CHAPTER 1: THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF COMMONWEALTH LAND
The Committee's Review of the Audit Report
1.1 On 24 June 1996 the Auditor-General's Report No. 31 of 1995-96 entitled
Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land: Site Contamination and
Pollution Prevention was tabled in the House of Representatives. The audit
was conducted between September 1995 and January 1996.
1.2 The purpose of the audit was to examine the environmental management
mechanisms in place across some of the major Commonwealth land management
and oversighting entities, including the Departments of Defence, Administrative
Services, Transport and Regional Development, and Communications and the
Arts. These portfolios administer approximately $4.35 billion or 56% of
the total value of Commonwealth land. The audit also looked at the policy
development and coordination role of the Commonwealth Environment Protection
Agency (CEPA).
1.3 More specifically, the objectives of the audit were to assess the
efficiency, economy, administrative effectiveness and the associated accountability
arrangements in relation to the environmental management of Commonwealth
land holdings. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) did not set
out to apply current environmental standards to past Commonwealth performances,
but it was intended that the audit would encourage the development of
better practice by drawing on lessons learned from past practices.
1.4 The report made 18 recommendations aimed at improving environmental
management of Commonwealth land and at bringing the Commonwealth more
into line with current international best practice. The ANAO summarised
its findings in the following way:
In summary, Commonwealth entities can make significant cost-effective
improvements in their environmental performance by adopting and adapting
recent international developments in better practice and environmental
risk management. However, the absence of a clear Commonwealth policy framework
is a major constraint on departments and entities seeking to establish
priorities and actions in line with best current practice. [1]
1.5 The audit report included a number of ANAO's key findings.
- Commonwealth entities can make significant improvements in their environmental
performances by adopting and adapting developments in better practice
and environmental risk management.
- There is no specific Commonwealth legislation or formal policy to
guide Commonwealth land management entities when they are dealing with
environmental matters such as pollution prevention and site contamination.
This is a major constraint on departments and entities seeking to establish
priorities and actions in line with best practice.
- Commonwealth entities are generally not bound by State environmental
legislation or local government planning controls. The absence of Commonwealth
legislation contrasts with legislative and policy developments at the
State government level.
- The National Environment Protection Council could provide a forum
for addressing Commonwealth-State issues relating to the management
of site contamination, and could facilitate a national approach towards
better practice.
- Sufficient priority has not been given to addressing potential health,
environmental and financial risks. Commonwealth land management entities
could make significant improvements in their environmental management
by developing management systems consistent with better industry practice.
- Although the Commonwealth does have a policy in relation to unexploded
ordnance (UXO), defence resources allocated to these issues are not
sufficient to achieve the policy within a reasonable time frame.
- Departmental oversight of environmental risk management by government
business enterprises (GBEs) is patchy and inconsistent. Departments
could become more proactive in oversighting the environmental issues
of GBEs within their portfolios.
1.6 On 27 June 1996 the House of Representatives referred the Auditor-General's
report on environmental management of Commonwealth land to the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the
Arts for consideration. The Committee sought and received submissions
from the audited departments and State and Local Governments; the submissions
are listed in Appendix A. The Committee also held
three public hearings with the audited departments and the ANAO (Appendix
B).
Responses by Departments
1.7 All the audited departments agreed or agreed in principle with the
recommendations in the audit report and action had been taken to implement
many of the recommendations. Appendix C summarises
the responses by departments to the audit recommendations and action taken
to implement the recommendations.
1.8 There were four main issues arising from the responses to the audit
report and submissions to the Committee.
- Although the CEPA agreed to all eighteen relevant recommendations,
it responded that it would not undertake the tasks recommended in the
report due to changes in its priorities made in response to budget allocations
[2]. In particular, the CEPA would not be
working on developing a Commonwealth policy on contaminated sites.
- The departments maintained that they observed the intent of State
legislation and regulations regarding environmental management. The
States and Territories asserted that the Commonwealth should abide by
State and Territory laws regarding the management of contaminated land.
- The Departments of Communications and the Arts and of Transport and
Regional Development agreed in principle to recommendations aimed at
improving the oversight arrangements of departments over GBEs. The departments
indicated that the individual GBEs are best placed to manage and monitor
environmental issues on a day-to-day basis.
- The Department of Defence agreed in principle with the recommendation
regarding UXOs and advised that the Commonwealth has a policy on the
management of UXOs. However, the ANAO was concerned that more resources
were needed to appropriately assess and deal with the identified risks.
These issues are discussed further in Chapter 2.
The Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land - The Current Situation
1.9 The ANAO viewed the CEPA as being responsible for policy development
on contaminated sites and noted that, at present, there is no specific
Commonwealth policy on the environmental management of Commonwealth land.
The audit report suggested that the lack of a clear Commonwealth policy
on the management of contaminated sites has meant that Commonwealth departments
and agencies have given this a low priority, and there has been no incentive
to manage site contamination issues consistently.
1.10 The audit report noted that, in the absence of a Commonwealth policy,
the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management
of Contaminated Sites (ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines) was published in 1992
to form the basis for action in relation to Commonwealth contaminated
sites. [3] A consultative process was entered
into between Commonwealth, State, Territory and New Zealand public agencies,
business organisations and conservation groups to develop the ANZECC/NHMRC
Guidelines. The main purpose of the guidelines is to:
... provide a framework for the proper assessment and management
of contaminated sites. This should ensure that a consistent standard of
site assessment and subsequent management is implemented at all contaminated
sites. The adoption of this framework will provide guidance to those responsible
for management and assurance to the community that public health and environmental
concerns are being addressed. [4]
The ANAO considered that, although the ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines are important
in the policy process, they are primarily designed to provide guidance
once contamination has occurred. [5] Many Commonwealth
and State agencies, however, follow the ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines to assess
and manage contaminated sites.
