Australia: Changes to duty to notify (about contaminated land) - will it lead to a flood of notifications and prosecutions?

Invitations to comment on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Bill 2014 are open until 29 September 2014. Of interest to local governments may be the proposed changes to the contaminated land provisions, particularly how those changes vastly enlarge the notification obligations of local governments.


The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA) is Queensland's primary environmental protection statute.

The EPA currently contains general offence provisions for causing unlawful serious1 or material environmental harm,2 as well as environmental nuisance.3 The EPA also imposes some duties:

  • a "general environmental duty" which must be complied with;
  • a duty to notify the administering authority (usually the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), but possibly the local government, if the environmentally relevant activity (ERA) is devolved)4 if a person becomes aware whilst carrying out a primary activity (or associated activity) that unlawful serious or material environmental harm is caused or threatened (ss320A-E); and
  • a duty to notify DEHP under ss371 and 372 relating to contaminated land.

Proposed changes to the duty to notify, in effect, relocate and combine the duty to notify about contaminated land into the more general duty to notify while also enlarging that duty. The time in which to notify has been significantly reduced. The reduction in time and broadening of responsibilities may prove to be not only quite onerous to local governments but may significantly increase notifications to the DEHP.

Currently, local governments are obliged to notify DEHP when:

  • a person carrying out a primary activity (or any other activity being carried out in association with it);
  • becomes aware;
  • that an event has happened;
  • that threatens or causes serious or material environmental harm;
  • because of the person's or someone else's act or omissions in carrying out the primary activity or associated activity.

Notification must be in writing and given no later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the event. Agents and employees also have certain duties to notify their principal or employer. Notification to occupiers or owners of affected land is also required. Public notice may even be necessary.


Under the proposed changes the general duty to notify has been enlarged to capture when a person becomes aware:

  1. that a notifiable activity is being carried out on land; or
  2. of the happening of an event, or a change in the condition of contaminated land, that is causing, or is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm.

More particularly, local governments must also, upon becoming aware that a notifiable activity has been, or is being carried out on land in the local government area, give notice to the DEHP within 20 business days5. This is consistent with the current duty found in s372 of the EPA but the time for notification has been reduced from 22 business days to 20.

Of interest is the obligation on Councils to notify DEHP no later than 24 hours of becoming aware of:

  1. the happening of an event in the local government area; or
  2. a change in the condition of contaminated land in the local government area;

that is causing, or is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm.


The word "event" is not defined in the EPA and nor is it a legal term or term of art. Accordingly, the word will take its ordinary dictionary meaning.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines "event" in very broad terms as "anything that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance". This is consistent with the EP Act provisions requiring that the "event" be one that causes or is reasonably likely to cause serious or material environmental harm.

Whilst not a formal aid to statutory interpretation, Appendix B of DEHP's Guideline on the duty to notify of environmental harm provides some clarification of when DEHP, at least, considers that an event may occur. The Appendix contains four examples of events:

  • a sewage treatment plant failing during a major flood and releasing effluent;
  • the driver of a truck carrying regulated waste arriving at their destination and becoming aware that a substantial volume of waste had leaked along the way (the example states that the relevant "event" is "the leakage of the material")
  • an explosion and fire at a chemical factory, resulting in a release of noxious odours, fumes or gases;
  • A hose refuelling a ship falling loose and pumping fuel directly into a waterway.

We suggest that a significant rain event, that has the potential to mobilise contaminants, could be an example of an "event" for the purposes of the EPA. However, even "ordinary" rain could potentially constitute an event if it is reasonably likely to result in a risk of serious or material environmental harm. Other such "events" could be a heatwave if it were to significantly expand landfill gas on a former landfill and an electrical storm where the barometric pressure drops suddenly which might in turn cause landfill gas to act differently.

These examples illustrate a major difficulty with the new provisions. The trigger to notify is not knowledge of harm or the potential to cause harm; rather, the trigger is knowledge of the "event" which may cause it. This is particularly problematic because the "event" no longer has to occur in the context of the carrying out of an activity, in which a proponent would ordinarily be vigilant about possible environmental consequences on its site. The scope of the new provision means that local governments, perhaps unreasonably, must now consider all possible outcomes of otherwise unknown "events" in its local government area; not merely on land owned or occupied by them. Accordingly, a trigger might be an otherwise innocuous "event" but one which is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm.

For example, a relatively small rain event could conceivably mobilise contaminants underground. A local government might not previously have had any concern over such an "event" but now must be alive to its impact on all land in its local government area, including sites upon which notifiable activities were once conducted. Under this new provision, a local government would be obliged to turn its mind to the potential consequences of any "event" and, if necessary, notify the DEHP. A conservative approach could see the number of notifications increase significantly.

While the amendments do not require the event or change in condition to relate to the carrying out of an activity, the existing offence provisions all assume, with one exception that an activity is being carried out. That exception is section 320C which applies to a person who is "not carrying out the primary activity during the person's employment or engagement..." However, given that even this provision refers to the carrying out of an activity (and is in a subdivision headed: "Duty of persons carrying out an activity) it follows that section 320C would not be triggered if an activity was not being carried out.


