Chapter 10PFAS policy, regulation and coordination
Introduction
10.1A key question for the committee in conducting this inquiry was whether the current policy and regulatory settings around PFAS are right in Australia. The committee considered a variety of evidence relating to:
chemical assessment and regulation;
national PFAS policy and coordination;
adequacy, focus, and funding of data and research, and the role of research organisations; and
potential options for phasing out PFAS.
10.2Evidence on these matters is presented in this chapter, with the committee's views and recommendations presented in the final chapters of this report.
10.3Evidence on drinking water policy, including standards, acceptable limits, PFAS testing and removal, is presented in Chapter 7.
Chemical assessment and regulation
10.4The assessment and regulation of chemicals is a complex policy area. A brief outline of chemical assessment and regulation in Australia was provided in Chapter 2 of the committee's interim report, focusing on the Commonwealth's role. In short, while chemicals are regulated under both state and territory and Commonwealth laws two Commonwealth Acts—the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Act 2021—regulate the importation and manufacture of industrial chemicals in Australia. According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the Department of Environment), the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS) was established in 2021 to 'fill a gap in the regulatory framework for chemicals and work seamlessly with the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 administered by the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS)'.
10.5In order to have regulatory effect, the IChEMS must be adopted by Australian jurisdictions into their own regulatory frameworks. As of April 2025, three Australian jurisdictions had adopted the IChEMS (Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria); three had partially adopted it (the ACT, Tasmania and South Australia); while Western Australia and the Northern Territory had not adopted it yet.
10.6Neither AICIS nor the IChEMS have a role in regulating industrial chemicals where they are regulated by other Commonwealth agencies, including where PFAS chemicals are 'used in agricultural and veterinary chemical products, medicines, medical devices or foods'. These products are regulated by:
the Therapeutic Goods Administration for medicines and their packaging;
Australian Consumer Law in relation to other packaging, ingredients for personal care products, and cosmetics; and
the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for veterinary medicines and pesticides.
10.7The Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 is administered from within the Commonwealth Health portfolio, and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Act 2021 is administered within the Commonwealth Environment portfolio. AICIS regulates the importation and manufacture of industrial chemicals, including those found in cosmetics, cleaning products, and other consumer goods. However, AICIS does not regulate the products themselves. AICIS's engagement with PFAS chemicals commenced in 2002 and included international engagement, publishing alerts about the risks of PFAS, and recommending industry seeks to phase out the use of a number of PFAS chemicals. AICIS has provided advice to government, industry and the public over this time, and:
since 2004, AICIS has required additional information (above the standard information package) for the risk assessment of higher concern PFAS chemicals not listed on the [Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals];
in April 2024, AICIS updated the legal definition of higher concern PFAS chemicals to more precisely capture a broader class of PFAS chemicals requiring a risk assessment by AICIS before being introduced into Australia.
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS) listing
10.8Until 2021, there was 'no appropriate national risk management framework to manage environmental risks' from PFAS chemicals. The IChEMS was designed to 'efficiently translate environmental hazard and exposure information in AICIS risk assessments into on-the-ground risk management approaches'. After the IChEMS was established, a number of PFAS chemicals were scheduled for risk management, drawing on information from AICIS assessments. New standards for the three groups of PFAS that are listed on the Stockholm Convention (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) were created in December 2023 and came into force on 1 July 2025.
10.9This ban on the import, industrial use and manufacture of a number of PFAS was enacted by listing PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS—and related chemicals—under IChEMS Schedule 7:
Schedule 7 contains the highest risk chemicals, all uses of industrial chemicals listed in Schedule 7 should be phased out. From 1 July 2025 the industrial use of, PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS (whether on their own or in mixtures) is prohibited except in specific circumstances.
10.10The New South Wales (NSW) Premier's Department submitted that the 'IChEMS framework will play an important role in phasing out PFAS in our everyday items to prevent future contamination in our environment'. The Department of Environment stated that the ban will 'bring Australia closer to ratifying the Stockholm Convention listings of these PFAS and support the objectives in the National PFAS Position Statement', and submitted:
All PFAS are expected to eventually be listed on the IChEMS Register, with details of their risk to the environment and required mitigation measures. The IChEMS criteria for categorising chemicals and identifying mitigation measures provide a framework to recognise the extreme persistence of PFAS, their unknown long-term impacts on the environment, and the need for proportionate risk mitigation that aims to prevent their release into the environment.
10.11This ban applies to the import, use and manufacture of these three PFAS, and related chemicals, by Australian entities. Asked if the Schedule 7 listing would prevent the import of consumer products (known as 'articles') containing PFAS that have been manufactured overseas, the Department of Environment clarified that the IChEMS Register Act provides the Minister with discretion to specify one or more risk management measures:
(a)Schedule 7 requirements (prohibition) can apply to articles if the Minister considers it appropriate.
(b)To date all Schedule 7 decisions have specified that the import, export and manufacture of the chemical (whether on its own or in mixtures or in articles) are prohibited.
(c)This means that when prohibition applies, importers cannot bring in ready-made finished products that contain the substance.
(d)All Schedule 7 decisions to date have allowed for continued use of articles that are already in the market before commencement of the standard.
10.12The ban does apply to products that importers may seek to import and sell in Australia. However, it does not apply to articles that are already in the market (prior to July 2025), and it does not introduce any (new) requirement for products containing PFAS to be labelled. The ban does not apply to 'personal imports'—products that are purchased from overseas by individual consumers.
10.13Ms Kate Lynch, Division Head, Circular Economy Division, Department of Environment, confirmed that there is 'currently no [general] requirement' for PFAS to be identified in product labelling (some specific kinds of products may require labelling, such as cosmetics). Mr Graeme Barden, Executive Director of AICIS, added:
… the labelling of chemical products in the broad doesn't find a central home, so it's a little difficult for us to provide the answer, but, generally speaking, that's not required as a general rule, to my understanding.
10.14Asked to comment on 'essential uses' under the ban, the Department of Environment clarified that, while there are 'exceptions', there are no essential uses permitted for Schedule 7 chemicals:
When making a standard, the Minister must comply with the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Principles 2022 (the principles). The principles set out the risk characteristics for each schedule. Section 7 of the principles require that chemicals listed in Schedule 7 do not have an essential use in Australia.
Detection, disclosure and enforcement
10.15The Schedule 7 listing of PFAS applies to articles (other than those already in the market). However, the IChEMS does not specify how Australian businesses should ensure they do not import products containing banned PFAS. Advice provided on the department's website states that the IChEMS standards outline 'what businesses need to achieve, rather than how to achieve it', providing flexibility:
Businesses need to ensure they have appropriate quality assurance measures in place. These could include:
specifying chemical composition in contracts
purchasing from countries with similar standards and/or companies with appropriate certifications
periodic testing and analysis.
10.16The department was asked whether it had received any self-reports from the packaging industry on PFAS in food contact packaging—a known source of PFAS in imported products. The department replied that it had not.
10.17At the committee's September hearing, Acting Division Head, Circular Economy Division, Ms Rachel Burgess clarified that the IChEMS incorporates 'minimum standards', which apply to all chemicals that are scheduled under the scheme. An aspect of these standards is that 'information must be provided but also sought'. In other words, importers are expected to ask manufactures 'to identify whether those particular substances are there or not and … make efforts to confirm' that information. However, Ms Burgess also acknowledged that there are no detection or enforcement mechanisms relating to the IChEMS listing, and there is not currently any legislation in place 'to give effect to those standards at the border':
We are working through processes to understand and identify further methods that we could recommend to industry and that they could apply when they're importing these goods. As to how we would do it on the ground, that is certainly something we are still working through in designing the Commonwealth implementation of those standards.