1.11 Some Commonwealth agencies are planning to develop environmental
management systems that comply with the International Standards Organisation
(ISO) 14000 series of environmental management standards. Although the
standards are voluntary, some Australian corporations and governments
consider it important to channel their efforts towards an internationally
accepted set of criteria. ISO 14001 specifies the core elements of an
environmental management system: environmental policy, planning, implementation,
operation, checking, corrective action, and management review.
1.12 There is no Commonwealth legislation specifically dealing with
the environmental management of Commonwealth land. Commonwealth Acts that
are relevant to environmental management include:
- Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 - the
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (DEST) can become
actively involved when an environmentally significant Commonwealth action
is being considered (but as the audit report notes, this Act has rarely
been applied to site assessment and remediation activities);
- Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991
- employers must take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the
health and safety at work of employees, and to ensure that innocent
third parties at or near a workplace under the Commonwealth's control
are not exposed to risk to their health or safety;
- Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 - the Australian Heritage
Commission provides advice on the management and disposal of Commonwealth
assets;
- Audit Act 1901 - a Commonwealth officer who performs duties
in a negligent manner and causes or contributes to the loss, deficiency,
destruction or damage of Commonwealth property is liable to pay to the
Commonwealth an amount equal to the value of the property; and
- National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 - National
Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) relating to environmental management
can bind the Commonwealth if approved by the National Environment Protection
Council (NEPC).
1.13 Most States have environmental legislation and regulations that
deal with the contaminated sites and land management issues confronting
Commonwealth land managers. However, Commonwealth entities are generally
not bound by State legislation under the Constitution. Immunity from State
laws has been reduced for some Commonwealth entities, while for others
it has been extended. The ANAO claimed that, although Commonwealth entities
are generally not bound by State laws, State environment planning and
development approvals are important for Commonwealth entities seeking
to dispose of properties on the private market. [6]
Cooperation and coordination between Commonwealth land managers and the
States is discussed further in Chapter 2.
The Extent of Commonwealth Contaminated Sites
1.14 The ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines describe a contaminated site as one
at 'which hazardous substances occur at concentrations above background
levels and where assessment indicates it poses, or is likely to pose an
immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment'. [7]
A range of past and present Commonwealth activities could have posed,
and may be continuing to pose, risks to the environment and human health.
Such activities include artillery practice, military training, and the
handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances.
1.15 The potential for contamination to have occurred on Commonwealth
sites is difficult to assess, and the exact number of contaminated sites
in Australia is unknown. The audit report stated that estimates of possibly
contaminated sites in Australia range from 10 000 to 60 000. [8]
The States also claimed that it is difficult to estimate the number of
sites that are contaminated. [9]
1.16 The Department of Transport and Regional Development stated that
they did not have a full understanding of their contaminated sites or
those of their GBEs:
... a full audit has not been done, to my knowledge. I believe
that in the case of the particular agencies the degree of confidence that
they have in the quality of their information is probably variable. I
think they are probably at different stages of their level of understanding.
I think the work of the ANAO and the focus of this committee will help
them better understand their requirements. [10]
On the other hand, representatives of the Federal Airports Corporation
(FAC) and Australia National (AN) claimed that they were well aware of
their contaminated sites. [11] An audit of
all DAS properties was underway to determine the contamination issues
at each site. The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) had commenced
an assessment of contamination at all its sites and was developing a database
to include information about the contamination issues at each site. [12]
1.17 With incomplete information about the scope of contaminated sites,
the potential liability for the Commonwealth is unknown. With land valued
at $7.75 billion, and potential risks from a range of activities involving
hazardous substances, it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to pursue best
practice in the environmental management of its land in order to avoid
future liabilities. It also needs to be aware of the extent of contamination
to ensure that any future land disposals proceed smoothly.
Footnotes
[1] Transcript, 2 December 1996, p 92.
[2] Commonwealth Environment Protection
Agency Submission (No 3), p 2.
[3] Australian and New Zealand Environment
and Conservation Council (ANZECC), National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment
and Management of Contaminated Sites, 1992.
[4] ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines, Forward.
[5] Australian National Audit Office,
Audit Report No. 31 1995-96, Environmental Management of Commonwealth
Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention, p 12.
[6] Australian National Audit Office,
Audit Report No. 31 1995-96, Environmental Management of Commonwealth
Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention, p 10.
[7] ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines, p 2.
[8] Australian National Audit Office,
Audit Report No. 31 1995-96, Environmental Management of Commonwealth
Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention, p 3.
[9] NSW Parliamentary Library Research
Service, Contaminated Land in New South Wales, April 1996, p 3;
G Rowe and S Siedler (eds), Contaminated Sites in Australia: Challenges
for Law and Public Policy, p 111.
[10] Transcript, 4 November 1996, p
12.
[11] Transcript, 4 November 1996, p
12.
[12] Transcript, 4 November 1996, p
26; Department of Administrative Services Submission (No 4), p 3.
|