This phrase does not have a direct analogue in the EPA as presently drafted. It would seem that a change in the physical or chemical composition of the contaminated land is the target of this provision and would capture situations such as contaminants:

  • migrating off-site;
  • entering top soil layers and becoming exposed;
  • leaking into an aquifer and contaminating ground water; and
  • becoming concentrated.

Often, this will be as a result of a happening of an event, for example, a significant rain event or the carrying out of operational works on the site. However, at least with this limb of the notification requirement, the requisite awareness infers some prior knowledge of the land and its condition. Local governments could not be expected to have an intimate knowledge of all contaminated land within its boundary and therefore be aware of any change. In any event, a change in condition of its contaminated land may require baseline analysis that would not necessarily be available or required.

Other issues may also arise. Taking landfill as an example, the chemical composition in legacy landfills will change over time because of natural degradation. There is no guidance regarding what time period the "change" is to be assessed.

It would be beneficial if the Department nominates a threshold or guidance as to what constitutes a change in condition because otherwise everyday climatic conditions may result in a significant change, particularly, when dealing with former landfills.

Another key issue for local government is what constitutes "awareness" by a Council of such an event or change.


"Aware" is defined as "cognisant or conscious (of); informed: aware of danger [watchful]".6 In Deming7, the Court said when interpreting a phrase whereby the purchaser may avoid the contract "by notice in writing given to the original proprietor within 30 days after he first becomes aware of the failure" to comply with section 49 of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, awareness encompassed only actual knowledge. It is to be read as identifying a point of time when the person not only became aware of the facts that lead to the non-compliance but also an awareness that the fact constitutes a "failure" to do something which the relevant Act says should be done instead of the point in time when the facts actually amount to a non-compliance.

There are many cases from as recently as 2010 and 2014 that uphold the decision made in Deming, even if they comment on the "surprising construction" of the High Court in that case, but no cases decide this point differently to that of the High Court.

In fact, the meaning of "awareness" in the context of the EPA was recently considered by the District Court in Dixonbuild Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council8, and on appeal (leave refused) in Ipswich City Council v Dixonbuild Pty Ltd9. The decisions are apposite because they confirm the applicability of Deming and demonstrate that the mental element of "awareness" is very difficult for a prosecuting authority to prove.

The District Court decision was itself an appeal against a Magistrates Court decision to convict Dixonbuild of an offence against s.440ZG of the EPA ("Depositing prescribed water contaminants in waters and related matters"), relating to the depositing of a large pile of sand in a location where it could be reasonably expected to wash, blow, fall or move into a roadside gutter. The issue of awareness was relevant because under s.440ZE, the physical element of "deposits" in s.440ZG can be established, in part, by proving that a person who is either the occupier of a place or in control of a contaminant fails to remove a contaminant deposited into waters by another person within a reasonable time "after becoming aware" that the contaminant had been deposited in the relevant place.

At trial, Dixonbuild's director claimed that he could "not recall" the deposit as at the relevant dates, and had "no memory". While there was no direct evidence of such knowledge, the Magistrate found that the director had the requisite awareness on the basis that because the sand pile was quite prominent in size, and located in a clearly visible location (next to the access to the property), an inference of awareness could be drawn.

However, on appeal to the District Court, Dorney QC DCJ emphasised that, because the case was both circumstantial and subject to the criminal standard of proof, any reasonable inference consistent with innocence would be sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any finding that the director's evidence was dishonest (which Dorney QC DCJ noted may have been open to the Magistrate), the director's claims of having no recollection were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable doubt.

His Honour proceeded to consider an alternative factual basis upon which the Magistrate found that awareness could be established. That alternative basis was that close to the relevant times, the director had signed an election concerning a Penalty Infringement Notice in relation to another part of the sand pile. Since this formed part of the same sand pile, the Magistrate had found that this was sufficient to establish awareness of the part of the sand pile relevant to this proceeding. However, Dorney QC DCJ did not accept this finding of fact, noting that the PIN did not specifically identify the relevant contaminants, and that in any event it could still not be proved that the director was aware that the part of the sand pile relevant to this proceeding was in the relevant place for the purposes of s. 440ZG.

The approach of Dorney QC DCJ was upheld by the Court of Appeal, with Chesterman JA (White JA and Dalton J concurring) agreeing with Dorney QC DCJ that it was necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt a subjective awareness of the presence of contaminants at the relevant place, and concluding that Dorney QC DCJ's approach could not "fairly be criticised".

In the case of contaminated land, where changes in condition or events may be gradual or imperceptible without undertaking scientific monitoring, the narrowness of the "awareness" test means that it will often be very difficult to prove the offence.


Should a constituent complain to a local government call centre operator about environmental harm arising from an event, will that constitute awareness by the local government and trigger the need for Council to give notification to DEHP within 24 hours?

