The Protection of Our Private Property Rights

For over two decades, Queensland private property owners have been subjected to an expansive, costly and coercive government initiative: the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. Originally launched in 2001, this program was tasked with eliminating the invasive fire ant species from Australia. However, after 23 years and over $1 billion spent, the fire ant-affected area has grown 20-fold.

Rather than reassessing its strategy, the government has doubled down, ramping up enforcement measures that trample on property rights and environmental concerns alike.

One of the most glaring issues with the National Fire Ant Eradication Program is its indiscriminate use of chemicals spread over a staggering 880,000 hectares, with some land being treated up to six times in the eradication zone over a two-year period. Landowners are not given the option to use non-chemical treatments available in other countries; instead, they are forced to comply with treatments that may compromise their land, livelihoods, and well-being. This blatant disregard for consent highlights a dangerous trend—where bureaucratic decision-making supersedes individual property rights.

Despite its massive scale, the program has failed to conduct comprehensive environmental risk assessments on the chemicals being used. Some of these substances, such as fipronil, are banned or heavily restricted in other countries due to claimed environmental and health consequences. Reports of harm to pets, wildlife, and humans continue to emerge, yet the government presses forward.

The program’s mismanagement has already led to the contamination of waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane. If this were a private enterprise, such negligence would result in legal consequences, yet government agencies remain insulated from responsibility.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the program is its enforcement methods. Biosecurity Queensland, backed by law enforcement, has resorted to coercive tactics to ensure compliance, including fines, arrests, and forced property access. Property owners who resist mandates for chemical treatments are threatened with legal action, a disturbing precedent that undermines the very foundation of property rights and individual freedom. This issue extends beyond effective biosecurity outcomes—it is about the government’s ability to chemically treat private land without due process or consent.

The approach is alienating landowners, leading to disengagement and fear of reporting fire ant infestations. Many communities are now reluctant to cooperate with authorities, knowing that involvement may lead to the forced use of chemicals on their land.

The government’s slow response times, ad hoc eradication efforts, and lack of transparency have led to a failure in effectively containing, let alone eradicating, fire ants. There are no non-chemical options offered for those who wish to manage the problem through alternative means, further restricting personal freedoms and property rights.

Instead of a top-down, authoritarian model, consideration should be given to adopting a community-driven syndicate model for fire ant management. By shifting control away from bureaucratic agencies and into the hands of local communities, we can create a more effective, respectful, and long-term management solution.

Community-led syndicates are grassroots initiatives where local communities take the lead in managing pest species, leveraging their local knowledge, resources, and networks to create effective solutions. Community syndicates are often used in other areas of invasive species control including feral pigs, wild dogs, and even locusts. By empowering landowners to take voluntary action rather than being subjected to state-imposed mandates, these syndicates ensure control efforts are both effective and tailored to community needs and conditions.

This approach fosters engagement and ownership, ensuring that those affected by fire ants have a direct role in decision-making. Additionally, by pooling resources and local knowledge, costs are significantly reduced, making management more efficient. Individuals are also more likely to comply with regulations and control activities when they are involved in shaping them, leading to better cooperation and more effective long-term outcomes.

Under this model, state governments would transition from enforcers to facilitators, offering financial and logistical support while allowing local syndicates to determine the best pest management strategies. Governments would take on responsibilities such as providing administrative coordination and logistical support to community syndicates and managing lands under their jurisdiction without imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on private property owners. This shift would ensure a more localised, effective, and community-driven response to fire ant populations while respecting individual private property rights.

This grassroots-up approach, rather than a top-down bureaucratic system, would lead to greater engagement, ownership, and empowerment for affected communities. It respects individual differences and property rights while ensuring an effective and coordinated response to the long-term management of fire ant populations.

Australians are calling out for political leadership willing to adopt a more consultative, community-driven approach to a range of issues rather than continuing down the path of authoritarian control. A shift away from coercive government mandates towards a more inclusive and locally driven approach will empower individuals and communities to take ownership of the solutions that directly impact them.

The National Fire Ant Eradication Program is yet another example of a failed government initiative that persists despite clear evidence of its inefficacy. Worse still, it highlights how easily fundamental property rights can be eroded under the guise of public safety.

We can take back control from bureaucrats and place it where it belongs—with the people directly affected. Our property, our rights, and our freedoms are at stake.