❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses landowner obligations and government assistance regarding contaminated sites under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. The response clarifies responsibilities and limitations of government financial aid, highlighting protections for innocent landowners.
AnsweredQoN 174Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CONTAMINATED SITES ACT 2003
In reference to the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 - (1) What obligations do landowners have to clean up contamination found on - (a) their current property; and (b) property previously owned by them? (2) What assistance is provided by the government to landowners in respect of - (a) the cost of an environmental consultant; and (b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites? Hon JON FORD
In reference to the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 - (1) What obligations do landowners have to clean up contamination found on - (a) their current property; and (b) property previously owned by them? (2) What assistance is provided by the government to landowners in respect of - (a) the cost of an environmental consultant; and (b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(1) What obligations do landowners have to clean up contamination found on - (a) their current property; and (b) property previously owned by them? (2) What assistance is provided by the government to landowners in respect of - (a) the cost of an environmental consultant; and (b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(b) property previously owned by them?
(b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(1) What obligations do landowners have to clean up contamination found on - (a) their current property; and (b) property previously owned by them? (2) What assistance is provided by the government to landowners in respect of - (a) the cost of an environmental consultant; and (b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(b) property previously owned by them?
(b) cleaning up proven contaminated sites?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
(1) (a) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified “contaminated - remediation required”. The Contaminated Sites Act 2003 sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up sites classified as “contaminated - remediation required”. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. Exemptions can apply for innocent landowners. Also, if the contamination at a site has migrated there from elsewhere, the owner of the property on which the contamination occurred would be responsible. (b) A person may have a responsibility to clean up contamination on a previously owned property, but only if that person had caused or contributed to the contamination. (2) (a) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of an environmental consultant to undertake contamination investigations. (b) No financial assistance is provided by government to landowners for the cost of cleaning up proven contaminated sites, subject to the answer to (1)(a). However, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 provides some protection to innocent landowners; that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the state will bear the cost of cleaning up the site.
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.