Australian Advocacy Group

On 13 May 2026 Trevor Hold, the defendant, attended Ipswich Magistrates Court for an evidentiary hearing. The proceeding was to argue the relevence of four expert witnesses to assist the defense of a complaint that was made before a Magistrate regarding the charge(s) which occured on the 16 April 2025. It is alleged that the defendant obstructed police under section 790(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) during a fire ant operation, whereby 13 Biosecurity Officers from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program (“NFAEP” or “Program”), administered by Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Primary Industries Queensland, and supported by 5 armed Queensland Police officers, entered the defendant’s organically certified property at 477 Gatton-Esk Road, Adare, Queensland, and conducted pesticide bait treatment using the product “Engage”, consisting of S-Methoprene, GMO corn grit and GMO soy.

The defendant says the alleged obstruction charge arose solely from police assisting officers of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program pursuant to section 16 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) during the purported exercise of powers under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld).

The defendant says the lawfulness of the police conduct is directly dependent upon whether the biosecurity officers themselves were acting within lawful statutory authority at the time of entry, direction and chemical treatment of the property. The defendant further says that if the biosecurity officers exceeded statutory power, failed to satisfy statutory preconditions, failed to lawfully consider the defendant’s asserted reasonable excuse, or otherwise acted without lawful authority under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld), then the lawfulness of the police assistance and enforcement action arising from and dependent upon that exercise of power is directly in issue in the present proceeding.

The basis of this will be argued using case law.

The defendant says the evidence sought from expert witnesses is relevant to matters in issue in the present proceeding because it will help clarify and add scientific substance to;

1. Whether the defendant’s asserted reasonable excuse for obstructing biosecurity officers, which subsequently resulted in the charge under section 790(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), was reasonable, scientifically supported, and capable of lawful consideration under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld).
2. Whether the limitations imposed upon the defendant’s rights by officers of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program and the Queensland Police Service were compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), including whether those limitations were demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom pursuant to section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
3. Whether the attending officers lawfully considered relevant scientific material, toxicology evidence, ecological impacts, alternative treatment methodologies, and the defendant’s asserted reasonable excuse prior to entry and chemical treatment of the property on 16 April 2025.
4. A Technical Memorandum (Exhibit 131) authored by Dr Rhian Cope, Technical Director, SLR Consulting Australia and issued to Tom Roberts, Director Legislation and Compliance, National Fire Ant Eradication Program, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Queensland, dated 20 September 2024 (Project No. 640.031521.00001), was expressly relied upon by attending NFAEP Compliance Officer Roger Morris on 16 April 2025 prior to the alleged offence, as justification for disregarding the defendant’s asserted reasonable excuse and proceeding with treatment of the property and the expert witness report can substanciate the shortcomings and failings of this Technical Memorandum and assist with validating the reasonable excuse presented.

On 04 December 2024 (Exhibit 06), 24 December 2024 (Exhibit 07), and 07 January 2025 (Exhibit 08), the defendant sent by email and Australian registered post notices addressed to Marni Manning, General Manager Strategy and Delivery, National Fire Ant Eradication Program, regarding two Statutory Declarations relating to a reasonable excuse to obstruct biosecurity officers entering the premises at 477 Gatton-Esk Road, Adare, Queensland, 4343.

NFAEP Compliance Officer Roger Morris advised the defendant on 16 April 2025, while attending the property, that he was aware of the “Reasonable Excuse Statutory Declaration” (Exhibit 05), containing 9 individual points, and the “Dead Calf Statutory Declaration” (Exhibit 03), containing 13 points and supporting scientific literature.

The 13 points of the Dead Calf Statutory Declaration were;

1.    Genesis Novel Nova, a registered Galloway cow, gave birth to a bull calf on 19 October 2023.

2.    This bull calf was euthanised on the 30 November 2023, under vet care, after declining cognitive response and overall declining health since birth.

3.    Genesis Novel Quannah, a registered Galloway cow, gave birth to a bull calf on 29 May 2024.

4.    This bull calf was born with deformities and euthanised on 09 July 2024, under vet care, after declining cognitive response and overall declining health since birth.