10.18Ms Burgess noted that it is 'early days' for the Commonwealth in thinking and planning around how to actively implement the ban, which will be challenging. However, the Department of Environment will work with industry and 'leverage existing international regulatory frameworks' as it considers regulatory and administrative options for enforcing the ban.
10.19Further discussion on PFAS in consumer goods is presented in Chapter 8 of this report.
Ratification of the Stockholm Convention listings for PFAS
10.20The IChEMS listing is a critical step towards Australia's ratification of a number of amendments to the Stockholm Convention which listed PFAS chemicals, including PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS, on the Convention. Ms Burgess reported that the Department of Environment is working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to determine what additional changes need to be made to Australia's existing regulations to satisfy the requirements of ratification:
Currently we are in conversations with colleagues across government, looking at what existing regulatory frameworks we could potentially use to give effect to those national standards. … An example of a regulatory framework that would contribute to enabling us to ratify would be leveraging things such as the existing customs regulations. That would give us the border controls that would be required.
10.21Ms Burgess said while this work is a priority, the Government has an 'ambitious' agenda in terms of legislative reform in 'the environmental space'. As such, she was unable to provide an estimated timeframe for the ratification.
10.22Committee members were interested in how the government could streamline the ratification process for the next time chemicals of concern are added to the Convention. The department submitted that:
Adoption of IChEMS into regulatory frameworks by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, along with existing regulatory frameworks to protect public and worker health and safety, would provide the Australian Government with a systematic and repeatable method to demonstrate the fundamental provisions of the Stockholm Convention can be given effect for industrial chemicals.
Views of inquiry participants
10.23Chemistry Australia argued that Australia's chemical regulatory agencies 'are amongst the best in the world', and represent 'world's best practices, including the application of sound science at the core of regulatory decision-making'. According to Chemistry Australia, AICIS and IChEMS 'provide the regulatory tools needed to address PFAS substances'. However, other inquiry participants expressed concerns about the timeliness, adequacy, and design of the PFAS listing, and made recommendations aimed at improving Australia's chemical assessment and regulation.
10.24The Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association described the listing of a number of PFAS on the IChEMS Register as 'wholly insufficient' to stop the circulation of PFAS within Australian supply chains, particularly as Australia has 'no national program requiring all manufacturers—local and import—to report and identify hazardous chemicals within the products they produce and supply'.
10.25Similarly, the Queensland Water Directorate commented that, while the ICheMS listing is 'often acclaimed as the means to control PFAS entry into the community', and represents an important first step, it 'does not go far enough'.
Timeliness
10.26Several inquiry participants criticised the length of time it has taken for Australia to implement a ban on PFAS chemicals. Australia and New Zealand Biosolids Partnership noted that perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) was listed in the Stockholm Convention in 2009, yet implementation of scheduling PFOS in IChEMS did not occur until mid-2025 and a number of Australian regulators still described PFAS as 'emerging contaminants'.
10.27STOP PFAS Blue Mountains submitted that the problem of PFOS contamination 'should have been dealt with [by the Commonwealth Government] back in the early 2000s', when Mr Charles Auer from the United States Environmental Protection Authority (US EPA) wrote to the Australian Government to warn it about 'the potential health and environmental impacts of PFOS':
In his letter, Auer warned Australia about an 'important development in the US which concerns a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical'. … The response by the Australian government was potentially negligent. No immediate warning was sent out to water companies. No immediate legislation or testing was put in place. It would be another 24 years before Sydney Water would first test our Blue Mountains drinking water for PFOS chemicals. And despite the warnings in 2000, it was not a mandatory test.
10.28Assistant Chief Fire Officer at Fire Rescue Victoria, Mr Mick Tisbury also criticised the pace of regulatory action, saying, if you look closely at the PFAS Schedule 7 listing, it becomes apparent that those currently using PFAS-containing foam 'can keep using it', and have five years to transition.
Method of regulation
10.29Some inquiry participants criticised Australia's method of regulating potentially hazardous chemicals, including the burden of proof for evidence of harm, the quality and comprehensiveness of information provided, and Australia's approach to regulating PFAS individually, rather than as a class. Several participants also expressed concerns with industry having undue influence over the chemical regulation processes.
10.30Inquiry participants noted that, under Australia's existing chemical regulation regime, the 'burden of proof' does not tend to fall on chemical manufacturers. Associate Professor in Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Science, University of Melbourne, Dr Bradley Clarke explained that this historical approach originated in the United States, where the burden fell on academic researchers and environmental protection authorities to 'demonstrate harm', rather than on chemical manufacturers to 'demonstrate safety'. Dr Clarke suggested chemical assessment processes should be amended so that chemical manufacturers be required to demonstrate safety before chemicals are introduced, as is the case for pharmaceuticals.
10.31Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Medicine and Health at the University of Sydney, Dr Nicholas Chartres, was concerned that information requirements for bringing chemicals to market in Australia may not include 'sufficient assessment of critical human health effects, across diverse populations during sensitive time periods'. According to Dr Chartres, medium- to high-risk chemicals are assessed by AICIS prior to introduction and listed on a public database. Information required to be submitted to AICIS may include 'genetic toxicity in vitro' and 'genetic toxicity in vivo', 'along with acute and repeated dose toxicity, and irritation and sensitisation studies'. However, information on carcinogenicity, toxicity to reproduction, developmental toxicity and neurotoxicity (among others) is only to be included 'if available'.
10.32Dr Chartres was also critical of Australian regulators' policies against using animal toxicology data to test the hazard characteristics of industrial chemicals, saying this is 'a deeply flawed scientific approach'. Dr Chartres said animal toxicological studies are used by authoritative bodies around the world including the United States EPA and the European Chemicals Agency.
10.33Dr Chartres recommended Australia considers adopting the Navigation Guide Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Environmental Health (UCSF EtD)—developed by DrChartres and colleagues at the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—as a way of overcoming the current:
… lack of legal requirements for full disclosure of where chemicals are present and their potential adverse health effects, industry influence, and suboptimal methods used to capture risks from chemical exposures which do not incorporate current scientific knowledge for hazard and risk assessme.
10.34Australia generally regulates industrial chemicals individually. Some international jurisdictions have taken different approaches to phasing out the use of PFAS. Instead of prohibiting individual PFAS chemicals, they have proposed prohibiting PFAS as a class of chemicals. Dr Chartres explained:
In February 2023, five European countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden)—proposed a PFAS 'universal restriction' under the EU chemical regulation REACH. The ban would include the entire PFAS chemical 'universe', a family of >10,000 chemicals, with some 'exemptions' until alternatives can be found.
10.35Similarly, the US states of Maine and Minnesota are working to introduce bans on non-essential PFAS, with a prohibition to apply to 'products which contain intentionally added PFAS, including pesticides and soil amendments' (except in cases where PFAS is unavoidable), by 1 January 2032.
10.36Dr Chartres said banning PFAS as a class of chemicals could potentially allow governments to regulate all PFAS without having to provide detailed risk assessments for each one, and the case to regulate PFAS as a class of chemicals becomes 'compelling' when considering the thousands of PFAS currently in existence, and the likelihood that, if PFAS are banned individually, other PFAS will simply be brought in and used in place of those that are banned.
10.37Director of Ecology Databank Services, Dr Kate Hughes argued the risk associated with banning individual PFAS is that 'PFAS continues to be manufactured, with new chemical formulae regularly replacing older ones that are due for bans, phase out or restrictions'.
