Page 87 — Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (25 February 2025)
Senator CANAVAN: Yes. There are quite a few complaints, and you mentioned earlier that there are some people—how many people aren’t cooperating at the moment?
Ms Saunders: It’s less than one per cent.
Senator CANAVAN: How many is that? How many properties does that amount to, out of the absolute number?
Ms Saunders: The program is authorised to access all targeted premises. Of the 145,000 sites visited so far—and this was in August 2024, so it’s dated—refusals currently sit at 1,442, with many people claiming chemical sensitivity concerns. That’s less than one per cent.
Senator CANAVAN: Sure. Of those 1,442, have any treatments been applied against their consent?
Ms Saunders: I’ve got to say that this is an assumption by me, so I need to confirm this, but the advice I have suggests that the compliance team has sought support from Queensland police to access those premises, so I presume it’s on the basis of implementing treatment.
Complaint Assessment Committee
Ethical Standards Command | TD | Queensland Police Service
Our Purpose – We protect the high standards of integrity and professionalism necessary to maintain the trust and support of our community
The Ethical Standards Command (ESC) is responsible for upholding the integrity of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) by assessing complaints against disciplinary standards. The purpose of discipline is to guide, correct and, where necessary, take action to protect the public, uphold professional standards, and maintain public confidence in policing.
In correspondence they ascertain:
Under section 16 of the PPRA:
- while helping a public official, police officers have the same powers and legal protections under the authorising law as the public official being assisted, provided police are advised of the power being exercised.
‘It is important to note police officers are not required to independently scrutinise or test the validity of another agency’s authority.’
The ESC and QPS tried gaslighting to make out that police have ‘reasonable belief’, due to NFAEP engaged their services and told them their authority exists under s 261 of the Biosecurity Act (QLD) 2014 , that their assistence to force entry, and arrest anyone who tries obstructing under s 790 PPR ACT, is reasonable.
This process denies procedural fairness and the ability to obstuct or fail to comply with a Biosecurity Officer’s order justified with a ‘reasonable excuse’, as is our lawful right, under ss 238 and 336 of the Biosecurity Act (QLD) 2014.
If the action of the NFAEP authorised officers was outside their authority and the program was outside the Biosecurity Act, then police were acting unlawfully.
I am looking for all the people who were coerced into compliance through the intimidation strategy adopted as discribed above.
The QPS officers involved in this strategy will be held accountable.
Please reach out with your story, any evidence and dates etc. this occured.
I am in a unique position to hold the line and I am not letting them of the hook.
First I intend to deal with the police, then I will work my way up the management chain of the NFAEP and Biosecurity Queensland.
They will all be held personally liable for their actions.
Please, if you have any knowledge of people who were impacted, let them know to contact me. I am doing a list and finding pathways to hold them accountable.
Leave a Reply