Chapter 3The National Fire Ant Eradication Program
3.1As discussed in previous chapters, the NFAEP is administered by the QLD DAF, under its Biosecurity Queensland division. The NFAEP is responsible for the operational and strategic response to RIFA across Australia. This includes the SEQ outbreak, past eradicated outbreaks, and the recent incursions detected in NSW, which have been managed as Detections of Importance.
3.2This chapter will assess and discuss the effectiveness of eradication efforts and RIFA response plans to date, with a particular and targeted focus on the recent 2023–2027 Response Plan and current strategies, methodologies and techniques employed by the NFAEP.
Strategic response
3.3Since 2001, the response has operated under multiple different response and action plans that were updated based on frequent reviews and recommendations. Currently, the RIFA infested area in SEQ is a 70–80kilometre radius around Brisbane, with the current treatment area approximately 340000 hectares.
3.4Following the 2021 Independent Strategic Review which was triggered by multiple infestations outside the operational boundary, the NFAEP steering committee reportedly agreed with the recommendation for continued eradication—to contain, suppress, and eradicate by 2032. The review also recommended that the NFAEP focus solely on eradication while the Queensland Government mobilise governments of all levels, community, and businesses to increase suppression activities in areas not receiving eradication treatment.
3.5Noting these recommendations, the Queensland Government approved funding of $37.1 million from 2021–26 to establish the Fire Ant Suppression Taskforce (FAST). The suppression area covers more than 650 000 hectares in Biosecurity Zone 1 and 2, where suburbs are waiting for eradication treatment.
3.6These recommendations have also since been incorporated in full or in part into the 2023–2027 Response Plan and the associated FAST Plan 2022–2026. According to the NFAEP’s submission, the new 2023–2027 Response Plan ‘employs proactive baiting beyond the outermost known infestation’ to capture undetected spread and ‘includes a large increase in compliance resources to address the risk of human-assisted movement’. DAFF noted in its submission that the plan is focused on ‘containing RIFA in a horseshoe’ from Moreton Bay in the north, west to the Lockyer Valley and south to Tweed, and treating for eradication around the inside of this band. Figure 1.7 in chapter one provides a visual description of this plan.
3.7Mr Bacon explained that ‘the response plan looks from that outside-moving-in approach’ and that treatment or eradication bands will move inwards every two years, for a completed treatment expected by 2032. Ms Saunders, DAFF, also explained that the area within the boundary is subject to containment and suppression activities that are being undertaken by the Queensland Government FAST.
3.8In its submission, the Invasive Species Council provided further detail and clarification of the differing labels and activities for each zone or area of the plan, which the committee frequently heard was confusing for residents, landholders and involved parties. It stated that:
The treatment boundary will be brought inwards with a 3 kilometre overlap zone between each year’s treatment zones. This will reduce the area of FAST activities and establish progressive fire ant eradication. Each two-year treatment cycle consists of three treatments in the first and three treatments in the second year.
3.9Mr Pianta, Invasive Species Council, further explained that the ‘containment boundary’ is a surveillance zone where NFAEP staff are actively inspecting the area and eradicating nests as they are found.
3.10A key feature of the FAST plan is to establish and rollout ‘self-management agreements’ with large landholders including local governments, farms, residents, and private entities. It is understood that local governments would be responsible for any council owned land as part of these agreements.
3.11Ms Sarah Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer of Plant Health Australia, said the intent of the response plan was to reduce the area of infestation and bring it to a core, but as they did not have the resources to do this, FAST was designed to equip residents and local governments with training and education in order to treat the ants.
3.12In his submission, Professor Nigel Andrew outlined the proposed timeline for eradication and surveillance in SEQ. This can be seen in figure 3.1 below.
Figure 3.1Proposed timeline for eradication in the 2023–27 Response Plan
Source: Professor Nigel Andrew, Submission 57, p. 4.
3.13Broadly, most inquiry participants were supportive of the new strategy, the 2023–2027 Response Plan and the approach of FAST to undertake suppression treatment for those awaiting eradication, however, many still had concerns.
