Anti-fire ant eradication activist convicted after using legal arguments ‘similar to sovereign citizens’

The Queensland leader of a group opposing the eradication of fire ants in Australia has been convicted of obstructing government officers, after a magistrate threw out his argument that the commonwealth-funded program is illegal.

Trevor Hold was fined $1,500 but a conviction was not recorded. Hold has described himself as an “ultrapreneur”, a mental health counsellor, an organic cattle farmer and the chief executive officer of the anti-program group the Australian Advocacy Group – and as self-employed.

He was convicted last month of two counts of obstruction for attempting to prevent fire ant treatment at his property, in what is believed to be a Queensland first.

His organisation and others held a series of well attended meetings last year across south-east Queensland to advise residents on what the group called their legal rights to refuse or prevent access to their properties to the program.

Under Queensland’s Biosecurity Act, landholders must permit program officers to access their property to treat fire ants, which are a declared priority pest.

But the organisations advised landholders to use a provision in the act allowing them to obstruct an officer if they had a “reasonable excuse” to refuse access, a provision in the Biosecurity Act.

On 16 April at about 9.20am, Hold prevented officers from entering his property in Adare in the Lockyer Valley, west of Brisbane. The property was in the treatment zone and due for its annual treatment.

The eradication program had informed Hold in advance that it would treat his property that day. A small group of supporters gathered to film and yell at them while they did so, according to court documents.

The scene was later described as “an increasingly rowdy and crowded and dynamic situation” in the Ipswich magistrates court, which heard Hold’s charges last month.

He was arrested by Queensland police after about 40 minutes for obstructing them by not allowing a gate to be opened. He was then un-arrested. Despite being warned again, he was again arrested after another interaction with program officers.

Hold made three arguments to the magistrate, Leanne Scoines, in his defence.

He argued that he was intimidated by the police and the program officers and “withdrew his consent for their attendance”, describing himself as “frazzled”.

“It was put to Mr Hold that he was not frazzled, and that he had said on three occasions, as heard in the body-worn camera footage, that ‘this is the Trevor Hold show’,” Scoines said.

Through his lawyer, solicitor Beatrice Ludwig, Hold argued that the police had failed to take into account his “reasonable excuse” and were therefore acting outside their powers.

Hold based part of his argument on emails he sent to the Department of Primary Industries in December 2024 and January 2025, notices the magistrate described as “unilateral”, “quasi-legal documents … seeking tacit approval by non-response”. The magistrate found they were of no legal effect.

Finally, he challenged the validity of the program, arguing that the prosecution had not proven it was properly authorised under the Biosecurity Act, Scoines said.

All three arguments were dismissed and the magistrate found that the officers were entitled to proceed on the basis that the DPI officers were exercising powers conferred on them by the Biosecurity Act.

“I am not satisfied that Mr Hold was a credible or liable witness on the critical issues in dispute,” she said.

A police prosecutor told the court “In my respectful submission it was clear he was actually enjoying this incident”.

Hold has appealed against the judgment to the district court.

On his website, Hold advertises fundraising efforts for his defence, and also a mooted class action lawsuit against the program.

Hold would not comment on the case.

Southern Cross University professor David Heilpern compared some of the arguments used by Hold to sovereign citizen cases he used to judge as a magistrate in the NSW Northern Rivers region, particularly his claim that he hadn’t consented to fire ant treatment.

“That is a tried and tested argument in terms of many of those who are on the fringe of or deep into the sovereign citizen movement; that you have a right to remove consent from the operations of various laws,” Heilpern said.

“Whether you consent or don’t consent is completely immaterial under the biosecurity legislation.”