[Peetwo]

“Game on” I’d say.

(i) the adequacy of current legislation to enable the NSW EPA to respond to and regulate lands controlled and/or owned by a federal entity which would otherwise have the full jurisdiction of the NSW EPA if that same pollution event occurred on non-federally owned and controlled land; and

The Feds won’t like that – not one little bit.  State butting in to Federal business, on a ‘commonwealth place’.  No, no, NO, too used, for too long to getting their own way and doing exactly what pleases, when it pleases.  Oh dear, there’ll be a scramble now to ‘manage’ the ToR, watch the big hitters come out of the woodwork.  Can’t wait to watch.

EPA – “We reckon your development is polluted to the extent that it will affect public health, kill off the frogs and make the ducks glow in the dark”.  

Developer – “No it ain’t; anyway - sod off, this a Commonwealth place, we can do what we bloody well like, Murky said so”.  

EPA – “We want this place cleaned up and thanks to some the Senate sanity – when we find pollution the state EPA has full jurisdiction – now, here’s your paper work stop, those dozers, and shut up shop, we’ll tell you when and if you can come back”.  There will be clean up and restoration costs, compensation under State law, criminal charges, civil charges and of course, our own modest bill for this service, performed by public demand under a user pays system”.

Developer – “But, but we were assured, at the highest level that we were protected and could do whatever pleased us on a commonwealth place”.

EPA – … …cheery two finger wave.  “See ya in court – tootle pip”.

Game on?- Most certainly

From the Senate Notice Paper for 30 November 2015 (take note of Para (b) ):

1 Senators Conroy and Rhiannon: To move—That the following matters, in relation to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination, be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:


(a) by 4 February 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, with reference to:

(i) what contamination has occurred to the water, soil and any other natural or human made structures in the RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding environs,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth Government,
including the Department of Defence and RAAF Base Williamtown management, and New South Wales authorities to PFOS/PFOA contamination, including when base employees, local residents and businesses, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Councils, and the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed of the contamination,

(iii) the adequacy of consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Council, the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders,

(iv) whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian military and civilian personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(v) the adequacy of health advice and testing of defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed, or potentially exposed, to PFOS/PFOA in and around RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vii) what progress has been made on remediation works at RAAF Base Williamtown, and the adequacy of measures to control further contamination,

(viii) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts and assistance to affected business and individuals, and

(ix) any other related matters; and

(b) by 30 April 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination on other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia where firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA were used, with reference to:

(i) what Commonwealth, state and territory facilities have been identified as having PFOS/PFOA contamination, and what facilities may potentially still be identified as being contaminated,

MTF?- What do you reckon..P2