3.14Mr Jack Gough, Advocacy Director, Invasive Species Council noted that his organisation is ‘pleased’ with the ‘major change’ that has taken place with the new horseshoe approach and targeted eradication program. Similar sentiments were shared by Dr Robert Puckett who is an associate professor of extension entomology at the Texas A&M College in the United States where RIFA is endemic. He praised the plan stating that:
… generally speaking, that's the most obvious plan, and actually it's the perfect plan. If you can delimit the population of these ants and work from the boundaries, moving inward as you eradicate the population, that's precisely how I think this should be done.
3.15Both Mr Gough and Dr Puckett also highlighted potential flaws in the strategy if there is not sufficient community buy-in, effective quarantine zones, and adequate funding to ensure inefficiencies are mitigated.
3.16The Queensland Farmers Federation (QFF) were also divided on the effectiveness of the new strategy and horseshoe approach. In its submission, QFF noted that while it is a ‘reasonable and realistic approach with the current allocated funding’, the ‘best approach’ would remove suppression zones and replace them with a total eradication zone and intense perimeter surveillance. It argued that ‘there is no place for suppression zones’ in eradication efforts.
3.17An anonymous submitter also argued that the suppression areas would be a new source of infestation, particularly as treatment in the suppression zone is optional and ad-hoc for landowners and tenants. The submitter also made note that local governments ‘do not have sufficient resources nor staff with Pest Management Technician qualifications’ to effectively apply baits and pesticides on council owned property as part of the FAST program.
3.18The resourcing, or lack thereof, of local governments to undertake these suppression activities was raised by a number of councils who contributed to this inquiry. The Local Government Association of Queensland noted in its submission that the ‘ever-expanding roles and responsibilities’ of Queensland councils has seen the cost burden rise significantly, with some estimates between $200 000 to $700 000 per year, and forecasted costs rising to $1 million per year as RIFA populations continue to expand.
3.19Other submitters, including SEQ councils, have expressed that while the FAST program has good intent, its limited resources will result in an inability to achieve any significant suppression. These submitters have called for additional funding to be supplied by the Queensland Government, to ensure genuine suppression can be achieved by residents, farmers and local councils who are taking on an increasing role in RIFA treatment.
Baiting and chemical operations
3.20One treatment option the NFAEP uses for higher-risk RIFA colonies is a liquid variation of the chemical, fipronil, to conduct direct nest injection in a once only application. Fipronil is a slow-acting poison which is non-repellent and undetectable. It kills by both contact and ingestion as it disrupts normal nerve function.
3.21More generally, broadcast treatment baits are used which contain crushed corn with soybean oil and an insect growth regulator (IGR), either S-methoprene or pyriproxyfen. In its submission the NFAEP described the way the IGR baits work:
The use of an IGR interferes with the growth and development of ants, thereby breaking the reproductive life cycle, causing starvation of the colony. Ant workers pick up the bait granules and take them back to the colony, where workers extract the toxic oil and feed the bait to both the queen and immature ants, preventing worker replacement through the degeneration of the queen’s reproductive organs. The lack of worker replacement results in colony death as the existing worker ants age and die.
3.22It further stated that in field trials, the time taken to reach maximum efficacy ranged from four to eight months for S-methoprene, and with one application of pyriproxyfen, the time taken to reach maximum efficacy typically ranged from two to nine months. S-methoprene is also reportedly used and applied by aeriel baiting as it can be permitted for use up to the edge of waterways, whereas pyriproxyfen cannot be applied within eight metres of water when using ground-based equipment.
3.23For the treatment of polygyne infestations, which as discussed in chapter 1, require a different baiting and treatment routine, the NFAEP has submitted that it uses a fast-acting bait alternative using Indoxacarb through a corn grit and soybean oil mixture. It stated that Indoxacarb is a ‘slow acting poison’ that disrupts the insect central nervous system causing the RIFA to stop feeding. Similar to the IGR baits, indoxacarb bait is collected by foragers and returned to the colony, however, this product may be used in combination with IGRs as part of a broader treatment strategy.
3.24Bait and chemical distribution can be undertaken either aerially, on foot, or by using a utility terrain vehicle (UTV) or blower truck. The NFAEP has declared in its submission that the ‘most efficient method of application’ is aerial baiting, while manual application on foot is the ‘most labour intensive and expensive’ method but it the only option available for use in built-up areas or in heavily vegetated areas and steep terrain.
