Creating better outcomes for Australia

Eradication?

Of course not…………………

Entering without consent, Section 261 Power to enter place under biosecurity program

Let’s consider Sections 234 and 236 of the Biosecurity Act 2014

and take a closer look considering what we already know about how the program is being rolled out. There are inconsistencies I wanted to share between what the law actually says and what’s being communicated to the public.

When a biosecurity officer arrives at your property, they often cite section 261 of the Biosecurity Act 2014, claiming authority to enter your premises without consent. They go on to say:

“You may already be aware the National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is responsible for controlling Red Imported Fire Ants in Queensland. Our aim is to prevent the spread of fire ants and manage the pest in areas that could pose a significant biosecurity risk.” and “We are entering your property under a prevention and control program”

Take note of the wording: control and prevent — not eradicating. This is important.

Although the program as a whole is called an eradication program, many properties being targeted do not have fire ants at all. So how do you eradicate something that isn’t there? You can’t. But you can control or prevent, which is exactly what the officers are admitting to in their language.

Let’s look at sections 234 and 235 of the Biosecurity Act 2014:

Section 234 defines a prevention and control program as:

  • Preventing the entry, establishment or spread of biosecurity matter in an area that poses a significant risk;
  • Managing, reducing, or eradicating biosecurity matter in an area that could pose a significant risk.

So yes, their actions do fall under a prevention and control program — not necessarily an eradication program.

Section 235 outlines the criteria for authorising such programs. In particular:

  • There must be a likelihood of prohibited or risky biosecurity matter;
  • Or, measures must be required to prevent establishment of such matter — for example, surveillance or baiting in areas adjacent to known infestations.

But what exactly is an adjacent area? Is it next door? Within 2km? 20km? 200km? Who determines that, and on what grounds?

Section 236 talks about what officers can do under these programs — such as check land, spray pesticide, and distribute bait if ants are found. This section provides the specific details around what authorised officers may do under a prevention and control program.

Subsection (g) states:

“The powers an authorised officer may exercise under the program, including the extent to which an authorised officer is to act under the program and the measures an authorised officer may take under the program.”

Examples of such measures include:

  • Spraying pesticides on a locust swarm,
  • Vaccinating animals to slow the spread of equine influenza,
  • Checking land for the presence or absence of red imported fire ants, and, if ants are found, distributing baits containing pesticide.

Are we being given the full truth when officers call this an eradication program? Of course not.  In their own admission they are “..entering your property under a prevention and control program”  So the above information applies.  

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Australian Advocacy Group

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading