Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 8:54:20 to 9:01:44
Senators question the timeline and effectiveness of fire ant surveillance at Sydney container terminals, specifically focusing on the frequency of lure checks and the age of detected nests.
Topics: Biosecurity, Infrastructure, Procurement
Speakers: Justine Saunders, Senator Ross Cadell, Dr Susie Collins, Unknown Speaker, Miss Victoria Anderson
>> acting chair, we go no more. I'm going to go I'll go to fire ants if I can. So, uh, concerns around how long the laws were unchecked there. I know it's not your responsibility to check them. It was a corporation. There was a business that was meant to check the laws. Is that correct?
>> The lures you mean?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. Perhaps would be useful if I gave some context. >> Okay. In terms of our response. Yeah. to
>> Yeah. First up, I'm just concerned about the timings and I'll get the response after that. >> So, I was at the Port of Newcastle. I know we had veromite uh hives there and I know the findings. I know how quickly they were found, >> but there's rumors that this this nest could have been there up to 12 months or longer.
>> Okay. Um S if I could because it's I do think context is important before I go specifically to your question. So um what we have is an integrated early detection surveillance network which is supported by commonwealth state and territories and domestic industries. So there's a shared responsibility as is the case for for bio security more generally. >> Yeah. >> In this instance what we saw was firstly that no biocurity system can eliminate all risk. We know that um and but we do manage it between you've heard early evidence by my colleagues about appropriate level of protection and and Australia's system uses multiple layers of protection to achieve that and that's designed to detect pests early as possible. So pre-border where we can at border and then ensure we have a rapid response where we do see incursions postborder. So that's really important. So it's a delayed response. So success isn't purely through surveillance or the identification of an S through a lure for example. So it's multi-layered throughout. So in this case what we saw is routine surveillance undertaken by our department detected the ants before any evidence of wider establishment was identified. So this is this is successful center. This has been we should have great confidence in relation to the work we do across the continuum. Um because what we have is surveillance findings through treatment controls, training, the work with industries and tates and territories is we've identified it very early and responded
Um you've said you found it very early. Um the nest was found under concrete up to a meter in the dirt already established and invasive species council says it could have been there up to 12 >> That is not very early. So I go back to my absolute question. who is responsible for checking the the S sent Sentinel
earlier it's a it's a shared responsibility certainly industry as it's responsible for the facility itself has certain accountabilities which I talk through in terms of approved arrangements but we also undertake the surveillance the we have responsibility for surveillance under our own bio security arrangements and I guess my point was identifying early early in so far as um there's no there's been no evidence of spread so the risk of spread is very low and that's what I'm referring to
>> there's a 96% chance that it spread 500 meters
That's not the case, Senator. So that the advice of New South Wales in regards to that 93% figure um was based on modeling without knowing the the circumstances surrounding this
particular event.
>> That's not the case. We say the risk
>> who physically goes and checks the laws.
>> So Senator, we lay the lures and then check the lures.
the department is responsible for checking laws
>> as it relates to this particular detection. We laid the lures and we identified the risk through our
>> Was this infestation detected by the law or was there another method? Did see people see ants?
>> It was lures that were used in this instance.
>> When was the last time before this law uh the detection was checked?
>> The particular the last surveillance activity by us was 3 years ago at that particular facility. However, that does not that's not an accurate description of the nature of surveillance within the entire facility knowing it was one of four facilities within the precinct and there had been routine surveillance within one kilometer of that location routinely during the course of that I'm just checking my figures.
>> So, if I'm going to a site, why wouldn't I check all the laws?
>> Lures aren't kept in place for a long period of time. So, they're put in place for a short period of time and then checked.
>> How long was this law in this site?
>> I'll have to take advice on that.
>> Uh, Dr. Susie Collins, acting Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer. Uh so uh our ant surveillance is done in in a couple of ways. Uh one of the ways uh in terms of lures uh is our surveillance officers will go out and put out a lure. Uh they'll leave it out there for for an hour or or so and then they'll go and pick up that lure and bag it and and send it off to the to the lab. The other uh way we do surveillance is um uh walking around the site seeing some ants uh seeing some ant trails and collecting them in the vials. So there's two different ways that we do surveillance. And when we talk about lures, we're only talking about them being out for about an hour.
>> Okay. So this how big was the area this site where that single lure was placed this time for the first time in 3 years? Was it on the entire container site on the entire it was Enfield and more container site? Was that the only law on
So, so again, when we do um luring, uh we have um it's basically a bit of bit of sausage and we put it out uh at set distances um along, you know, the the surveillance uh line that that we're doing. So, there's quite a number of lures per per site when we do do the the luring for our ants.
>> I get that. And I just want to get I'm understanding, but then I may be accusational. Um but the this site the the entire interm modal you talk about different locations was this the only time that site had had law placed in 3 years
>> when you say site center can I just clarify you talking about particular
facility or >> yeah that particular facility
>> that particular business yes but there have been obviously other activities undertaken during that time
>> I understand that that place sends out 80,000 containers a year so 1,000 250 containers per week are leaving that site roughly.
>> Can I can I This is where context is important, Senator. So, we've actually done the tracing of this facility and in that three-ear period, I think we've got 2,430 containers have left the premises. All of which were fumigated before they left the premises.
>> 80,000 a year that the Enfield still
>> the We've identified 200 2,430 containers have left those premises in the last three years. All of which have been fumigated.
>> Okay. So they're coming in and going >> So that whole area. So talk to me about we had the geographical location and the timing is you identified on the 23rd of of September.