3.25Another distribution method for baiting is the self-management system under the FAST. Under this method, bait in the form of an IGR and a knockdown through direct nest injection is supplied for free to interested parties and landholders, who then apply these baits at specific times and in specific locations according to instructions provided. Mr Bacon reported that in 2023, FAST ran a free-bait trial in the Ipswich, Logan, and Gold Coast area, and 41 000 residents engaged in this option.
3.26However, the Invasive Species Council highlighted that this FAST treatment is not available to Brisbane City or Moreton Bay local governments areas, councils, and residents, which creates a patchy application of suppression methods.
3.27The Queensland Cane Growers Organisation also highlighted the ‘hit and miss efforts’ of the suppression baiting, as growers in the Rocky Point area have suffered significant financial losses from RIFA infestation. It stated:
It is clear to growers that for farm-scale treatment, the only effective option for suppression is two aerial treatments 12 months apart, followed up by regular ground baiting. But this integrated option has never been pursued and appears not to be an option being considered in the current FAST program.
3.28The Queensland Cane Growers Organisation also noted failures with the aerial baiting program including communication with farmers on an incorrect buffer zone, which resulted in gaps in application and ‘a less effective operation’ than it could have been.
3.29Gaps in the baiting program were also identified by several inquiry participants, with some missed areas having been created by the destruction of bait that was laid or dropped near waterways or washed away by rainfall, missed treatments due to incoming rainfall or through indiscriminate treatments by the NFAEP and FAST.
3.30 The City of Gold Coast stressed that the scheduling of only two treatments within the five kilometre eradication zone in the GoldCoast is ‘below the industry standard for eradication’ and should have been at least three treatments per year for two years across 10 kilometre. It declared that this may have been due to delayed or insufficient funding and the gaps will reduce effectiveness.
3.31Baiting gaps have also emerged due to a reluctance of landholders and residents to treat or have treatment completed on their property due to health and environmental safety concerns, or because of a feared loss of organic produce certification. AgForce Queensland highlighted this as a concern, asserting that misinformation about the safety of insecticides is widespread on social media. It called for urgent work to be undertaken to abate these concerns as ‘correctly applied registered insecticides for RIFA control is dwarfed by the devastation that uncontrolled RIFA will cause’.
3.32Mayor Chris Cherry of the Tweed Shire Council advised the committee that the ‘issue of having to get landowner consent to do the eradication treatment is a difficult one’, particularly when people are wary of chemicals and different non‑organic products. Mayor Cherry explained that work is ongoing to engage and communicate with landholders on this issue.
3.33Inquiry participants provided a range of ideas and alternatives to assist with some of the concerns raised about the use of specific chemicals, baiting techniques and gaps in baiting programs. The idea of developing weatherproof bait stations for deploying treatments near waterways or during high periods of rain was recommended by multiple participants.
3.34Mr David Priddy, Chief Executive Officer of Sundew Solutions, suggested his company could develop bait stations that not only protect against the rain, but also breakdown over time to prevent unintended consequences such as accidental baiting and environmental impacts.
3.35The use of biological controls including the introduction of competitive ant and insect species was another popular alternative to chemical baiting that was raised repeatedly in the inquiry. A submission from Mr Stuart McLean explained that insects, including RIFA, use chemicals to communicate with each other and their environment:
Since insect behaviour is largely determined by chemical signals, control methods that disrupt this messaging can be very effective in controlling insect populations. In contrast to toxins, pheromones and other semiochemicals are usually selective for the target species without adverse effects on others.
3.36Dr Conny Turni stated in her submission that the United States is investigating using fly species that lay their eggs into RIFA bodies directly, via the thorax, which in turn kills the RIFA and no other species. She expressed her opinion that in Australia, an approach must be found that is effective and does not harm the environment or human health.
3.37Dr Puckett affirmed the use of weatherproof bait stations and the use of biological organisms for the treatment and control of RIFA, based on the success that has been seen from the use of these methods. In the United States, bait stations were placed 10 feet apart on a grid with remaining bait collected after several days. He advised that the bait stations were ‘very, very effective at controlling RIFA’ and the decline in population was in line with other treatment methods for large acreage.