10.38Conversely, Chemistry Australia argued against 'adoption of definitions and approaches that indiscriminately capture substances based on their chemical structure alone'. In Chemistry Australia's view, banning PFAS as a class of chemicals would be 'counterproductive':
It is widely acknowledged that the risks associated with PFAS substances are not equal. It is, therefore, neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate to group all PFAS together or take a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. Doing so risks diverting resources to low-risk substances and increasing the complexity of regulatory activities.
10.39Environmental Risk Sciences Pty Ltd argued that Australia has 'well established Government guidance on how to undertake a human health and ecological risk assessment' and there is 'no reason for PFAS to be assessed differently to other chemicals':
In fact, it is our experience that treating PFAS differently to other chemicals can create practical, logistical, financial and risk communication issues. These issues can outweigh any positive effects and benefits that may be gained from applying an overly cautious approach to PFAS management.
10.40The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)—a portfolio agency of the Department of Health, Disability and Aged Care—stated that Commonwealth agencies responsible for classification and regulation of chemicals have considered different approaches for grouping PFAS chemicals and have not yet agreed on an approach. NHMRC has researched different approaches undertaken by key overseas jurisdictions, including the European Union, and determined that, at this stage, there are concerns 'about the feasibility of implementing a guideline value for a PFAS sum/mixture with the current options available, given the limited health evidence available for other PFAS'. A method for grouping PFAS together for regulatory purposes 'may be reconsidered should further evidence and methods become available'.
10.41Mr Barden said that AICIS 'is able to and does group chemicals together for assessment', which creates 'efficiencies', allowing AICIS to 'bring together different datasets on chemicals that have similar characteristics, and … build recommendations about risk management that can deal with those as a group'. However, Mr Barden noted that under existing laws, regulatory changes (such as restrictions) must still be enacted on a 'chemical-by-chemical basis'.
10.42Ms Burgess said that the Department of Environment groups chemicals together in relation to scheduling decisions, wherever 'possible and appropriate', but does not believe it would be appropriate to 'consider all PFAS at once'.
10.43The department expanded on this response, submitting:
PFAS are a diverse group of chemicals that exhibit a range of structural, behavioural and functional properties. This means that their risk characteristics vary.
From an environmental risk management perspective, not all PFAS would meet the requirements for listing in Schedule 7, which would prohibit their import, export, manufacture, or use.
For example, the PFAS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), is commonly used for its water and oil repellent properties in cleaning products, waxes, polishes and surface coatings.
The Commonwealth Risk Assessment for PFBS concluded that it was persistent in the environment, not bioaccumulative and not toxic under the Australian Environmental Criteria for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and/or Toxic Chemicals. This means that under the principles, PFBS would be a schedule 4 or 5 chemical and that activities relating to PFBS would not be prohibited.
Details of the IChEMS listing
10.44Submitters raised concerns with some of the detail of the IChEMS listing for PFAS, including the current limit for 'unintentional' PFAS contamination in imported products under the Schedule 7 regulation.
10.45The Queensland Water Directorate noted that the limit for 'unintentional' PFAS is 25 μg/kg for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and suggested this is too high, considering 'the trigger limits for PFOS in soil under the Queensland End of Waste Code for Biosolids of 1 μg/kg'.
10.46The Queensland Water Directorate recommended the limit for 'unintentional' PFAS contamination for imported products be set at a 'much lower concentration' and that the scheduling decision be 'extended to include other PFAS compounds'.
10.47Some suggested it may be unclear how products will be tested for PFAS under Schedule 7. Professor Stuart Khan, Head of the School of Engineering at the University of Sydney, maintained that residue testing would be critical in order to support the IChEMS scheduling:
We must now expand IChEMS scheduling to include a much wider range of PFAS, and we must properly resource the capability for chemical residue testing in a wide range of products, including cosmetics, furniture, fabrics, food and food packaging, to support IChEMS restrictions and other risk management activities.
10.48The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) noted that, although all states and territories have agreed to implement the requirements of the ICheMS Register in their jurisdictions, 'several jurisdictions are lagging in this commitment'. For instance, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory:
… have not yet indicated how they intend to implement ICheMS, and [Western Australia] produced draft regulations for consultation in February 2024 which have not yet been finalised. Each State and Territory must ensure that the requirements of the IChEMS Register are implemented in their respective jurisdiction. As noted above, Environment Ministers have agreed to update the PFAS National PFAS Plan to incorporate the ICheMS standards, however the Plan remains nonenforceable'.
10.49Mr Tisbury of Fire Rescue Victoria criticised exemptions under the ICheMS, including emergency uses, saying:
Who do you reckon goes to the emergencies? It's us [firefighters]. Who are the ones who keep getting exposed? It's us, all because the industry doesn't want to change that. And they've known this.
10.50The Minderoo Foundation noted that the listing provides 'exceptions for articles already in use', saying 'this legislation will not protect Australians from exposure via items on the market containing these PFAS or the many other PFAS compounds that are unregulated'.
10.51According to the Department of Environment, regulatory adoption of IChEMS standards across all jurisdictions 'will provide comparable protections across Australia, greater consistency for business, and a national approach to dealing with chemicals agreed globally as requiring management'.
10.52The department stated that it 'expects to make standards under the IChEMS for a further 12 PFAS in the 2025–26 financial year' and it 'is reviewing legislative mechanisms to support implementation of the IChEMS standards in the Commonwealth jurisdiction'.
10.53EDO recommended that the ICheMS Register be incorporated into state and territory laws, 'including consistent enforcement provisions, civil penalty provisions for breaches and consistent frameworks for exemptions to prohibitions, restrictions and other risk management measures'.
10.54This view was echoed by Chemistry Australia, which submitted:
… the key to strengthening Australia's chemicals management regime is improving harmonisation and uniformity amongst states, territories, and the Commonwealth. Having nine separate jurisdictions (state, territory and Commonwealth) with several separate agencies ([Work Health and Safety] and EPA) responsible for overlapping elements of chemical management and operating with different rules, requirements, priorities and focuses makes chemical management more complex and costly for the industry and hinders the delivery of outcomes for the community.
10.55Similarly, the Australian Bedding Stewardship Council recommended that governments 'align national PFAS regulations under IChEMS to ensure consistent policies across jurisdictions'.
10.56STOP PFAS Action Group recommended that AICIS be given 'more power and more resources to better manage the risk of PFAS chemicals in products', including cosmetics, and that companies should be required to test their products for PFAS.
10.57Noting that Australian companies already do not manufacture PFAS compounds, the Australian Academy of Science suggested mandatory reporting on importation, storage and use of PFAS, saying this 'could provide valuable data to inform risk assessments'.
National PFAS policy and coordination
10.58State and territory governments are responsible for day-to-day regulation of pollution prevention and contamination management. However, the Commonwealth Department of Environment sets national standards aimed at achieving 'better protection of the environment through improved management of environmental risks and achieving nationally consistent outcomes across the Commonwealth, states and territories'.
10.59The Department of Environment explained that standards and guidelines are developed which 'support those responsible for managing chemicals to apply risk proportionate mitigation measures, where necessary', and that the department works closely with states and territories to ensure these standards are implemented consistently across jurisdictions.
National Environment Protection Measures
10.60The Commonwealth government provides regulatory guidance through the National Environmental Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth) (NEPC Act) and the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). The NEPC has two primary functions:
to make National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs); and
to assess and report on the implementation and effectiveness of NEPMs in participating jurisdictions.
10.61The Department of Environment oversees the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (ASC NEPM) which 'aims to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment where site contamination has occurred, through implementing a national approach to assessment of site contamination'.
