Contaminated land notification: Who is responsible?
- Christian Atkinson
- May 14
- 3 min read
In recent years, there has been increasing confusion around the duty to notify provisions of the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act), particularly in the context of contaminated land. Much of this confusion relates to how those provisions are being interpreted and applied in practice.
This article is intended to clarify what the Act actually requires, who holds primary responsibility for notification, and why current interpretive tensions reflect a regulatory interpretation issue that needs to be addressed directly.
What the EP Act actually does (and does not) say
Section 320 of the EP Act establishes a duty to notify the Department where a person becomes aware that land has been contaminated. That provision is often discussed in isolation, which has led to assumptions about its scope that are not supported by the structure or intent of the legislation.
Importantly, s320 does not:
appoint contaminated land auditors as enforcement agents or departmental watchdogs;
impose a general obligation on auditors to notify based on draft, preliminary or unverified material; or
expand the statutory audit function under s568(b) into an investigative or surveillance role.
Auditors are engaged to independently review and certify technical work prepared by suitably qualified persons (SQPs). Their statutory role is deliberate, narrow, and clearly defined. Interpreting s320 as requiring auditors to notify the Department simply because they are exposed to information during an audit stretches the provision well beyond its purpose.
Properly understood, the Act works as written - it just does not allocate responsibility in the way some regulatory practices appear to assume.
This is not an audit practice problem
From an audit conduct perspective, this issue does not prevent auditors from doing their job. Audits continue to be undertaken in accordance with the EP Act, the Auditor Handbook and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM).
For that reason, characterising this as an “auditor compliance problem” is misplaced. The difficulty arises not from how audits are conducted, but from how some parts of the regulatory system interpret what auditors are required to do outside their statutory function.
Where this interpretation is then taken further - for example, through technical reviews that threaten enforcement action for an alleged failure to notify - the issue becomes more serious. At that point, auditors may be exposed to compliance risk, not because they have acted unlawfully, but because the statutory role is being administratively expanded without legislative support.
That is a regulatory interpretation problem, not an auditor conduct issue.
Who actually holds primary responsibility for notification?
A second, and equally important, point often overlooked in these discussions is who holds the primary responsibility to notify.
Under the EP Act, that responsibility sits with the relevant person — most commonly the landowner.
Landowners occupy a central position in the contaminated land framework. They are the constant party across a site’s lifecycle and are the legal link between:
SQPs, who perform investigations and generate technical data; and
auditors, who independently review and certify outcomes for regulatory decision making.
Neither SQPs nor auditors displace the landowner’s obligations simply by being involved. While both may have limited notification responsibilities in specific circumstances, these are defined and contextual, not general or substitutive.
It is therefore incorrect to reframe notification as primarily an SQP or auditor obligation. Doing so risks shifting statutory responsibility away from the party to whom Parliament has expressly assigned it.
Convenience is not a lawful substitute for responsibility
A recurring concern raised by industry is the tendency to focus regulatory pressure on auditors because audits are “closer” to regulatory decision points, and auditors are more visible and administratively easier to deal with.
However, statutory responsibility cannot be reassigned for reasons of convenience or regulatory efficiency. Auditors cannot lawfully be used as a substitute notifier for landowners simply because they are easier to control within the system.
Doing so undermines:
role clarity under the EP Act,
the independence of the audit function, and
confidence in consistent, defensible regulatory outcomes.
Why this matters
Clear statutory boundaries protect everyone involved: landowners, SQPs, auditors and regulators alike. When roles are blurred, the result is uncertainty, inconsistent enforcement, and unnecessary compliance risk - often years after technical work has been completed.
The EP Act already provides a workable framework. The challenge is not legislative gaps, but interpretive drift.
Re‑anchoring regulatory practice to what the Act actually requires - and to whom obligations truly belong - is essential for maintaining trust, consistency and fairness in Queensland’s contaminated land system.
Christian Atkinson is a contaminated land auditor and a suitably qualified person for contaminated land assessment in Queensland with more than 30 years of experience. Any discussion is general and does not consider your specific circumstances. If you are considering acting on any matters discussed, you should seek advice from qualified and experienced professionals.
Comments