5.    The symptoms and decline in cognitive response and overall health were matched in both calves.

6.    A Post Mortem Report was conducted by The University Of Queensland, issued 08 August 2024, with the final diagnosis being Degenerative hepatopathy and hepatic encephalopathy. (Degenerative liver disease is a term that describes the presence of degenerative changes in the liver. Hepatopathy is a general term for an abnormal or diseased state of the liver. Hepatic Encephalopathy is the loss of brain function when a damaged liver doesn’t remove toxins from the blood.)

7.    During the Necropsy, tests were completed to rule out viral disease, including PCR, bovine viral diarrhoea virus (spleen) and Agar-gel immunodiffusion test, bovine viral diarrhoea virus antibody (blood).

8.    The comments in the report state “Toxic and/or genetic hepatopathy is favoured over infectious/inflammatory aetiologies in this case given minimal inflammation identified histologically.

9.    The registered Galloway cattle have full documented history and DNA parentage tests dating back between 5 and 10 generations, with zero recorded liver problems history or associated calf deaths for any reason, ruling out genetic hepatopathy.

10.  On the small acre farm where the herd resides, 477 Gatton Esk Road, Adare, Queensland, 4343, there is no Fire Weed (Senecio madagascariensis), Lantana (Lantana camara) or any other access to toxins, except the Toxic Chemicals, namely s-Methoprene and Pyriproxyfen distributed on my property, my neighbours’ properties and upstream waterways by the Fire Ant Eradication Program from early 2019 to early 2024.

11.  These Toxins, distributed by the Fire Ant Eradication Program aerially (by helicopter), using UTV (Utility Terrain Vehicle) and by foot, were distributed excessively, repeatedly and recklessly on my property, my neighbours’ properties and upstream waterways.

12.  Bioaccumulation, because of the excessive, repeated and reckless distribution of these Toxins (by the program), in the water supply, feed areas and on the ground where they graze, occurred in my cows, resulting in embryo and fetus development problems throughout pregnancy, for the two forementioned calves.

13.  I provide (some of many) research papers which supports these chemicals can impact embryo and fetus development problems in mammals

The 9 points of the ‘Reasonable Excuse’ Statutory Declaration were;

1.    I have completed the online fire ant identification training provided by the Fire Ant Eradication Program and can produce the certification in evidence.

2.    I have monitored my property and where practical the surrounding areas and easements for evidence of fire ants.

3.    I have found no such evidence of fire ants present or evidence of fire ant activity.

4.    I have sought expert opinion and believe Dr Joshua King, University of Central Florida, with one of the most active, continuously (US) federally funded research programs in the world, with the specific aims of understanding the biology and ecology of fire ants and how fire ants interact with species in the ecosystems they invade, has the most expertise to make recommendations on Fire Ant management.

5.    In Dr Joshua King’s Open letter of concern (dated 04 October 2024), he states ‘Of particular concern is that the widespread and prophylactic use of toxic broadcast baits may impact non-target ants (both pyriproxyfen and (S)-methoprene are insect growth regulators) as none of the bait products in use are “fire ant specific.” Reduction of native ant communities has repeatedly been shown to be a factor in hastening, not slowing, the invasion of fire ants as any potential biotic resistance is removed, and fire ants are especially good at dispersing into ant free successional habitats. Additionally, the potential for other non-target impacts on aquatic and terrestrial arthropods and wildlife is not trivial. In sum, there seems to be little justification for a prophylactic baiting program that has great potential for non-target impacts and that may, in fact, hasten the establishment of fire ants over time. The projected costs of fire ant establishment (largely extrapolated) will be more quickly realized if a widespread prophylactic baiting strategy is conducted without any regard to the known ecology of the invader. This seems incredibly short-sighted and ultimately runs counter to the goals of the entire program’.

6.   In addition, my susceptible Galloway Cattle have experienced adverse effects, resulting in the death of two calves, from previous prophylactic chemical treatment. So to avoid any further harm, loss of stock or damage to my commercial business, I will not accept chemical treatment on my property.

7.  I therefore wish to obstruct the designated officer, or another person or a detection animal helping a designated officer entering my private property, as in my right as detailed in the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Queensland), Section 336 Obstructing a designated officer, under a reasonable excuse, to prophylactically, chemical treat my property.