3.38Dr Puckett noted that a particular species of fly that is a major natural enemy of RIFA has been released in the United States, with anecdotal evidence showing that for every fly found, a fire ant was killed. He argued that while this is not an eradication technique, the intent is that over time the flies curtail RIFA foraging behaviour to allow native ant species to outcompete RIFA.
3.39When asked about the ability to treat organic farms for RIFA and maintain accreditation, Mr Bacon explained that S-methoprene is able to be used with restrictions including a withholding period of three weeks following treatment for food products.
3.40Regarding the use of alternatives to traditional chemical baiting, the CSIRO confirmed that a process is underway for developing novel RNA-interference (RNAi) management tools for RIFA. RNAi tools are a highly species-specific genetic technology that works by silencing genes to kill or reduce the reproductive potential. A recently completed research project funded by the United States Department of Defence, led by CSIRO, enabled the testing of RNAi for RIFA management which shows the trials achieving greater than 50per cent mortality.
3.41The CSIRO stated that pending regulatory approval, it is envisaged the RNAi can provide treatment solutions in areas that are ecologically sensitive such as around waterways, on commercial farms (including those with livestock), as well as in domestic and urban contexts.
3.42Dr Raghu Sathyamurthy, Research Director, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, expanded on this and provided context for how RNAi can be distributed:
It can be delivered in baits. It can be delivered through sprays. Essentially, once the molecule has synthesised, it is essentially a chemical form of control. But unlike many different chemical forms of control, this can be highly targeted or highly specific to the organism you’re trying to manage.
3.43Dr Sathyamurthy clarified that the RNAi is still a chemical control method, not a biological control method and as such, must receive APVMA approval. However, the CSIRO is focusing on biological controls in the Australian context based on the two most effective methods utilised in the United States, Kneallhazia solenopsae(K.solenopsae) and the virus SINV3 which have been capable of killing entire colonies. The CSIRO has reportedly developed proposals to conduct laboratory‑based risk assessments of these biological controls.
Surveillance, detection, and identification of RIFA
3.44Surveillance is undertaken by the NFAEP following a detection and treatment of RIFA in a previously RIFA-free location, or following treatments that are occurring in SEQ. The NFAEP states that the purpose of this surveillance is to ensure that remaining or new RIFA colonies are detected as early as possible to prevent further spread.
3.45Many of the submissions to this inquiry acknowledged that surveillance and early detection are critical aspects to ensuring eradication of RIFA.
3.46As briefly discussed in chapter one, the NFAEP employs a number of surveillance techniques for the detection of RIFA, with the most appropriate method chosen depending on infestation and treatment status, terrain type, infrastructure, available resources and cost efficiency. Most commonly, surveillance is undertaken on foot by a field team, but post-treatment validation processes may use odour detection dogs, in-ground lures and visual surveillance.
3.47NFAEP testing reportedly indicates that there is an 80 to 100 per cent confidence level for odour detection dogs in detecting RIFA infestations, if present. This is in contrast to visual surveillance which has an 80 per cent efficacy of detection and involves field teams forming a line with pre-set spacing, determined by difficulty of detection as a result of terrain or vegetation type. The method is reportedly repeated until all areas of the land parcel have been inspected.
3.48The CSIRO reported in its submission that it was the first in the world to publish data quantifying the capabilities of detector dogs to detect invasive ants, including RIFA. It explained that this was combined with modelling to provide ‘an effort-based and efficacy-based quantification of the probability of eradication being achieved within assessment areas’.
3.49According to the NFAEP’s submission, community engagement (passive surveillance) is also a very effective surveillance tool, generating valuable positive and negative sample data. The NFAEP insisted it will consider using remote sensing surveillance (RSS) technologies in the future to undertake broadscale surveillance and support a clearance methodology. The need for accurate and reliable RSS has been highlighted in several of the NFAEP reviews and was recommended by the 2021 Independent Strategic Review panel. It is anticipated RSS technology will greatly improve eradication outcomes.
