❓ A parliamentary question regarding the proposed dredging in Roebuck Bay, Kimberley, focusing on costs, benefits, environmental impact, and alternatives. The Minister provides detailed responses, including financial information, justifications, and assurances regarding environmental considerations.
AnsweredQoN 2040Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the proposed
dredging in Roebuck Bay in the Kimberley, part of which is Ramsar listed
because of its internationally significant migratory birds, a hotspot for rare
snubfin dolphins, and a marine park jointly managed with the Yawuru
Traditional Owners, and ask: (a) how much is being spent on the dredging; (b) how many more ships are estimated to be able to use
the Port if the dredging goes ahead; (c) has a cost-benefit analysis been undertaken on the
proposal; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) if yes to (c), will the Minister table the document; (f) has Kimberley Ports Authority considered altering the
under keel clearance regulations to allow a larger window of time for ships to
enter; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) does the Kimberley Ports Authority, the department or
the Minister have the power to change the under keel clearance so that dredging
is not required; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) in metres and centimetres, what is the minimum
clearance available between the deepest point on vessels and the seabed for
ships entering the Port of Broome; (k) can the Kimberley Ports Authority provide evidence that
there will not be any risk of maintenance dredging following the initial
proposed capital dredge in Roebuck Bay; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) if yes to (k), will the Minister table the evidence; (n) in
its proposal, has the Kimberley Port Authority considered the effects of cyclones
and big wet season events in the accretion of dredged areas, for example, as in
the unexpected circumstance at Darwin harbour, where studies showed no
maintenance dredging would be needed, but in fact regular maintenance dredging
is now required; (o) if no to (n), why not; and (p) if yes to (n), will the Minister table the document?
dredging in Roebuck Bay in the Kimberley, part of which is Ramsar listed
because of its internationally significant migratory birds, a hotspot for rare
snubfin dolphins, and a marine park jointly managed with the Yawuru
Traditional Owners, and ask: (a) how much is being spent on the dredging; (b) how many more ships are estimated to be able to use
the Port if the dredging goes ahead; (c) has a cost-benefit analysis been undertaken on the
proposal; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) if yes to (c), will the Minister table the document; (f) has Kimberley Ports Authority considered altering the
under keel clearance regulations to allow a larger window of time for ships to
enter; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) does the Kimberley Ports Authority, the department or
the Minister have the power to change the under keel clearance so that dredging
is not required; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) in metres and centimetres, what is the minimum
clearance available between the deepest point on vessels and the seabed for
ships entering the Port of Broome; (k) can the Kimberley Ports Authority provide evidence that
there will not be any risk of maintenance dredging following the initial
proposed capital dredge in Roebuck Bay; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) if yes to (k), will the Minister table the evidence; (n) in
its proposal, has the Kimberley Port Authority considered the effects of cyclones
and big wet season events in the accretion of dredged areas, for example, as in
the unexpected circumstance at Darwin harbour, where studies showed no
maintenance dredging would be needed, but in fact regular maintenance dredging
is now required; (o) if no to (n), why not; and (p) if yes to (n), will the Minister table the document?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 May 2019
Responded by
Minister for Ports
Response time
10 days
a) The total allocated budget is $15.3 million.
b) The business case for the dredging program was based on the economic benefit for Broome and the State through the extended tidal access to the Broome wharf, in particular, for cruise ships.
The Government's commitment to fix Broome Port prompted Carnival Australia to re-commit to home berthing its P&O ships in WA in October last year, saving the regional port town being removed from cruise itineraries. Carnival alone contributes about $32 million in economic benefits by visiting places like Broome, Albany, Busselton and Geraldton.
c) Yes.
d) Not applicable.
e) The Cruise Ship Industry Report, WA Homeported Cruise Ships 2015-16, contains the cost benefit analysis and details the potential that the industry will have on Western Australia. [See tabled paper No.: ]
f) Yes, however this did not provide a substantial change to port access compared to current static under keel clearance, nor did it satisfy the cruise industry’s requirements for tidal access.
g) Not applicable.
h) The Kimberley Ports Authority’s Harbour Master has the power to adjust the under keel clearance requirements. Dredging is still required to enable safe access for larger vessels at all tides.
i) Not applicable.
j) The minimum clearance in the Port of Broome is 1m plus 10 per cent of the draft of the ship. Currently the channel has a depth of approximately 4.1 m at the lowest tide, and post dredging the depth will be 10m.
k) The project is to dredge a high spot and widen the approach channel which is removing rock and hard consolidated material not sand and sediments that can be transient, so future maintenance dredging is not anticipated.
l) Not applicable.
m) A review and mapping of historical Department of Transport bathymetry survey data extending back to 2007 was undertaken. The data shows the underwater sand dunes movement due to tides etc. over the past 9 years is outside of the channel and will have little or no impact. [See tabled paper No.: ]
n) The bathymetry survey data has been assessed dating back to 2007. During that time there have been cyclones and extreme wet season events. The hard material dredging in the channel will not significantly change the channel approach design.
o) Not applicable.
p) See answer to part (m).
b) The business case for the dredging program was based on the economic benefit for Broome and the State through the extended tidal access to the Broome wharf, in particular, for cruise ships.
The Government's commitment to fix Broome Port prompted Carnival Australia to re-commit to home berthing its P&O ships in WA in October last year, saving the regional port town being removed from cruise itineraries. Carnival alone contributes about $32 million in economic benefits by visiting places like Broome, Albany, Busselton and Geraldton.
c) Yes.
d) Not applicable.
e) The Cruise Ship Industry Report, WA Homeported Cruise Ships 2015-16, contains the cost benefit analysis and details the potential that the industry will have on Western Australia. [See tabled paper No.: ]
f) Yes, however this did not provide a substantial change to port access compared to current static under keel clearance, nor did it satisfy the cruise industry’s requirements for tidal access.
g) Not applicable.
h) The Kimberley Ports Authority’s Harbour Master has the power to adjust the under keel clearance requirements. Dredging is still required to enable safe access for larger vessels at all tides.
i) Not applicable.
j) The minimum clearance in the Port of Broome is 1m plus 10 per cent of the draft of the ship. Currently the channel has a depth of approximately 4.1 m at the lowest tide, and post dredging the depth will be 10m.
k) The project is to dredge a high spot and widen the approach channel which is removing rock and hard consolidated material not sand and sediments that can be transient, so future maintenance dredging is not anticipated.
l) Not applicable.
m) A review and mapping of historical Department of Transport bathymetry survey data extending back to 2007 was undertaken. The data shows the underwater sand dunes movement due to tides etc. over the past 9 years is outside of the channel and will have little or no impact. [See tabled paper No.: ]
n) The bathymetry survey data has been assessed dating back to 2007. During that time there have been cyclones and extreme wet season events. The hard material dredging in the channel will not significantly change the channel approach design.
o) Not applicable.
p) See answer to part (m).
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.