Furious southern Gold Coast residents to seek legal advice against government fire ant program

Furious Gold Coast land owners say the state government is in breach of its own fire ant treatment protocols, with some seeking legal advice after bait for the dangerous pests was found in waterways.

Furious southern Gold Coast land owners say the state government is in breach of its own fire ant treatment protocols, with some seeking legal advice after bait for the dangerous pests was found in waterways.

Authorities have been carrying out treatment using baits for fire ants across the Coast more regularly after colonies of the invasive creature were discovered in greater numbers in the city’s south.

According to the National Fire Ant Eradication Program’s (NFAEP) website, there are two types of bait.

An insect growth regulator which contains the chemicals s-methoprene or pyriproxyfen and a fast-acting insecticide that contains either indoxacarb or a combination of hydramethylnon and pyriproxyfen.

Both s-methoprene and pyriproxyfen are toxic to aquatic life.

Katarzyna De Jesus from Bonogin claims she found bait in the creek on her property after treatment of her land.

“I have before and after pictures of my creek after the the aerial treatment, it looks like a chemical cesspool... I don’t want my kids playing in a creek that’s filled with chemicals,” she said.

Ms De Jesus is not alone, with the Bulletin aware of other residents from Bonogin, Currumbin and Reedy Creek who say they have been met with silence despite countless emails to the state government, raising their concerns.

Katarzyna De Jesus' creek before fire ant bait was laid. Picture: Supplied.

The creek on Katarzyna De Jesus' property was left murky and oily-looking after fire ant bait was laid. Picture: Supplied.

Owner of the Currumbin Eco Village, Peter Abourt said he wants answers about the bait being placed so close to waterways.

“There’s two pesticides in use and both, when you look at the safety data sheets, say they’re toxic to aquatic life – they’re both quite categorically clear on that,” he said.

“But one of the permits allows for that pesticide to be put within 1.5m of the water, from the bank.

“They’ve got a safety sheet that says don’t do it but they’ve got a permit that says they can.

“We’re asking for the science to back up why they’re deviating from the safety sheet.

“You can come down and treat (fire ants) but please answer our questions before you do.

Excerpt from the National Fire Ant Eradication program's permit for use of s-methoprene to treat fire ant nests. Picture: Supplied

The Bulletin contacted the NFAEP regarding residents’ claims, however a spokesperson could not provide specific comment relating to incidents where chemical usage permits had allegedly been breached.

However, the spokesperson said the ingredients of the treatment “pose little risk of long-term persistence in the environment when used according to the permitted usage patterns”.

“We use pyriproxyfen in most instances and S-methoprene when working near waterways or near crops. S-methoprene is permitted for use around waterways and streams, as well as 1.5m into a waterbody. It is used extensively in mosquito control programs and common pest control products,” they said.

But Ms De Jesus said land owners are now individually seeking legal advice because they’re not getting “clear and straight answers” from Biosecurity Queensland.

“There’s a lot of concern around the pesticide use, and there’s a lot of concern about human rights issues, property rights issues, privacy issues.

“I understand that in Queensland the Biosecurity Act says that officers don’t need our consent [to treat our properties], but there is provision for reasonable grounds.

“My property was treated against my raising of reasonable grounds, we’ve had to pay for legal advice to raise those reasonable grounds.

“We have questions, we have questions about the safety of the product, how are you calibrating the spread of the treatment? Why are we not being informed of aerial treatments?

“Nobody here is against treating fire ants, but we are against poisoning everything else in the meantime, or especially if people don’t have fire ants,” she said.

Red imported fire ant. Picture: Barry Rice

Reedy Creek resident Allison Stankovic said she was approached “aggressively” when she refused to let officers treat her property. She says there were no fire ants on her property.

“I was told in quite a forcible voice that I do not have a choice, he said ‘You do not have a choice. I will be back and I will poison your property. You do not have a choice’,” Ms Stankovic said.

An NFAEP spokesperson said “eradication officers will work with property owners to develop tailored treatment plans if required”.