3.50Despite these methods of surveillance, several inquiry participants expressed concerns over the level and frequency of surveillance that is actually undertaken. Mr Xavier Martin, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, claimed the surveillance is an example of ‘chronic failure’ and that the NFAEP are ‘reporting that there is surveillance … but then nothing happens. Twelve months later and no-one’s been back’. Dr Swepson echoed these views stating that the NFAEP ‘conducts no systematic surveillance to define the boundaries of the infestation’ and that 70 to 80 per cent of new detections are ad‑hoc reports by the public.
3.51In its submission, the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis (CEBRA) stated that current techniques have benefited from learnings over the past 20 years, including the use of passive surveillance in urban areas and ariel surveillance in rural areas. It estimated that $1 million invested in public engagement activities had resulted in $60 million saved in active surveillance costs between 2006 and 2010.
3.52Dr Scott‑Orr acknowledged the surveillance that is underway, but called for greater, systematic processes and baiting. In a question on notice, she explained:
Arguably surveillance to date in [South East] Queensland has been more intensive than in the [United States] but it is still likely that most new RIFA infestations are not being detected for a year or more. This was why our Review panel proposed a 10km surveillance and prophylactic treatment zone outside the known boundaries of the infestation.
3.53It was noted that one reason for the lack of systematic surveillance may be due to the cost and expense required to undertake such a thorough review and detection of nests. Mr Thompson informed the committee that while community surveillance can help to ‘give a bit of a heads up’, members of the NFAEP must confirm the nest, treat, and review the area.
3.54To assist with the cost and number of personnel required to undertake surveillance, digital technologies such as improved remote sensing with the use of drones, development of predictive artificial intelligence (AI) to guide detection of nest locations and biological or DNA technologies have been suggested by inquiry participants. Submitters detailed how the agricultural industry has suggested technologies for rapidly detecting environmental DNA (eDNA) of RIFA amongst the landscape and within carrier materials such as hay or soil.
3.55Despite claims that the NFAEP is investigating types of eDNA technology, submitters say that the process is slow and does not factor in all avenues and possible technologies, including those suggested by the agricultural industry, to detect and destroy RIFA.
3.56Among other suggestions to increase the surveillance and detection of RIFA was the inclusion of routine pre-purchase building inspections by licensed pest inspectors and pest controllers, for properties sold or transferred within areas of infestation, outbreak, or along the containment border. The committee heard how this approach could simply expand on the current pre-purchase pest inspection requirements for termites and other pests and would enable landholders to address infestations early and certify their property free of RIFA.
3.57Regarding surveillance and detection techniques, representatives from the CSIRO and the NFAEP confirmed in evidence at a public hearing that work is underway to progress innovation and technologies, particularly remote sensing. Dr Sathyamurthy detailed that RSS is ‘already quite extensively used to map colonies’ but progress includes combining it with AI to achieve a higher degree of accuracy and efficiency. He explained there are a range of spectral signatures of nests, including heat and visual, and the next step is determining the ‘right models’ to underpin the detection technology.
3.58Mr Bacon noted that while this technology was still in its early stages, the NFAEP is investing in this technology under the recent 2023–2027 funding, due to the ‘significant change and an increase in capability’ that the technology would bring.
Innovation, research, and development
3.59Despite the reported commitment from the involved government entities that the 2023–2027 Response Plan is ‘investing in the development of innovation, innovative treatment and surveillance techniques’, participants of the inquiry continued to express frustrations and concerns over the lack of innovative practices, investment in research, and use of external science and development.
3.60In its submission, AgForce Queensland urged the NFAEP to improve on the ‘little effort to actively explore citizen science’ it claims the NFAEP has made to date. It reflected on the 2022 DAFF National Biosecurity Strategy that proposes:
…capacity for detection, identification, traceability, and response to biosecurity threats is increased by coordination and engagement with biosecurity stakeholders, the use of citizen science and greater private sector investment in the development and delivery of innovations that provide for better biosecurity outcomes.
