Is “AQP” a Real Thing? Why Moving Away from SQPs Creates Risk

In recent guidance, statutory documents and discussions, the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) has begun using the term appropriately qualified person (AQP) in place of the more familiar suitably qualified person (SQP).

The stated intent appears to be to avoid the perception that use of the term SQP implied that a statutory regulatory function (such as preparation of a Contaminated Land Investigation Document (CLID)) was being undertaken. DETSI appear to be concerned that this could be interpreted as restricting certain activities (for example, monitoring under a Site Management Plan) to SQPs only, increasing costs for clients and limiting the use of less qualified personnel.

In practice, the intent of requiring an SQP was not that they personally undertake all tasks, but that the work be appropriately planned and supervised by an SQP, with the SQP taking responsibility for the work and its outcomes.

At face value, that concern is understandable. However, replacing a defined and regulated concept with an undefined term introduces a different, and potentially more serious, problem: uncertainty and risk for clients.

What is an SQP?

While the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) links the formal requirement for an SQP to specific regulatory functions, the SQP framework defines a level of professional competence and accountability that remains appropriate beyond those statutory triggers.

Detailed guidance is provided through the Assessing a suitably qualified person guideline.

In practical terms, the SQP framework establishes a minimum professional baseline. It requires that contaminated land work be planned, supervised and taken responsibility for by a person who:

• has qualifications relevant to the work

• has demonstrated experience in the relevant contaminated land knowledge areas

• is a current member of a prescribed professional organisation

• complies with the professional standards, codes of conduct and continuing professional development requirements of that organisation, which commonly include professional indemnity insurance

By contrast, use of the term AQP does not require adherence to any professional code, continuing professional development framework, or insurance requirements.

Importantly, the SQP framework is not a statutory appointment or role. A person does not “become” an SQP by being engaged for a particular task. Rather, they must already be suitably qualified for the work being undertaken. Requiring an SQP is about accountability for the work and its outcomes, not about who physically undertakes each site task.

What is an AQP?

Unlike SQP, appropriately qualified person is not defined in the EP Act, the EP Regulation, or any contaminated land guideline. No minimum qualifications, experience, professional membership, or insurance requirements are prescribed for an AQP.

In practice, AQP appears to mean “someone the proponent considers appropriate”. While that may allow flexibility, it also removes any objective threshold for assessing competence and provides no consistent signal to clients about professional standards.

Where the risk sits

Removing defined competency requirements does not remove risk; it shifts it.

When an SQP framework is used, there is a transparent basis for assessing competence and accountability. When an undefined AQP framework is used, clients must either make that assessment themselves or assume it is being managed.

Many clients do not have the technical background to do this. They rely on regulatory and industry language to signal competence. An undefined term provides no such signal.

Why not keep SQP?

If the concern is that SQP is being misunderstood as implying statutory decision‑making, the solution is not to abandon the term but to explain it more clearly.

SQP already allows flexibility, while still providing a minimum professional baseline that protects clients, regulators and the industry.

Replacing SQP with AQP removes that baseline without replacing it with anything equivalent.

Is AQP a real term?

At present, AQP is a descriptive phrase, not a regulatory concept. It has no defined meaning in contaminated land legislation or guidance, and no enforceable minimum standard.

Until it is clearly defined, treating AQP as interchangeable with SQP risks weakening, rather than improving, professional standards.

#ContaminationSimplified

---

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.