8.    I am willing to provide access, by appointment, to my property for a designated officer or another person or a detection animal helping a designated officer to inspect my property to verify my statement.

9.    If fire ants are discovered by officers, I am happy to direct treat nests using a non-chemical approach, in particular, Dr Joshua King’s patented Hot Water Method. I have the capacity, endorsement, experience and licence to conduct this activity myself.

No correspondence was ever received by the defendant regarding these three notices or Statutory Declarations prior to 16 April 2025 when NFAEP Compliance Officer Roger Morris advised that the reasonable excuse provided was not considered as adequate to prevent treatment that day.

Sergeant Brad Dick (9781), Senior Prosecutor, Ipswich Police Prosecution Corps, Legal Division, Queensland Police Service, provided the obstruction particulars for Sergeant Trudi Helen Flintham (TF) [Registered No. 12789], and Senior Constable Greg Wiley (GW) [Registered No. 401554] on Wednesday, 29 April, 2026, over twelve month after the charges. These particulars were never provided in the original Brief of Evidence issued to the defendant nearly 12 months earlier.

The particulars are;

Prosecutors in Queensland are under a duty to act fairly and as ministers of justice, including obligations to disclose material relevant to the defence and not to suppress evidence adverse to the prosecution case: Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; Grey v The Queen (2001) 184 ALR 593.

Despite this, having the four expert reports validating my reasonable excuse as scientifically sound and having access to my reasonable excuse for over 12 months, Sergeant Brad Dick denied consent for our application to the Magistrate to have the expert witnesses included in evidence.

Prosecution argued lack of relevence and wanted to focus on the broad scope of the obstruction charges under the Police Powers and Responsibility Act. Interestingly, section ss 261, & 235 and other sections of the Biosecurity Act were quoted by the prosecution.

s 235 is of particular interest to the defense case because that section empowers the program instrument relied upon by biosecurity officers.

235Authorising and carrying out biosecurity program 

(c)if an invasive animal board authorised the program—the chairperson of the board.

(1)Any of the following may authorise and carry out a biosecurity program (a program authorisation)—

(a)the chief executive;

(b)a local government;

(c)the chief executive and 1 or more local governments, if the chief executive officer of each local government agrees;

(d)2 or more local governments, if the chief executive officer of each local government agrees;

(e)an invasive animal board if an operational area is prescribed for the board.

(2)A program authorisation must be authorised—

(a)for a program authorisation made by the chief executive—in writing; or

(b)for a program authorisation made by a local government—by a resolution of the local government; or

(c)for a program authorisation made by an invasive animal board—by a resolution of the board.

(3)However, a program authorisation for a prevention and control program may be made only if each relevant person for the program authorisation is satisfied—

(a)there is, or is likely to be, prohibited matter in an area; or

(b)there is in an area any biosecurity matter that poses or is likely to pose a significant biosecurity risk; or

Examples of biosecurity matter that pose or are likely to pose a significant biosecurity risk—

•a colony of red imported fire ants

•a plague of locusts

•an infestation of water mimosa

(c)measures are required to prevent the entry or establishment in an area of biosecurity matter that poses or is likely to pose a significant biosecurity risk; or

Example of measures required to prevent the entry or establishment in an area of biosecurity matter—

surveillance, and distribution of baits containing pesticide, for red imported fire ants to prevent the ants from becoming established in an area adjacent to a known infested area

(d)after consultation with an industry group or community (each an interested entity), that measures carried out jointly with the interested entity are required to control biosecurity matter in an area that would have a significant effect on members of the interested entity.

(4)Each relevant person for a program authorisation must ensure that each authorised officer who is proposed by the relevant person to act under a biosecurity program is informed of the contents of the program authorisation for the program.

(5)A program authorisation—

(a)if given by a local government—may relate only to places in, and invasive biosecurity matter for, the local government’s area; or

(b)if given by an invasive animal board—may relate only to places in the board’s operational area.

(6)In this section—

relevant person, for a program authorisation, means any 1 or more of the following—

(a)if the chief executive authorised the program—the chief executive;

(b)if a local government authorised the program—the chief executive officer of the local government;

This is interesting because s 236 is the mandated requirements of the program.