10.62While the current version of the ASC NEPM does not include explicit guidance on PFAS, the Department of Environment explained that 'non-mandatory guidance consistent with the ASC NEPM is available in the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan' (PFAS NEMP). Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Defence and Airservices, utilised both the ASC NEPM and the PFAS NEMP when conducting PFAS investigations and planning remediation activity.
10.63The Department of Environment submitted that existing standards and guidance for industrial chemical management, water quality and contamination management 'set a clear pathway for consistent national action to respond to PFAS, including by industry as the main users of chemicals'. The department indicated it 'works closely' with chemical regulators across the Commonwealth, and states and territories, and concluded:
[PFAS] Interventions should be taken with the understanding that results may take many decades to achieve. Strong policy and regulatory frameworks that are fit-for-purpose, modern and align with community expectations help to protect the environment. Governance and coordination mechanisms should ensure clear oversight, accountability and consistency in decision-making, response and management of not just PFAS, but other chemicals of concern and contamination issues.
10.64The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) recommended reform of the National Environment Protection Measures framework to better regulate PFAS. EDO noted that NEPMs made under the NEPC Act 'are legislative instruments which are given effect by individual legislation and guidelines in each state and territory'.
10.65Further, while NEPMs provide 'nationally agreed guidance in relation to a variety of prescribed environmental matters … there is no legal requirement to enact NEPMs into enforceable national or subnational law'.
10.66According to EDO, the ASC NEPM has been used as a guide for investigation, assessment and management of PFAS contamination on Commonwealth land, such as Defence bases and airports. However, 'uptake of the Site Contamination Policy Framework and enforceability of the ASC NEPM between jurisdictions is uneven'.
10.67EDO therefore recommended:
In order to ensure a consistent regulatory and legislative approach, NEPMs such as the ASC NEPM must be wholly integrated into enforceable state and territory laws. This will ensure that the enforcement, mitigation and prevention of PFAS contamination is addressed evenly throughout Australia.
PFAS National Environmental Management Plan
10.68Inquiry participants expressed a range of views about national coordination of PFAS management and remediation in Australia, including the PFAS NEMP.
10.69The complexity of dealing with PFAS contamination was acknowledged by key submitters, including leading PFAS research organisation, crcCARE:
In Australia, the challenges are particularly pronounced from policy, risk assessment, and remediation perspectives. Currently, Australian policies regarding PFAS management are fragmented and lack comprehensive national standards. This inconsistency creates gaps in addressing contamination, leading to delays in effective risk communication and mitigation strategies.
10.70As discussed in the committee's interim report, the PFAS NEMP is Australia's national guide for managing PFAS contamination in the environment. It has been jointly developed by the Commonwealth, state, territory, and New Zealand governments through the Heads of Environmental Protection Authorities Australia and New Zealand (HEPA), to provide nationally consistent guidance.
10.71The NEMP has been updated multiple times to 'reflect new scientific evidence and guidance'. The current version—NEMP 3.0—was adopted on 10 December 2024 and includes new and additional guidance and standards on priority areas, including:
new guideline values for investigation and risk assessment;
guidance around remediation of contaminated land;
guidance on re-use of resource recovery products; and
risk-based criteria for re-use of biosolids contaminated with PFAS.
10.72The Department of Environment also noted that with respect to the management of wildlife (which is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments and land managers), NEMP 3.0 'provides nationally agreed guidance for managing the impacts of PFAS contamination on matters of national environmental significance' under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
10.73According to EDO, the updated NEMP 'complements' the standards established under the IChEMS, which 'ban, severely restrict, or reduce the environmental impact of three PFAS along with over 500 related substances'. The NEMP 'provides a prescriptive framework for the community, environmental regulators, governments and industry to address PFAS contamination'. However, the NEMP is 'not enforceable':
Accordingly, the National PFAS Plan affords significant discretion to decision-makers and regulators in the extent to which they implement the National PFAS Plan framework. The National PFAS Plan therefore does little to create concrete standards or enforceable mechanisms by which to hold polluters to account.
10.74Environmental consultants, Dr Matthew Askeland and Mr Andrew Mitchell were concerned that existing regulatory tools are addressing 'only three of the thousands of known PFAS' and coordination between agencies 'is limited'. They argued that 'poor coordination between regulatory agencies' causes 'inefficiencies and uneven enforcement', with the majority of 'cleanup' falling to water authorities and waste processors, who do not create PFAS contamination, but are 'left to manage it'.
10.75Toxics Free Australia criticised the NEMP as failing to address the source of PFAS pollution, saying the NEMP is 'essentially a mechanism that defines the allowable levels of PFAS pollution in our Australian environment' but does not attempt to '"turn off the tap" to this ongoing source of harm'.
10.76Section 1 of NEMP 3.0 confirms that addressing 'current use and management of PFAS-containing products and articles' is not within the scope of the NEMP. It also states that environmental regulators 'may take action to restrict and manage the use of PFAS-containing products and articles under national or their jurisdictional legislation'.
10.77Dr Askeland and Mr Mitchell contended that, while the NEMP 'has been pioneering', the latest draft 'mixes basic "PFAS 101" material with regulatory guidance, potentially confusing end-users'. They proposed that the NEMP should 'be concise, clear, and risk-proportionate, and consider international best practices, such as adopting holistic regulatory frameworks'.
10.78Dr Wells and Professor Lea reported seeking 'regulatory information' during the conduct of their research but found the NEMP was 'severely lacking in resources pertaining to wildlife or risks to wildlife'. They also submitted that the NEMP was 'difficult to understand and interpret as a lay person'.
10.79Toxics Free Australia was concerned that the NEMP does not address the issue of airborne PFAS emissions. Dr Askeland and Mr Mitchell echoed this concern, saying:
PFAS exposure through dust, aerosols, and volatilised forms is often overlooked. PFAS can bind to dust particles, travel through the air, or volatilise under certain conditions. This contributes to both direct human exposure and broader environmental spread. For example, PFAS-contaminated dust settling on roof catchments can impact rainwater collection systems.
10.80Friends of the Earth was critical that the NEMP allows PFAS in biosolids 'to be "diluted" by mixing in soil that does not contain PFAS'.
10.81Asked how Australia is 'tracking the reduction of PFAS through various sources', the Department of Environment submitted that states and territories 'undertake the majority of environmental monitoring'. However, the government's initiative to include PFAS as an indicator in the ABS National Health Measures Survey will 'strengthen PFAS exposure'.
PFAS NEMP and fresh, estuarine and marine water
10.82Overarching environmental frameworks and measures exist to manage PFAS in rivers, lakes, groundwater, wastewater, and recycled water:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth);
National Environmental Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth) and related NEPM; and
Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Framework for Responding to PFAS Contamination, including the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan 3.0 (PFAS NEMP).
10.83Local regulatory tools and measures are in place to help manage PFAS contamination in water supplies in Australia, with state, territory, local governments and other stakeholders generally responsible for management of the actual water resources.
10.84The overarching National Water Quality Management Strategy is a voluntary framework, that provides nationally agreed policy, process, and guidelines on the management of water quality across all water types, for the productive and sustainable use of water for a variety of purposes, including drinking, environment, industry, recreation, cultural and spiritual purposes. A range of guidelines for water quality management have been issued under the Strategy.
10.85However, there were criticisms of the water regulation framework. For example, EDO noted there is 'currently no NEPM which relates to marine, estuarine and freshwater quality'. EDO recommended the Australian Government develops 'a water quality National Environment Protection Measure to establish enforceable water quality standards, objectives and goals to protect our water systems from PFAS contamination'.
10.86The Concerned Waterways Alliance recommended the introduction of 'enforceable national limits for PFAS concentrations in soil, water, and biota to standardise management efforts across states', and the alignment of Australian standards with 'international best practices', such as standards adopted by the European Union and the United States Environmental Protection Authority.
