❓ Hon Adele Farina asks about the interpretation and protection of potential maritime artefacts identified during a survey in Koombana Bay, specifically regarding discrepancies between identified locations and protected areas. The Minister's response clarifies the nature of the 'red dots', the extent of protected areas, and the responsibility for further surveys.
AnsweredQoN 2804Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to 'Koombana Bay Maritime Archaeology Survey and Excavations 21-28 November 2011', and I ask: (a) do the red dots in figure 52 represent maritime artefacts; (b) do areas A,B and C in figure 52 represent the protected area; (c) why don't areas A,B and C cover all the red dots; (d) what, if any, protection applies to the red dots located outside areas A,B and C; (e) noting only a portion of Lots 881 and 882 have been surveyed, is it intended to survey the unsurveyed portions of Lots 881 and 882; (f) when will the further survey work be undertaken; and (g) what is the expected cost of the further survey work and who is paying the cost of the further survey work?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
21 April 2015
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts
Response time
42 days
I am advised:
(a) The red dots represent solid strikes interpreted by the water probe operators to be timber. They may not necessarily be maritime artefacts. For example, some could be buried beach driftwood or related to past industrial use of the site.
(b) No.
(c) The areas A, B and C define the main concentrations of timbers that were excavated and found to be structures related to wooden shipwrecks.
(d) If the dots were confirmed to represent pre-1900 maritime archaeological material then they would automatically be protected under the
Maritime Archaeology Act 1973
.
Please also refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2805 part (b) for further information.
(e) Given the proximity of other wreck material the Western Australian Museum would strongly recommend further surveys be a condition of any development.
(f) No dates have been confirmed at this stage.
(g) Costs have not been confirmed at this stage, however the developer normally bears the costs.
(a) The red dots represent solid strikes interpreted by the water probe operators to be timber. They may not necessarily be maritime artefacts. For example, some could be buried beach driftwood or related to past industrial use of the site.
(b) No.
(c) The areas A, B and C define the main concentrations of timbers that were excavated and found to be structures related to wooden shipwrecks.
(d) If the dots were confirmed to represent pre-1900 maritime archaeological material then they would automatically be protected under the
Maritime Archaeology Act 1973
.
Please also refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2805 part (b) for further information.
(e) Given the proximity of other wreck material the Western Australian Museum would strongly recommend further surveys be a condition of any development.
(f) No dates have been confirmed at this stage.
(g) Costs have not been confirmed at this stage, however the developer normally bears the 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.