Unlocking value from past reports requires more than summarising old data. Under Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act and Auditor Handbook, verification is essential. Any third-party data used in a Contaminated Land Investigation Document (CLID) must be fully integrated and supported with evidence, ensuring compliance with NEPM processes. Past data isn’t enough—verified evidence is the key.

Contaminated land audits in Queensland aren’t standard consulting jobs—they’re statutory functions under the EP Act and Auditor Handbook. Scope is set by law, not client direction, and auditors must maintain independence. Standard PO terms often conflict with these obligations. The safest approach? Use auditor-specific terms that preserve compliance and professional integrity.

Consultants working in contaminated land assessment must balance good intentions with professional responsibility. Mixed fill sites pose high uncertainty, and shortcutting guidelines can mislead landowners and increase risk. Your role is to provide clear, evidence-based advice so landowners can make informed decisions. The risk, responsibility, and reward remain with them—your fee reflects your own boundaries.

In Queensland, the movement of clean soil between lots within a development footprint raises a key regulatory question: must it always be treated as “waste” under the WRR Act? This post explores the intersection of the Waste and Contaminated Land frameworks, clarifies when soil becomes waste or contaminated, and discusses lawful pathways for reuse without triggering levy obligations.

Many CLID submissions in Queensland mistakenly have the SQP sign both declarations, omitting the legally required declaration from the relevant person. Under the EP Act, only a suitably qualified person (SQP) can prepare a CLID, but only the relevant person—typically the landowner or agent—can submit it. The auditor relies on the relevant person’s declaration, not the SQP’s, to confirm the integrity of the submission.

Contaminated land auditors in Queensland operate under Section 568(b) of the EP Act to independently evaluate investigation documents—not to regulate. They do not enforce remediation or notify third parties. That responsibility lies with DETSI, the administering authority. Auditors must notify DETSI of serious or material environmental harm under Section 320, but have no power to initiate regulatory action. Their role is technical, not enforcement.