Views of state, territory and local governments
10.87State, territory and local government entities that participated in the inquiry recognised PFAS contamination as a significant ongoing concern. State and local governments described supporting and participating in the NEMP, though some had concerns about the impacts of stronger regulation, including more restrictive drinking water guidelines, and the resource requirements of implementing NEMP 3.0.
10.88The Tasmanian Government submitted that implementing the revised NEMP will create 'significant challenges and costs' to Tasmania, with at least one expert needing to be hired for three years 'to develop an understanding of Tasmania's requirements in relation to the PFAS NEMP 3.0, and to commence the first stages of implementation'. Environmental Protection Authority Tasmania (EPA Tas) expects to prioritise reviewing PFAS monitoring and treatment requirements, with a view to imposing:
… limits of PFAS in effluent/wastes being discharged to land or waters) at wastewater treatment plants and associated reuse schemes and biosolids application, and monitoring (and treatment) of PFAS levels in leachate from landfills.
10.89EPA Tas also noted that its primary legislation 'requires the EPA to regulate by individual activity/premise', meaning monitoring and reporting requirements, treatment requirements, and 'imposition of discharge limits' have to be considered individually. EPA Tas expects to apply 'a risk-based approach … in determining which activities should be addressing PFAS issues as a priority'.
10.90The Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (NT DLPE) submitted that state and territory governments have a role to play in supporting national PFAS initiatives, including by incorporating national guidance documents into jurisdictional management approaches, but need to be resourced to do so:
With detailed and clear guidance from national level guidelines, jurisdictions have a firm basis to adopt more uniform measures to prevent, control and manage the risks of PFAS to human health and the environment, using their existing legislation. However adequate resourcing at jurisdictional level is necessary to drive successful outcomes.
10.91Brisbane City Council highlighted a number of issues it faces in implementing national PFAS policies, including:
financial and resource implications
closed landfill leachate management
project management at parks and closed landfill sites
regulatory and policy issues
household waste collection, treatment and disposal
reuse of soil contaminated with low levels of PFAS
use of pesticide and herbicide products.
10.92The Council noted a lack of 'clear and consistent national standards', including in relation to acceptable levels of PFAS in biosolids reuse and argued there is a need to shift from addressing 'end-of-life/contamination issues towards limiting the manufacturing and importing of PFAS -containing products'. Brisbane City Council also proposed that policies be developed which acknowledge 'legacy' contamination, such as by introducing 'a reduced landfill levy when remediating public space'. Addressing these issues 'requires urgent national-level action and support'.
10.93The Tasmanian Government expressed its intention to 'work collaboratively to develop broadscale monitoring programs and policy in relation to PFAS' but said it would 'welcome Australian Government support for funding the implementation of the PFAS NEMP 3.0'.
10.94The Local Government Association of Queensland recommended Commonwealth and state governments work collaboratively with local government 'to ensure a pragmatic and phased transition approach to the introduction of any new standards relating to PFAS'. It also recommended an 'appropriate level of funding and support [be provided] to local government where increases in PFAS standards are required'.
10.95The Department of Environment submitted that the NEMP is implemented by individual jurisdictions 'under their own legislation and regulations', the Commonwealth 'does not actively monitor jurisdictional implementation', and that there are 'no departmental resources dedicated to overseeing that implementation'.
Views of inquiry participants
10.96Inquiry participants acknowledged the valuable role played by the NEMP in providing national guidance for PFAS management and coordination, while making a number of suggestions for improving the NEMP and its application across jurisdictions.
10.97Loop Organics noted that existing mechanisms, including the NEMP, allow 'thresholds [to] be determined by each states' regulatory authority', leading to 'different regulations State by State'. This is confusing for industry and consumers. Loop Organics recommended 'nationally agreed thresholds and regulations [to] provide a level playing field and greatest public confidence'.
10.98EDO recommended that the Commonwealth seeks to develop the National PFAS Plan 'into a distinct PFAS Environment Protection Measure to be created under and in accordance with the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994'.
10.99The Water Services Association of Australia recommended a 'collaborative approach, led by a taskforce of regulatory agencies and relevant peak industry bodies' to 'enhance coordination and information-sharing'. It suggested a new national body—Environment Protection Australia, which is being established by the Commonwealth government—'could play a key role in this effort, aligning the objectives of both the NEMP and IChEMS processes and addressing regulatory gaps'.
10.100Dr Matthew Askeland and Mr Andrew Mitchell submitted that the NEMP 'must be refined'. While initial versions 'were groundbreaking', they argued NEMP 3.0 'should undergo an independent review to ensure it is risk-proportionate, clear, and actionable':
Separating technical "PFAS 101" information from regulatory guidance would improve usability. Better collaboration with industry and more transparent decision-making are also needed, so PFAS is managed effectively without leaving gaps or confusion.
10.101Enviropacific suggested there is a need to 'harmonise PFAS management policies' to ensure alignment between the NEMP and IChEMS processes, and address 'regulatory gaps and variances between PFAS waste management threshold levels'.
10.102Some submitters outlined concerns that state environmental protection agencies are hampered by the Commonwealth, with one submitter arguing:
We will only get effective PFAS contamination management if the [state] EPA is given complete independence from Government and is given the funding, resources and power to truly hold State and Commonwealth Governments, and other organisations to account. It cannot happen whilst the EPA is beholden to other Government departments. Ideally another body independent from Government should be set up.
Public information, health messaging, and precautionary signage
10.103A number of submitters proposed that PFAS contamination should be monitored and publicly reported by an independent national body.
10.104EDO also argued for 'greater transparency' around notifying communities of PFAS incidents and possible risks to human health, recommending that the government mandates 'monitoring and reporting on PFAS contaminated sites and exposure events be made publicly available, for example through the creation of a consolidated national contaminated sites register'.
10.105This recommendation was echoed by the Australian Academy of Science which proposed:
A public PFAS exposure map, drawn from government data collected using published, consistent, methodology and data standards, would provide a clear, accurate, and nationally coordinated picture of PFAS concentrations in the Australian environment. This would be of value to lawmakers, policymakers, regulators and the general public. The map of exposure sites against environmental guideline values produced by the UK Royal Society for Chemistry is a useful model. Professor Oliver Jones at RMIT University has developed a similar map of this type for Victoria as part of a policy brief on PFAS management.
10.106An example is provided by the United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US ATSDR), which provides an interactive map of PFAS contamination sites on its website (Figure 10.1, below).
Figure 10.1United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry—Map of PFAS sites
Source: United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Map of PFAS sites, 12 November 2024. Note: The map is interactive and is shown with one of the sites highlighted. A list of site names below provides links to further information about each site.
10.107Ms Anton argued for better public health messaging:
Currently, Australia has no trusted health agencies that provide critical sources of PFAS information to reduce PFAS exposure. We have outdated, fragmented and hard to access online information about PFAS exposures, risks and interventions. … The Australian Government's communication messaging around PFAS health risks is misleading and dangerously outdated.
10.108Ms Anton recommended that all existing Australian government PFAS webpages be taken down and replaced with a new national website, managed by 'a national EPA', which should include:
… a new national health and education website like the United States Government National Institute of Environmental Health Science which is constantly updated. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc
A workSafe health web portal to provide workers with interventions and advice to reduce their PFAS exposure.
10.109The Australian Academy of Science recommended that public health messaging about PFAS more clearly delineate between communities that are exposed and the wider community, where PFAS contamination levels are low. Professor Oliver Jones from RMIT University said:
We want to be very careful about worrying people, because there will be people, such as firefighters and those at the Wreck Bay community, for example, who have been exposed to very high concentrations that, potentially, have a health effect. The everyday person has probably got a small—85 per cent, according to the latest data, have some PFAS in their blood—amount in them, but you don't want to worry people unnecessarily.
