7.1
As a committee of the Federal Parliament, the Committee has largely focused on scrutiny of the work at the federal level of government. However, significant parts of the response to PFAS contamination is under the purview of state and territory governments. This has required the Federal Government to cooperate and collaborate with state and territory governments.
7.2
In Chapter 3, the Committee heard evidence that the Department of Defence works with state and territory Environment Protection Authorities (EPAs) on site investigations and remediation plans. The Department of Defence also detailed that it shares information with these state and territory EPAs, and had worked with community consultation groups established by the Northern Territory (NT) and New South Wales (NSW) governments.
7.3
In Chapter 4, the PFAS Taskforce detailed the quarterly state and territory forum that meets to discuss PFAS matters and share information. The PFAS Taskforce also detailed its large focus on negotiating nationally consistent approaches and legislative outcomes for across Australian states and territories.
7.4
In Chapter 6, the Department of Health detailed the national guidance that it and FSANZ publishes, which are then implemented by state and territory governments.
7.5
The Northern Territory (NT) Environment Protection Authority (EPA) briefed the Committee at its 26 November 2021 public hearing, providing the Committee with insight into the perspectives of a territory government on PFAS investigation and remediation.
Site investigations and assessments by the NT EPA
7.6
The Northern Territory EPA has responsibility for PFAS investigations and assessments for sites in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory EPA stated it has ‘been collaborating and interacting with Defence’ at Tindal, Darwin, Robertson Barracks sites since about mid-2016’, which has required ‘a lot of work, … interaction, [and] collaboration with Defence’.
7.7
The NT EPA also stated it has ‘a range of other sites which are non-Defence sites that [it is] dealing with.’ The NT EPA elaborated that a NT PFAS task force has been established to address PFAS contamination on NT land sites:
In the last 12 months we've received some additional funding for a number of jobs and we've established a PFAS task force, which is essentially designed to address PFAS contamination on NT land sites. That includes [NT Government] operations such as fire stations, land fills and wastewater treatment plants, but it also includes private operators such as tank farms, ports and other installations where PFAS has been identified.
7.8
The NT EPA detailed that it uses a ‘a risk-based approach to prioritise the sites’, which involves identifying priority sites ‘where PFAS [aqueous film forming foams] may have been used’:
… the obvious ones are fire stations; wastewater treatment plants, where that's the end zone, or the final treatment process, where everything gets collected; and landfills that generate leachate, for example, which is that contaminated or polluted watery substance at the bottom of a landfill, which does come up with PFAS concentrations.
Jurisdictional issues faced by the NT EPA
7.9
Jurisdictional issues were described by NT EPA as affecting its ability to undertake action. The NT EPA stated that Alice Springs Airport ‘is on Commonwealth land and Airservices Australia do run a fire station on the airport.’ The NT EPA stated it was ‘aware of some contamination on the boundary of the land, primarily soil samples’, but it was experiencing ‘difficulties … gaining access':
We are aware of contamination on that site and somewhat offsite but we are constrained somewhat with the jurisdictional issue in relation to Commonwealth land and Territory land. That's been a struggle for us. There have been some difficulties there with gaining access. … If we were to do the job properly we'd be requesting a full, detailed site investigation of the source to track it to see where it's coming from and where it's going.
7.10
The NT EPA stated that it is ‘not the only jurisdiction having difficulties with Airservices Australia in relation to properly regulating potential contamination coming off Commonwealth sites.’ The NT EPA explained that it ‘can't issue instruments on an operator on Commonwealth land—because it will be ultra vires’, and stated that it was ‘trying to negotiate with the parties involved, particularly Airservices Australia.’
Concluding comment
7.11
The Committee thanks the NT EPA for providing a briefing to the Committee on PFAS investigation and remediation matters in the Northern Territory. Across its inquiry, the Committee has heard about the positive outcomes that have been achieved from federal, state and territory cooperation on PFAS matters, with key achievements including the intergovernmental agreement on PFAS and the development of the PFAS NEMP.
7.12
The division of PFAS responsibilities across federal, state and territory governments can be a source of confusion for communities who are seeking answers about the progress on PFAS contamination.
7.13
The Committee heard from both the Department of Defence, as described in Chapter 3, and the NT EPA about the collaboration that has been required across jurisdictions to progress investigations on Defence sites.
7.14
The Committee also heard from the Department of Health, as described in Chapter 6, that food and water safety matters in PFAS-affected areas are matters for state and territory governments.
7.15
The Committee considers that the cooperation across federal, state and territory governments is paramount to ensuring safe environments for local residents.
7.16
As such, the Committee was concerned to learn from the NT EPA that it has been unable to receive a full, detailed site investigation at Alice Springs Airport. The Committee was further concerned to hear that that other state and territory EPAs may feel restricted in their ability to request or undertake investigations when potential PFAS contamination has affected or come off Commonwealth land.
7.17
In Chapter 5, DITRDC outlined that it has a regulatory role over airports on Commonwealth land. Airservices Australia also detailed that it is undertaking investigations at a number of airports where it operates.
7.18
The Committee notes that PFAS may migrate in and out of an airport and its surrounding sites. These surrounding sites may be under the jurisdiction of state and territory governments. As such, the Committee considers that the evidence provided the NT EPA indicates that the DITRDC and Airservices Australia need to establish a coordination mechanism that accommodates the needs of state and territory EPAs.
7.19
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a coordination mechanism with state and territory environment protection authorities (EPAs) to enable information sharing and, where appropriate, access to undertake PFAS-related investigations related to Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC) airfields.