❓ Dr. Steve Thomas questions the Minister for Environment regarding PFAS-contaminated soil from the Forrestfield-Airport Link project used in the NorthLink project, focusing on whether the arrangements meet waste regulations and the basis for claiming consideration was paid for the soil. The Minister defers some questions to the Minister for Transport.
AnsweredQoN 1407Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL
CONTAMINATION
1407. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to questions without notice 881, 988, 1278 and 1332,
which confirm that the Public Transport Authority did not receive payment for
the Forrestfield–Airport Link PFAS-contaminated material used as
engineering fill on the NorthLink project,
but, rather, paid the FAL main works contractor $250 000 to transport the
material, and that the PTA main works contractor was subsequently paid
$200 000 for the material by the private contractor, Great Northern Connect.
(1) Does the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation hold the view that this meets the requirement for material
being sold by a producer to a third party factor, as described in the ''Factsheet—Assessing
Whether Material is Waste'', and what is the justification for that
view?
(2) Does DWER
hold the view that these arrangements meet the material wanted by its
producer/source for use in some other project factor as described in the fact
sheet, and what is the justification for that view?
(3) Given that
the PTA did not receive any payment for the material, on what basis did the
minister claim that consideration was paid for the soil?
(4) Is the fact
that the project owner, the PTA representing the government, paid the FAL main
works contractor to take the material away being used to justify the position
that consideration was paid?
(5) Was the
payment from Great Northern Connect for the material covered by or reimbursed
by the state under its contract or any other payment?
CONTAMINATION
1407. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to questions without notice 881, 988, 1278 and 1332,
which confirm that the Public Transport Authority did not receive payment for
the Forrestfield–Airport Link PFAS-contaminated material used as
engineering fill on the NorthLink project,
but, rather, paid the FAL main works contractor $250 000 to transport the
material, and that the PTA main works contractor was subsequently paid
$200 000 for the material by the private contractor, Great Northern Connect.
(1) Does the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation hold the view that this meets the requirement for material
being sold by a producer to a third party factor, as described in the ''Factsheet—Assessing
Whether Material is Waste'', and what is the justification for that
view?
(2) Does DWER
hold the view that these arrangements meet the material wanted by its
producer/source for use in some other project factor as described in the fact
sheet, and what is the justification for that view?
(3) Given that
the PTA did not receive any payment for the material, on what basis did the
minister claim that consideration was paid for the soil?
(4) Is the fact
that the project owner, the PTA representing the government, paid the FAL main
works contractor to take the material away being used to justify the position
that consideration was paid?
(5) Was the
payment from Great Northern Connect for the material covered by or reimbursed
by the state under its contract or any other payment?
AnswerView source ↗
I
thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. It pleases me that
we are back on to PFAS questions. I thought for a second the member had
moved on!
(1)–(2) In
my answer to the honourable member's question without notice 1332 on 19
November 2019, I stated that the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation had not assessed whether soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport
Link project and used as fill for the NorthLink project was waste, as this is
the responsibility of the producer or source of the material. Accordingly, DWER
does not hold views on the matter. DWER's
''Factsheet—Assessing Whether Material is Waste'' lists a
number of relevant factors ; no single factor is determinative.
(3)–(5) These
questions should be directed to the Minister for Transport, who is travelling
interstate today and unable to sign off on answers. I give an undertaking to
the honourable member that an answer will be provided on Tuesday, 26 November.
thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. It pleases me that
we are back on to PFAS questions. I thought for a second the member had
moved on!
(1)–(2) In
my answer to the honourable member's question without notice 1332 on 19
November 2019, I stated that the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation had not assessed whether soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport
Link project and used as fill for the NorthLink project was waste, as this is
the responsibility of the producer or source of the material. Accordingly, DWER
does not hold views on the matter. DWER's
''Factsheet—Assessing Whether Material is Waste'' lists a
number of relevant factors ; no single factor is determinative.
(3)–(5) These
questions should be directed to the Minister for Transport, who is travelling
interstate today and unable to sign off on answers. I give an undertaking to
the honourable member that an answer will be provided on Tuesday, 26 November.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.