10.110Representatives from the Department of Defence noted that the department works to install precautionary signage around public waterways that are impacted by PFAS contamination from Defence facilities, including the Katherine River. In addition, Defence has recently undertaken work with the Victorian EPA and the Field & Game Association to install signage at the Heart Morass.
PFAS Independent review and national coordinating body
10.111The PFAS Independent review of land uses around Defence bases (Independent review) made 19 recommendations, most of which were agreed by the Government.
10.112The Independent review recommended the establishment of a new national coordinating body. Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary at the Department of Defence stated that the body is being established 'with senior representation from all key portfolios, including health, environment and infrastructure, to promote a stronger and more integrated whole-of-government response to PFAS'. The Department of Defence is overseeing the PFAS national coordinating body and engaging directly with state and territory governments:
Once established, Defence will provide Secretariat support to the National Coordinating Body and the Williamtown Working Group for the initial 12months. The National Coordinating Body will pilot initiatives in New South Wales (NSW) in the first instance.
10.113Ms Perkins also advised that, in January 2025, Defence confirmed the 'membership and draft terms of reference' for the national coordinating body 'are now settled'. The body is expected to meet for the first time in November 2025:
The Hon. Peter Khalil, Assistant Minister for Defence, together with New South Wales Minister for the Environment the Hon. Penny Sharpe, will provide oversight of the national coordinating body. … Members of the body will include senior officials from Commonwealth agencies, including Health, Infrastructure and [Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water], together with senior New South Wales officials to support Minister Sharpe. Queensland and Northern Territory jurisdictions will be added over time.
10.114On 24 October 2025, the government announced that the Northern Territory and Queensland have now joined New South Wales as members of the national coordinating body, with the Northern Territory's Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet to focus on community engagement around Katherine, and Queensland's Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation to 'lead efforts to advance PFAS remediation and support communities near Swartz Army Barracks, near Oakey'.
10.115In relation to national PFAS policy and coordination, the Independent review recommended the national coordinating body:
review the objectives of national policy for remediation of PFAS contamination to ensure they remain current;
consider the need for further national guidance regarding planning and development in the context of historical contamination that may impact existing land uses; and
consider the merit of providing further national guidance regarding recording contamination on property titles, including to improve consistency across jurisdictions.
10.116In its response, the Government acknowledged that 'complete removal of PFAS from the environment is not possible'. As such, remediation should aim to 'render a site acceptable and safe for long term continuation of its existing use or proposed use'. The Government outlined its intention to work with states and territories to review approaches to the assessment of site contamination in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 and the PFAS National Environment Management Plan, 'with a view to streamlining standards and guidance for PFAS in the environment'.
10.117The Government will also work across jurisdictions to develop national guidance to 'address situations where PFAS has migrated across jurisdictional boundaries' and to increase information-sharing about contaminated sites:
The Government acknowledges that State/Territory and local governments control how information about PFAS contamination is recorded and communicated to property owners in their jurisdictions. … The National Coordinating Body will work with the NSW Government (as a pilot) to assess existing guidance in the NSW state and local government planning and environment frameworks. The Government will seek to identify opportunities to improve consistency and transparency in how the presence of historical contamination is communicated to potentially affected property owners.
Data and research
10.118This section considers Australian research and data collection on PFAS, including in areas such as: PFAS distribution and scale; impacts on human health; impacts on wildlife in the environment; remediation strategies and technologies; and waste management and destruction.
10.119The CSIRO noted that while an extensive body of data and information exists, 'significant knowledge gaps' remain in relation to 'PFAS distribution and scale (i.e., waters, soils, sediments and biota)'. The CSIRO submitted there is 'likely an underestimation of the future impacts of PFAS in Australia'.
10.120While there is research on PFAS in Australian wildlife, most of the data has been collected from deceased animals or blood samples and therefore 'lacks key health information'. CSIRO aims to close these gaps by:
… evaluating PFAS burdens in conjunction with health and fitness measures using a systems biology and multi-omics ecotoxicology approach. This approach aims to identify major molecular pathways with a significant association to survival, reproduction and fitness.
10.121Although ad hoc data is collected by water authorities, health and environmental agencies, and academic researchers, there is currently no comprehensive data collection on levels of PFAS in humans, water, or the environment in Australia. The Australian Government has recently invested in further data collection and research, including:
Provision of $800000 to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to include PFAS biomarker testing in the Intergenerational Health and Mental Health Study to 'help us to understand PFAS exposure levels in the Australian population'. The main collection of samples occurred over 2022–23, with study results to be released in 2025.
Provision of $11.7 million for health and medical research through the NHMRC Targeted Call for Research scheme to 'increase our understanding of the acute and long-term potential human health effects from PFAS exposure'. Nine grants have been awarded with research to be presented by 2025.
Provision—through the Department of Defence—of approximately $26 million in funding for 21 research and technology programs to support PFAS investigation and remediation activities, and $12.5 million to establish a National Research Program to study the potential effects of PFAS exposure on human health. Since 2018, Defence and CSIRO have been working together on a PFAS research program. The outcomes of this research are applied to remediate and manage PFAS contamination at Defence bases, and to develop better processes for construction and maintenance work where PFAS is encountered.
10.122The NHMRC clarified that, in relation to its $11.7 million Targeted Call for Research:
Applications are investigator-initiated and therefore based on the expertise and research interests of those applying for funding. It is also important to note that grants are awarded based on competitive peer review with the best science and most significant research proposals funded based on the available funding allocation.
10.123The NHMRC confirmed that some findings of these projects have been recently published. However, these findings 'have not contributed to NHMRC's current review [of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines] which is considering existing guidance/guideline values and reviews from overseas jurisdictions'. NHMRC explained that findings from these studies 'would need to be peer reviewed, published and considered as part of a body of evidence rather than as individual studies if they were to be included in NHMRC guideline development processes'.
10.124crcCARE explained that the lack of a 'centralised coordination mechanism' for PFAS research in Australia means it is difficult to share data, resources and expertise:
Contamination Research when led by crcCARE in Australia ensured a central coordinating body thus leading to breakthrough research and science underpinning many policies. It is crcCARE who developed and launched the Australian National Remediation Framework and also initiated [PFAS National Environmental Management Plan], which was later taken up by EPA Victoria and other State and Territory EPAs, including the Commonwealth.
10.125The Australia & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership advocated for more research into understanding environmental and human exposure to PFAS, recommending 'expansion from "extent" to "extent and effects"' of PFAS contamination.
10.126According to crcCARE, the 'research landscape is complex, with challenges around funding, coordination, and industry influence'. crcCARE is advocating for improved policies and innovative remediation techniques, noting that limited funding and resources 'have hindered the ability to conduct comprehensive testing and monitoring'.
10.127CSIRO submitted that funding for Australian research 'is increasing (state and federal Government departments and industry)'. This is due to:
increased regulatory pressure;
the potential for litigation and expensive remediation costs;
increased community concerns and expectations;
increasing international obligations; and
a 'recognition that if not managed correctly [it] will lead to large numbers of contaminated sites for future generations to manage (legacy sites).
10.128A number of submitters, including crcCARE, argued that, while industry has an important role to play in PFAS research, industry-funded studies 'often have methodological limitations or conflicts of interest' which undermine their findings. More transparency around industry-funded research, and 'rigorous conflict-of-interest guidelines' would bolster the 'integrity of the scientific evidence'.
