❓ Question regarding the potential industrial development of West Intercourse Island and Maitland on the Burrup Peninsula, specifically concerning the impact on rock art and artifacts. The answer defends a previous statement about minimal disturbance and criticizes the government's proposed development.
AnsweredQoN 701Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the
Burrup Peninsula (Crown Land) Bill 2002
and Motion No. 7 and comments made by the Leader of the Opposition at the National Trust Rock Art Forum on Monday, where he gave the impression that a future Liberal Government would develop West Intercourse Island and Maitland at a cost of $300 million, to house an industrial estate of more than 30 plants, and ask -
Does the Member stand by his answer in this place on Tuesday, where he said that port and lay down facilities required to serve such an industrial estate would result in only minimal disturbance of artifacts and/or rock art on West Intercourse Island?
Burrup Peninsula (Crown Land) Bill 2002
and Motion No. 7 and comments made by the Leader of the Opposition at the National Trust Rock Art Forum on Monday, where he gave the impression that a future Liberal Government would develop West Intercourse Island and Maitland at a cost of $300 million, to house an industrial estate of more than 30 plants, and ask -
Does the Member stand by his answer in this place on Tuesday, where he said that port and lay down facilities required to serve such an industrial estate would result in only minimal disturbance of artifacts and/or rock art on West Intercourse Island?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
13 May 2003
Responded by
Member Hon Robin Chapple
Response time
7 days
1. The leader of the Opposition stated at the National Trust of Australia’s Rock Art Forum that 'to develop Maitland costs a bit of money – costs probably up to $300,000,000' and 'for our gas reserve to realise its true potential you needed a large industrial site like, Maitland where you could get 30 plants together', he also stated that 'Well there are existing projects proposed on the Hearson Cove site. My view, would be to allow those projects to proceed', he said this whilst indicating that some of the projects weren’t imminent, going on to state 'I would proceed and this government has failed to proceed with Maitland, I would reactivate and proceed with Maitland and even give the companies on Hearson Cove an option, no compulsion no pressure but give them an option of a Maitland site. Because at the end of the day, its going to be better for them, its going to be more comforting to the investors and banks when they do their due diligence and discover rock art and are going to be a lot more content with a purpose built well serviced low cost industrial site.'
2. I do stand by my statement on Tuesday 8th of April' that there can be minimal disturbance of artifacts and/or rock art sites in that area.' I do not support the current government’s proposed use of West Intercourse Island for Industrial development as outlined by the government in the Burrup and Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement. We can choose to minimise disturbance on West Intercourse Island or avoid disturbing the island altogether. It is just a matter of cost and where our priorities lie.
It is also interesting to note that the Leader of the opposition seemingly concurred with this position at the National Trust of Australia’s Rock Art Forum when he stated:
'There are issues and the issues are deepwater access – now there are some initial designs done which would include West Intercourse Island – those initial designs I would say are unacceptable but it is possible and there will be some disturbance and loss of rock art, there is no doubt about it but you could by causeway and by pier constructions of West Intercourse Island minimise the loss of rock art, remove the emissions well away from the concentrations of rock art and have an industry site that would be there for the next 50 – 100 years now there are some compromises but they are to me at least, economically and industrially attractive and I would suggest environmentally and from the heritage point of view far more attractive
but there are some costs.'
2. I do stand by my statement on Tuesday 8th of April' that there can be minimal disturbance of artifacts and/or rock art sites in that area.' I do not support the current government’s proposed use of West Intercourse Island for Industrial development as outlined by the government in the Burrup and Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement. We can choose to minimise disturbance on West Intercourse Island or avoid disturbing the island altogether. It is just a matter of cost and where our priorities lie.
It is also interesting to note that the Leader of the opposition seemingly concurred with this position at the National Trust of Australia’s Rock Art Forum when he stated:
'There are issues and the issues are deepwater access – now there are some initial designs done which would include West Intercourse Island – those initial designs I would say are unacceptable but it is possible and there will be some disturbance and loss of rock art, there is no doubt about it but you could by causeway and by pier constructions of West Intercourse Island minimise the loss of rock art, remove the emissions well away from the concentrations of rock art and have an industry site that would be there for the next 50 – 100 years now there are some compromises but they are to me at least, economically and industrially attractive and I would suggest environmentally and from the heritage point of view far more attractive
but there are some costs.'
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.