3.61Several witnesses to the inquiry explained how the NFAEP ignored or dismissed invitations and requests to collaborate on research and development projects for RIFA identification and treatment. Mr Ken Cunliffe explained in his submission that after developing a technique that was effective in detecting synthetic RIFA DNA constructs, he was denied access to RIFA samples by the NFAEP. He stated that this sentiment had continued, and private industry was still being shut out from contributing to good biosecurity outcomes.
3.62Mr Richard Shannon echoed these views and suggested that work must be done ‘to accelerate innovation and science in the program by opening it up’, stating that the NFAEP has been ‘too clandestine to date’.
3.63One submitter, Mr Stuart Mclean, expressed frustration that in the 2017–2027 plan for eradication which was investing $411 million, there was ‘no mention of research into novel methods’ of control. He remarked that even one to two per cent invested in basic research could produce useful findings while five per cent (or $20 million over five years) would likely produce new and innovative methods and products.
3.64Mr McDonald, Greenlife Industry Australia Ltd, also proposed that a research and development program would need to be ‘significantly ramped up’ with additional funding in order to enhance the science behind the NFAEP. He explained that decisions for the RIFA response appear to be made based on information from the ‘United States 50 to 70 years ago’ and an ‘overemphasis’ on old systems and technologies.
3.65The reliance on data, information and research from United States or overseas jurisdictions was raised as a point of concern repeatedly through the inquiry.[70] Professor Nigel Andrew explained that in the United States, they can use biological controls such as fungus and phorid flies to control RIFA, whereas in Australia, we do not have the entomological knowledge and understanding of current fly fauna to begin introducing these controls which may be unnecessarily limiting the scope of control to chemical.
3.66Dr Puckett echoed these concerns, noting that Australia is a ‘totally different system, a totally different continent’, of various plants, animals and species. He encouraged Australian scientists, researchers, pesticide manufacturers and companies to reassess control mechanisms and chemical formulations based on RIFA and the Australian context.
3.67Noting these concerns, the Invasive Species Council suggested the need for a comprehensive study of the predicted biodiversity impacts of RIFA and key strategies to minimise their impact on Australia’s environment if they spread beyond SEQ.
3.68The Invasive Species Council also recommended a research and development project into the health impacts of RIFA and their predicted cost impacts on Australia’s health system, noting that available data is old and often sourced internationally. It noted the criticality of the issue, and the need for it to be considered by decision makers.
3.69Calls for further research investment to aid in health impacts of RIFA were also put forward by Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia and the National Allergy Centre of Excellence. The joint submission highlighted the lack of RIFA venom or RIFA sting treatments available in Australia, while RIFA venom therapies are commercially available in the United States. It explained that Australia has the expertise for developing an innovative immunotherapy, and with further research investment, Australia could lead the way in RIFA allergy therapies.
3.70Further investment into research and development for RIFA was widely supported by inquiry participants, particularly the introduction of a collaborative research and development committee or the establishment of a cooperative research centre (CRC). Participants suggested that this type of initiative would bring together different groups including international experts, universities, researchers, industry bodies, and entities such as the CSIRO in order to build national expertise and fit-for-purpose, innovative solutions.
3.71Dr Anthony Young said that:
… this is a problem that won't be solved by one group; we need to work cooperatively to try and control it … If you could tie in a very robust research program, such as the CRC that's been suggested, then that will give people more buy-in.
3.72According to officials from the NFAEP and QLD DAF, there is currently a scientific advisory group featuring international experts, the CSIRO and tertiary institutions that ‘provides consistent, high-quality specialist scientific and technical advice’ on eradication of RIFA in Australia. However, while there does appear to be some external or citizen scientific involvement and guidance in the NFAEP, the extent to which the mechanisms are utilised or provide innovative scientific developments appears limited.
3.73The CSIRO also confirmed that the organisation has received $1 million for RIFA projects over the past 10 years. While representatives acknowledged the importance of the funding, they expressed that research is a ‘critically important aspect of the biosecurity program’ and that more could be done in that space if there was more funding available.
3.74When questioned on the NFAEP’s commitment and interest in research and innovation, Mr Bacon acknowledged there are areas of opportunities, as highlighted by inquiry participants. Dr Chay also declared there is a desire to adopt learnings from new technologies, and that ‘biosecurity across the board is always welcoming of research and innovation, and we're pedalling really fast to try and keep up with the evolving nature of biosecurity’.