10.129Researchers, including Professor Jochen Mueller from the Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences and Professor Denis Michael O'Carroll from the University of New South Wales noted that PFAS research is often funded through government-administered partnerships with industry, including Australian Research Council fellowships. For example, Professor O'Carroll's work on PFAS has been conducted with a number of 'industry partners', including Ixom, Orica, ARUP, Shimadzu, EnviroPacific, and Property NSW.
10.130Professor O'Carroll acknowledged that there is a 'perceived implication that working with industry is bad'. However, many government funding programs 'leverage industry funding', meaning researchers are 'encouraged to work with industry'.
10.131According to Professor O'Carroll, this relationship can cause difficulties in relation to environmental research, because it is 'unlikely that any industry wants for us to identify problems':
An example is that in July we were on the ABC 7:30 report and the crew wanted to film us sampling. A local council denied access to public land given the perceptions. They didn't really have the power to deny access given it is public land but highlights the challenges with researchers identifying problems.
10.132It was Professor O'Carroll's view that more government funding 'would be helpful' and this funding should not be 'tied to industry'.
10.133The committee heard evidence that complex research ethics approval requirements across Australian states and territories is contributing to the slow pace of research on PFAS and human health in Australia. Professor Deborah Glass submitted that progress on her research into the impacts of heavy PFAS exposure on firefighters has been hampered by complex and convoluted ethics approval processes, involving the need to gain approval from multiple state-based ethics committees. She described the process as 'cumbersome, repetitive and time-consuming'.
10.134Professor Glass recommended the following changes to the ethics approval process:
Researchers doing national studies should be able to make a single application via a single portal.The research would be allocated, to any one of the [Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs)]. The approval of that HREC should be then nationally accepted without further paperwork. Data custodians should accept that HRECs have properly considered data privacy. Annual reporting could similarly be to one HREC.
Role of research organisations
10.135Due to the complex and technical nature of the PFAS problem, scientific, engineering, and medical research organisations have a sizeable role to play in the development of public policy and regulatory frameworks. Relevant submitters highlighted their willingness to contribute to these processes and made suggestions for how governments can utilise their expertise.
10.136CSIRO submitted that it 'recognises the scale of the problem, and the urgent need to prioritise and act so Australians and their environments can be safe'. While the CSIRO 'does not have a role with establishing or operationalising federal or state regulatory frameworks', it acknowledged that it can 'contribute appropriate science outcomes' to 'underpin their establishment and revision':
We partner across the breadth of regulatory agencies, industry and community groups to understand and fill knowledge gaps and advance technologies that would assist with defining, prioritising and controlling risks from chemicals such as PFAS.
10.137The CSIRO noted that an 'extensive body of data and information' already exists in Australia—some of it public and some of it 'non-disclosed'—and suggested that:
Accelerating the integration and mapping of this data would enhance our understanding of PFAS distribution and scale across Australia, enable robust human and environmental risk assessments, and make informed and effective management decisions at local and regional scales.
10.138Some submitters advocated for Australia to work more collaboratively with international agencies in sharing research and developing regulation. STOP PFAS Blue Mountains was concerned that Australia's NHMRC did not approach the US EPA in conducting its recent review of safe PFAS levels in Australian drinking water, noting that the US EPA used 'the best available peer-reviewed science'.
10.139Dr Ravi Naidu, Managing Director and CEO of crcCARE explained that he initiated a PFAS International Symposium in 2015, which brings together international researchers to discuss evidence, 'policies, and what more we need to do'. The symposium—held once every two years—'leads to a white paper or a research paper that identifies gaps'. The next symposium is due to be held in 2026.
Views of inquiry participants
10.140 crcCARE suggested 'current weaknesses' of the national approach include 'lack of [a] cohesive national strategy and insufficient research funding dedicated to PFAS Management'. To address these gaps, crcCARE recommended governments partner with research organisations to develop 'unified regulatory frameworks, enhance stakeholder engagement, and promote research into sustainable remediation technologies'.
10.141CSIRO submitted that there is an opportunity for further investment in research and development, 'linking agencies across Australia to address priority concerns', and increasing the focus on longitudinal research. An integrated, scaled investment program would 'greatly advance solutions to the PFAS challenge facing Australia'.
10.142Loop Organics suggested that, before commencing new PFAS research, existing state, territory and Commonwealth data should be consolidated 'at a national level', and consideration should be given to 'making PFAS data available as open source, where possible to promote transparency, better research outcomes and improve public confidence'.
10.143Dr Askeland and Mr Mitchell argued that 'Australia needs to move toward an approach that accounts for cumulative risks, supported by broader toxicological research'. In addition, they suggested addressing the issue of airborne PFAS contamination, saying:
… we need baseline data on PFAS in indoor and outdoor air, a better understanding of volatilisation and aerosolization conditions, and assessments of health risks from inhalation or dermal contact. Identifying and controlling these airborne pathways would broaden our capacity to reduce PFAS exposure.
10.144Australia & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership recommended future research design incorporates 'appropriate control trials', and that agricultural research is better coordinated 'with more centralised guidance'.
10.145crcCARE contended that continued investment in research and development 'is essential to ensure public health, environmental protection, and safeguard cultural and economic values'. It recommended that Australia maintains 'its commitment to PFAS research until the community feels safe and has confidence in science surrounding PFAS management'.
10.146Water treatment technology company SciDev Limited encouraged approaches which promote industry collaboration and innovation, recommending that the government establishes 'an interdisciplinary joint council comprising regulators, industry experts, and researchers to evaluate PFAS treatment technologies', and creates an Australian 'repository of PFAS data and technology evaluations', as has been done in the United States and Europe.
10.147Inquiry participants also noted the need for dedicated research into the impacts of PFAS on First Nations communities. crcCARE recommended more culturally sensitive approaches to engaging with First Nations communities in research studies. In addition, Managing Director and CEO, Dr Ravi Naidu said there needs to be more research conducted to understand unique impacts on specific cohorts of people, including Indigenous Australians.
10.148The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) observed a 'critical lack of disaggregated, site-specific data on PFAS contamination in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities', saying:
Many communities are located near Defence bases, airports, and industrial sites, which are known PFAS hotspots. Monitoring is inconsistent and often excludes culturally significant sites.
The Australian PFAS Chemicals Map shows contamination hotspots, but it is not comprehensive and lacks consistent data for many Indigenous lands. National testing programs often exclude smaller water providers, which disproportionately affects remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
10.149In line with Priority Reform 4 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (promoting Indigenous data sovereignty), NACCHO recommended the Government 'embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance in environmental health research to support self-determination, community-led decisions, and culturally safe data practice'.
Potential options for phasing out PFAS in Australia
10.150Many inquiry participants recommended phasing out, or banning the use of, PFAS in Australia. However, not all submitters agreed with a blanket ban. This section considers options for phasing out PFAS in Australia, including how any such ban could be implemented.
10.151Many submitters, including water utilities, scientific bodies, and state and local government groups, highlighted the benefits of addressing PFAS at the source, rather than attempting to remediate contamination once it is in the environment. The Australia & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership advocated for 'root-cause source control' of PFAS chemicals, noting it is cheaper to prevent PFAS entering the environment than it is to clean it up. It recommended:
Bans on industrial use,
A phasing out of domestic use,
A requirement for labelling of products that contain PFAS (such as makeup, insecticides, clothing, non-stick pans, and food packaging etc),
A need to communicate proportionately the effect of PFAS, and the exposure pathways, because the mention of PFAS—which is ubiquitous—creates an emotive response. Communication should be informed by research and build an understanding of risk and exposure.
