A National Pest Risk Analysis for fire ants is nearing completion and aims to inform harmonisation of rules across jurisdictions about fire ant carrier material movement to ensure these rules evidence-informed and aligned.
Based on the statement from Biosecurity Queensland, ‘department’s Chief Biosecurity Officer has determined that it is not worth the risk to supply fodder sourced from within the Red Imported Fire Ant exclusion zone‘, and the advice given to Jim McDonald’s office recently, ‘The NFAEP advised that the NSW Government made this decision (to ban hay movements from the fire ant biosecurity zone into NSW) without reference to any current situational assessment and/or input from Biosecurity Queensland or the NFAEP‘, the appears to be a conflict in the supply of information.
In addtion, it is laughable that correspondance suggest there are 9 Hay producers affected by this issue. Discussion conducted with hay producers today pointed out nine producers on the short street we were on.
Bureaucratic nonesense and heavy handed, top-down draconian approach to managing the fire ant situation is unrealistic and unjustified. Creating hoops, the NFAEP and Biosecurity QLD and NSW, for primary producers to jump through and extra costs. All based on pseudoscience and fear mongering adopted to justify their reckless, irresponsible, repeated, prophylactic distribution of poisonous toxic chemcials.
Some of the processes and procedures required can be found on these lists.
Hay management for fire ants | National Fire Ant Eradication Program
Fire ants carrier factsheet – Hay
Serious concerned have been raised with a previously published letter being published below.
Dear Whom it may concern,
I am writing to raise serious concerns about the current fire ant restrictions, particularly those affecting the interstate trade of hay and related goods. As a [business owner/farmer/stakeholder] in [location, e.g., South East Queensland], I believe these measures may violate Section 92 of the Australian Constitution and are causing undue financial harm to businesses like mine. If these restrictions are to continue, affected parties deserve compensation for the losses incurred due to what appears to be an unjustified policy.
Unconstitutional Burden on Free Trade
Section 92 guarantees that trade among the states must be “absolutely free,” yet the fire ant biosecurity restrictions—such as mandatory fumigation, certification requirements, and outright bans (e.g., NSW’s suspension of Queensland hay post-Tropical Cyclone Alfred)—impose significant barriers to interstate commerce. The High Court has ruled in cases like Cole v Whitfield (1988) that such restrictions are only permissible if they serve a legitimate purpose and are proportionate to the risk. I contend that these measures fail this test.
There is no documented evidence of fire ants being present in hay or transported by hay for over 20 + years. This absence of data—spanning from at least 2001 to today—suggests the restrictions lack a rational basis. Without proof that hay poses a credible risk, the requirements for costly treatments (e.g., bale fumigation, inspections) or market exclusions (e.g., lost sales to NSW) are disproportionate and arbitrary. This overreach not only stifles interstate trade but also disadvantages Queensland producers compared to those in unaffected states, creating a discriminatory effect that Section 92 is meant to prevent.
If these restrictions are not “appropriate and adapted” to a real threat, as required by constitutional law, they are an unconstitutional infringement on our right to free trade. I urge you to review the evidence (or lack thereof) underpinning these rules and consider their legality in light of this 20+ year gap.
Compensation for Affected Businesses
The economic toll of these restrictions is substantial. For my business alone, [insert specific impact, e.g., “I’ve lost $20,000 this season due to fumigation costs and lost interstate contracts”]. Across Queensland’s fire ant zones, hay producers, nurseries, and turf growers report revenue drops of 30-40%, with small operators hit hardest. These losses stem from a policy that, given the absence of evidence, appears more speculative than necessary.
Under Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth must provide “just terms” when acquiring property for public purposes. The federal government’s $600 million investment in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program ties it to these restrictions, which effectively “acquire” the economic value of our goods by rendering them unsellable or cost-prohibitive interstate. Even if deemed a regulatory measure rather than an acquisition, fairness dictates that businesses shouldn’t bear the brunt of an unproven risk when taxpayers fund the broader fire ant response.
Historical precedents—like compensation for livestock culls under biosecurity laws—support the principle that those disproportionately harmed by public policy deserve relief. If the government insists on maintaining these restrictions without evidence, it has a moral and legal obligation to compensate affected businesses for:
- Direct costs (e.g., fumigation, certification).
- Lost markets (e.g., interstate sales bans).
- Operational disruptions (e.g., delays spoiling goods).
Call to Action
I request the following:
- Review the Evidence: Disclose inspection records or studies justifying hay restrictions. If none exist from the past 20 years, these measures should be lifted or scaled back to reflect the actual risk.
- Legal Assessment: Refer the restrictions to legal experts to determine their constitutionality under Section 92.
- Compensation Scheme: Establish a fund to support businesses suffering losses, modeled on past relief efforts (e.g., bushfire grants), until the policy aligns with evidence and law.
The fire ant threat is real, but policies must be grounded in facts, not assumptions. Without evidence linking hay to fire ant spread in over two decades, these restrictions appear to violate our constitutional rights and unfairly penalize businesses. I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and provide data on the impacts we’re facing. Please respond by [date, e.g., March 31, 2025] to address this pressing issue.
Thank you for your attention.
Leave a Reply