3.75DAFF reported that the funding provided under the $593 million 2023–2027 Response Plan allocates $17million to scientific services and $2million to innovation over the four years. Priority areas for investment reportedly include diagnostics, genetic analysis and genotyping, research and review of techniques and processes and innovation activities including use of drones, further eDNA development, weatherproof baiting, and the application of AI to inform efficiencies.
Committee view
3.76The committee is pleased to hear that the new horseshoe strategy for eradication, containment and suppression of RIFA has been widely regarded as an appropriate, effective, and achievable approach. However, it is not clear to the committee where the demarcation lies between each of the containment, suppression and eradication zones, their direct interaction with both the NFAEP and the FAST, and the movement controls between each of these areas.
3.77Throughout the inquiry, it became evident to the committee that residents, businesses and landholders are also confused as to who is responsible for exactly which elements of the strategy and how each of these aspects relate to the overall goal of eradication.
3.78RIFA affected communities, including SEQ and northern NSW residents, researchers, scientists, and industry representatives were largely in agreeance that RIFA must be eradicated, but were also sceptical, stating that the approach to getting there was slow, uneven, and unclear. The committee was also very concerned to learn about the varied and seemingly common gaps that were occurring during baiting and treatment rounds.
3.79It is imperative that the Queensland Government assess the need for increased self-treatment resources based on the overwhelming number of RIFA infested zones that are currently not receiving access to treatments. There is also a clear need for supplemented activity in areas receiving treatment where baiting gaps have been identified, including for farmers receiving aerial treatments.
3.80The committee also heard about growing the range of opportunities for non‑chemical baiting and bait method alternatives that have been used in overseas locations, or that have also been developed here in Australia, that are still yet to be captured and used by the NFAEP in its operations. This is a disappointing situation given the complexities in successfully laying bait during periods of rainfall, without collateral environmental damage occurring.
3.81Similarly, the methods currently used for detection of RIFA appear to be extremely laborious or incomplete, which as the committee heard, is leading to haphazard and sporadic surveillance, as opposed to a structured and routine approach. Despite new techniques and technology emerging and being offered by private industry and researchers, the NFAEP are seemingly yet to employ any of these models.
3.82The committee was also surprised by the lack of research and innovation funding allocated by the NFAEP. Alongside the lack of citizen or external science, the CSIRO only received a very small portion of funding at approximately $100 000 per year. While it was confirmed a combined $19 million will be committed to research and innovation from the 2023–2027 Response Plan, it is still unclear how much of this will be provided to inhouse NFAEP services, the CSIRO and finally, external entities. Considering the baiting, techniques and methods used are largely unchanged since the 2001 incursion, the funding level available for this may still be far too low. The committee calls for this investment to be reassessed regularly to take into account new ideas and emerging methods.
3.83While again government representatives, including the NFAEP, confirmed that there are changes to operations underway with an increased investment in research and innovation, the committee is not convinced that this change will occur quickly enough to make a difference.
3.84The committee recommends that the Australian Government and all state and territory governments should commit to further investment in research, development, and innovation to improve understanding of red imported fire ants in the Australian context and improve efficiencies through implementation of new technologies and techniques.
3.85As part of this, the committee recommends: the National Fire Ant Eradication Program commit to quickly progress the development of innovative and new control and eradication methods and techniques, including environmental DNA (eDNA) markers, biological controls, and RNA‑interference (RNAi) technology.
3.86The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish and fund a Cooperative Research Centre encompassing independent researchers and academics, private business, industry representatives and governments to bring together the necessary diverse expertise for understanding red imported fire ants in Australia.
3.87The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with the Queensland Government to urgently review the funding and outcomes of the Fire Ant Suppression Taskforce (FAST), with a particular focus on increasing FAST activities in areas not receiving any eradication or suppression activity. The committee recommends Australian Government work closely with the Queensland Government to commit to additional funding for the FAST to support self‑treatment by residents, local governments, and landholders and ultimately, support the delivery of the 2023–2027 Response Plan and the 2022–2026 FAST Plan.