10.152CSIRO reported on 'increasing calls' to regulate or phase out PFAS internationally:
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is currently evaluating a submission by European Union (EU) Countries (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) to restrict the 'manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS' in Europe. The persistent organic pollutants regulation in the EU restricts the use of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and related compounds. The EU REACH list of Substances of Very High Concern included other PFAS chemicals (e.g., PFHpA, PFBS), as having probable serious effects to human health and the environment, to be replaced with safer alternatives. ... The USA has initiated or is considering numerous bills or restriction on PFAS manufacture and use to protect human and environmental health. In 2021, Maine was the first US state to bring into law a phase out of the sale and use of products containing intentionally added PFAS by 2030, except for 'currently unavoidable' uses. The law was modified in 2024 to a phase out of products by 2032 and ban of PFAS in key products such as cookware, textiles, children's products, cosmetics, and menstrual products by 2026 instead of 2030, and in artificial turf, outside apparel for extreme weather conditions and fluorinated containers by 2029. Minnesota state has since introduced in 2023 a law to restrict the uses of PFAS by 2032, ban PFAS in products such as cookware, dental floss, and menstrual products by 2025, and require companies to disclose if they are using PFAS in any product.
10.153The Minderoo Foundation provided further international examples:
In 2020 Denmark implemented a ban on the use of PFAS in paper-, board based and cellulose-based packaging.
In January 2024 New Zealand announced a ban on the use of PFAS in cosmetic products from the end of 2026.
In April 2024 the US the U.S. House of Representatives introduced 'the Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2024', a proposal to phase out all non-essential uses of PFAS in ten years.
In August 2024 Canada announced a precautionary, group-based objective for drinking water, establishing limits based on a sum of 25 PFAS.
For 2025: The European Union (EU) has committed to extending its phase out of PFAS, moving from restricting select subgroups towards a complete ban on PFAS in consumer products (aside from specific industrial applications of PFAS where no viable substitutes are available and the chemicals are deemed critical for health or technology).
10.154In light of these international developments, CSIRO suggested Australian governments could consider imposing restrictions or a phase out of 'some PFAS in products, especially in textiles, clothes, cooking utensils, and cosmetics to reduce human exposure and accumulation into the environment'. It noted that many of these products can be 'readily replaced while maintaining desired properties'.
10.155However, the CSIRO acknowledged that replacing PFAS in some products will be more complex and potentially more expensive if there is no readily available and safe replacement. CSIRO also cautioned against substitutions where PFAS are 'substituted for another PFAS or potentially hazardous chemical'.
10.156The Local Government Association of Queensland reported that, in 2024, Queensland councils passed a resolution calling on state and Commonwealth governments to 'ban the importation and use of products containing PFAS-group chemicals by the end of 2026'.
10.157Mr Tisbury argued that 'the time for talk is over'. He noted that it has been 25 years since the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (now AICIS) began providing information about potential risks of PFAS:
That's a quarter of a century that governments of all descriptions and regulators have known that this stuff is dangerous. A quarter of a century later, we're still having the same conversations. The time for talk is over. We've got a lot of solutions that we're happy to share. We've done a lot of work at the UN, but Australia still hasn't ratified the Stockholm convention on those three PFAS. Currently, here in Victoria, contrary to some beliefs, there is no federal ban on the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam. There is no legislation in Victoria banning the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS. We have done that in spite of the regulators.
10.158The United Firefighters Union of Australia noted that PFAS-containing foams are still being used in a number of contexts and argued for an urgent and comprehensive ban on all firefighting foams containing PFAS in Australia, including by 'private sector entities, major hazard facilities and B Class foam extinguishers in Australia'.
10.159Dr Askeland and Mr Mitchell recommended phasing out 'non-essential PFAS uses' and mandating 'full disclosure of PFAS content', while tightening import restrictions. STOP PFAS Blue Mountains recommended Australia adopts 'any restrictions or bans placed on PFAS in the [European Union (EU)]' and align Australia with the EU's approach to minimising the use of PFAS chemicals.
10.160World Wide Fund for Nature-Australia (WWF-Australia) and the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) recommended that the Commonwealth Government 'immediately implement bans on PFAS intentionally added to food packaging materials and consumer goods, as well as requiring that all products designed for organic disposal be certified as PFAS free'.
10.161Conversely, Chemistry Australia argued against a blanket ban, saying:
PFAS materials are critical to numerous life-saving medical devices, technologies and medicines. Many advanced military, electronics, computing, aerospace and aviation technologies and safety systems rely on PFAS substances. PFAS substances will also play a crucial role in the energy transition, including solar cells, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and membrane technologies used to produce green hydrogen via electrolysis.
10.162Professor O'Carroll also recommended caution, saying 'some PFAS [are used] in drugs at very low concentrations and for human health'. While these uses are not widespread, Professor O'Carroll argued they are essential:
A blanket ban might be a concern. I think I said earlier: what's the low-hanging fruit? Where are the easy wins to remove PFAS from the environment, from our wastewater treatment plants and from our landfills? We then can target those in the first instance.
10.163In response to calls to ban PFAS, the Department of Environment submitted that interventions on PFAS must be informed by evidence, be proportionate to the risk, pragmatic, and 'make efficient and effective use of available resources'. The department also expressed concern that an immediate ban on PFAS may lead to unintended consequences:
The wide range of uses of PFAS in the modern economy, including in products and goods that most Australians rely on in daily life, means that immediate bans on all PFAS would have far-reaching socio-economic impacts. We do not yet fully understand the alternative chemicals that may replace the large numbers of PFAS. There is a risk of regrettable substitution, which occurs when a chemical of unknown or unforeseen (potentially greater) risk to the environment is used to replace a banned substance. More information is needed to ensure we avoid adverse outcomes as PFAS are phased out.
10.164The Department of Environment argued that PFAS is a 'shared global problem' and international engagement is important 'to achieve desired policy outcomes for PFAS in Australia'. It was the department's view that tighter restrictions in Europe and the United States will 'help drive innovation for safer alternatives', which will benefit Australia over the long term. The department also acknowledged the need for Australia to 'keep pace with the evolving regulatory landscape internationally to avoid becoming a dumping ground for goods containing high concern PFAS'.
10.165Professor O'Carroll similarly noted that, with PFAS-containing firefighting foams banned in the European Union, there is a risk that manufacturers 'have no market for this product [and] we may end up as a dumping ground'.
10.166The Minderoo Foundation argued that a ban on PFAS can be successfully introduced while allowing for some genuinely 'essential uses':
Minderoo and other international scientific experts agree that phasing out all PFAS as a chemical class is justifiable on the basis of their high persistence. This will be a more effective approach than managing PFAS one compound at a time. It makes sense given their structural similarity and that the precautionary principal would be upheld. Exceptions to bans should only be made in rare 'essential use' applications where no alternatives exist and PFAS compounds are used in controlled and closed environments with insignificant risk for environmental leakage or human exposure.
10.167Dr Hughes submitted that Australia's reluctance to act on PFAS risks repeating the 'mistakes of the past', where first-generation persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin and chlordane—were not banned for decades 'due to massive pressure from chemical companies and lack of sufficient scientific evidence to convince politicians of the need to ban them or restrict their use':
Australia was among the last countries to ban these POPs resulting in widespread contamination of people's homes, gardens and public spaces. Agricultural lands and sediments were contaminated, as were many animal species, including humans. The health impacts of these ubiquitous contaminants were significant, and they were finally (well almost) banned. Bans and restrictions on other POPs followed during the ensuing years but regulation was, and remains, a cumbersome, highly politicised process and one that must not be repeated.
10.168The committee's views and recommendations are outlined in the next chapters.