236What program authorisation must state

(1)A program authorisation for a biosecurity program must state each of the following—

(a) the biosecurity matter to which the program relates;

(b) the purpose of the program;

(c) when the program starts;

(d) the period over which the program is to be carried out;

(e) for a biosecurity program that is a surveillance program—

(i)if the program is directed at monitoring compliance with this Act—

(A)objective criteria for selecting places to be entered and inspected; and

(B)a description of the area in which the places are situated; or

(ii) if the program is directed at deciding the presence or extent of the spread of biosecurity matter—

(A)the parts of the State to which it applies; and

(B)if the program applies only to a particular type of place in the State or a part of the State—a description of the type;

(f) for a biosecurity program that is a prevention and control program—

(i)the nature and extent of the program, including—

(A) the parts of the State to which it applies; and

(B) if the program applies only to a particular type of place in the State or a part of the State—a description of the type; and

(ii) if a particular type of place is to be entered and inspected—a description of the type;

(g) 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 a measure an authorised officer may take under a surveillance program—

• monitor a manufacturer mixing animal feed and take samples of the feed to check for the presence of restricted animal material or contaminants

• use baits and lures to check for the presence of fruit fly in an area

• trap and test mosquitoes to find carriers of arboviruses

• take samples from cattle to decide the presence or absence of Johne’s disease

Examples of a measure an authorised officer may take under a prevention and control program—

•spray pesticides on a locust swarm

•vaccinate animals to slow the spread of equine influenza

•check land for the presence or absence of red imported fire ants and, if ants are found, distribute baits containing pesticide

(h) the obligations that may be imposed upon a person who is an owner or occupier of a place to which the program applies.

Examples of an obligation for paragraph (h)—

1A person may be required under a program authorisation for a surveillance program to move a herd of cattle from an inaccessible area of the person’s property to allow an authorised officer to monitor the herd for signs of disease.

2A person may be required under a program authorisation for a prevention and control program to inoculate a herd of cattle on the person’s property to prevent disease in the cattle.

(2)The period over which a biosecurity program is to be carried out must be limited to the period reasonably necessary for achieving the program’s purpose.

The defendant says clause 3.7 fails to identify a finite or objectively ascertainable duration for the Program and instead defines the duration of the Program by reference to the continuing existence of the Program itself. The defendant says this creates a circular and self-validating basis for the indefinite continuation of coercive statutory powers without objectively measurable criteria demonstrating that the duration remains reasonably necessary to achieve the Program’s statutory purpose.

The defendant further says the proposed expert evidence is capable of establishing that the objective of fire ant eradication, as presently pursued under the National Fire Ant Eradication Program methodology, is not scientifically or biologically feasible. The defendant says this evidence is directly relevant to whether the continuing duration of the Program can properly be characterised as “reasonably necessary” for achieving the Program’s stated purpose, particularly where the exercise of coercive statutory powers upon private property is said to continue indefinitely in the absence of objectively achievable eradication outcomes.

Additionally, the core objective of compliance activities are to achieve compliance by working with stakeholders to develop and assess alternative risk mitigation strategies. The NFAEP has failed to conduct this assessment based on the alternative approach available and supported by science, namely United States Patent number 10,716,302, entitled ‘Environmentally Safe Insect Control System’.

Promote voluntary compliance through raising awareness of legislation

RULING

The Magistrate ruled that the expert witness evidence was not relevant, despite stating that she had not read the ordered reports or assessed their connection to my defence, including the issue of ‘reasonable excuse’.

Next Steps

1. Organise and complete application to the court to issue the summons / subpoenas required for the defense.
   • Dr Rachel Chay, Deputy Director-General and Chief Biosecurity Officer, Department of Primary Industries, Queensland
   • Marni Manning, General Manager Strategy and Delivery, National Fire Ant Eradication Program.
   • Scott Hansen, CEO, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (‘APVMA’)
   • Dr Rhian Cope, Technical Director, SLR Consulting Australia
2. Appeal and / or review the decision about excluding expert witnesses.

Next Proceeding

Is currently scheduled (though likely to change) is 7 July 2026 in Court 7, Ipswich.