Skip to main content

Parliamentary Questions

Question Without Notice No. 1007 asked in the Legislative Council on 17 September 2019 by Hon Dr Steve Thomas

Minister responding: Hon R. Saffioti
Parliament: 40 Session: 1

Answered on


1007. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport:

I refer to PFAS-contaminated spoil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link and documents released under freedom of information laws by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet this month.

(1) Has the site-specific risk assessment for re-use of the spoil at Perth Airport requested of RPS Group consultants by the Public Transport Authority, which was provided to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and the commonwealth in February 2018, and rejected as inadequate by the commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy by May 2018, been revised and resubmitted to the commonwealth?

(2) If yes to (1), can the minister please table the revised SSRA?

(3) If no to (1), why not?

(4) If no to (1), given that 16 months have passed since the risk assessment was rejected, has the government abandoned plans to use the fill at the Perth Airport SSRA site?

(5) Did the concerns about the SSRA for the re-use on the Perth Airport site precipitate the Minister for Transport's meeting with Mr Greg Poland in April 2018?

(6) Did the commonwealth's rejection of the SSRA result in Mr Poland, Ms Corina Johnson, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport, and Hon Dr Sally Talbot, MLC, discussing or being briefed on the potential removal of the spoil to a site in the Peel region?


On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer.

(1) The site-specific risk assessment has not been resubmitted to the commonwealth.

(2) Not applicable.

(3) Perth Airport no longer plans to place the spoil on the specific site within the airport, which was the subject of that assessment, but it is considering other sites.

(4)–(6) No.