We suggest the answer is no – in the example above, the local government will not have knowledge or awareness of the event giving rise to material or serious environmental harm but rather will have knowledge of an allegation about environmental harm. It is likely that a Court will find that the time in which to notify is not triggered until an investigation has confirmed it. In this respect, it is important to remember local governments may not have jurisdiction to investigate and, certainly, local governments do not have jurisdiction over contaminated land (unless of course it owns or occupies that land and/or the use or development carried out on the land is subject to a development approval that directly relates to the relevant issue). There may well be no jurisdiction and/or no obligation upon Council to investigate the matter and, clearly, when deciding to investigate, various other matters and priorities must be considered and weighed by Council.

In such circumstances as described above, local governments should, as a matter of good corporate citizenship, ensure they have policies and procedures whereby the complainant is advised to contact the DEHP.

Other than that, we suggest it will be unlikely that a Court will find a Council call centre operator's awareness to be that of Council. We suggest that for Council to have such awareness, the matter would have to come before an appropriate officer who can either make decisions or ensure that superiors are made aware of the matter within a relatively short period of time. This may be an interesting legal argument.

Further legislative amendment, or updated DEHP guidelines, would be desirable to clarify the circumstances in which a local government will be deemed to have "awareness". While the above reasoning accords with common sense, and the practical realities faced by local governments, it is possible that DEHP may adopt a much stricter approach.

For example, some amendments to mirror sections 320B and 320D of the EPA may be appropriate. Section 320B imposes an obligation on employees carrying out an activity on behalf of their employer to notify their employer within 24 hours of an event that threatens material or serious environmental harm. The employer, in turn, then has a duty under section 320D to notify DEHP within 24 hours.

A similar approach could be adopted for the notification obligations of local governments in relation to contaminated land. For example, a lower-ranked Council officer could be obliged to notify the CEO or its delegate, who would in turn have the obligation to notify DEHP on behalf of the local government. Given the unique circumstances facing local governments, it would also be appropriate to allow the CEO or its delegate some flexibility in deciding whether an investigation is necessary before notifying DEHP (eg allowing extra time where the CEO reasonably considers that investigation is warranted, such as where the "notice" is merely received through a call centre).


It is suggested that the changes to the contaminated land notification obligations simultaneously result in an offence which creates significant uncertainty for local governments (and other persons) and may prove resource costly and yet will also be difficult for DEHP to prosecute.

On a practical level, it will often be difficult to know whether an event has the potential to cause material or serious environmental harm. For example, a sewerage leak may go undetected for some time. Once the leak is detected, it may not be immediately possible to ascertain the amount of the leak and assess whether the leak threatens material or serious environmental harm. In many cases, it is likely that only scientific experts would have sufficient knowledge to judge whether an event or change in condition may breach this threshold. For some local governments, water and sewage is not within their jurisdiction and yet they will be required to notify about what may be a commonly known "event", or perhaps an otherwise innocuous event, such as an extremely hot day.

Another example may be where at a landfill, a development approval condition requires monitoring of the ground gas at the boundary. If this ground gas migrates to the boundary does that threaten material or environmental harm, particularly where it is a naturally occurring gas? If anything, these circumstances might fall within subparagraph (a) of the definition of material environmental harm: "that is not trivial or negligible in nature, extent or context". It may only fall into this category because, depending upon the gas, it might be explosive if it were to migrate to, and be concentrated in, infrastructure which is then the subject of mechanical work or repair which may result in an explosion. Clearly, some instances will be arguable. However, Courts are likely to adopt a conservative approach where a failure to give notice can significantly increase the risk of a serious or irreversible incident.

Accordingly, as a precautionary measure, if a person suspects that something has occurred that could lead to unlawful serious or material environmental harm being caused, any relevant persons and the administering authority should be notified. The drafter of the written notice may wish to adopt language that does not admit to causing of any environmental harm, whether potential or actual.

That said, what are the potential consequences of giving the notice to DEHP? Will DEHP use one of its enforcement tools to require immediate remediation or mitigation? What if the local government is aware of the environmental issues and is taking steps to address a long-term legacy contamination matter but this will take time and is likely to be expensive. Remediation of contaminated sites is not cheap. Is there a risk that councils will be pushed to take immediate action that may well not be the most effective in the long run? If local governments control numerous contaminated sites, will they be given an opportunity to prioritise which sites should attract attention first?

The proposed notification provisions, as currently drafted, may lead to a flood of notifications, be a drain on councils' resources but prove to have minimal environmental benefits.


1EPA s 437.

2EPA s 438.

3EPA s 440.

4"Devolution" in this context means a local government is entirely responsible for the administration and enforcement of the ERA. A devolution can be contrasted with a delegation of responsibilities and powers. If responsibilities and powers are delegated to a local government, it is invested with authority to carry out another entity's administration and enforcement responsibilities and powers. Where responsibilities and powers are delegated, the delegator retains the ability to exercise them.

5EPOLA Bill 2014, s320DB.

6Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed).

7Deming No 456 Pty Ltd v Brisbane Unit Development Corporation Pty Ltd (1983) 155 CLR 129.

8[2011] QDC 185

9[2012] QCA 098

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.