❓ A parliamentary question regarding the disposal of the 'ghost ship' High Aim 6 seized by the Department of Fisheries, specifically addressing the rejection of a proposal to sink it as an artificial reef and the associated costs. The Minister explains the decision and limitations.
AnsweredQoN 722Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
It was recently stated in the news that the so-called ghost ship that was seized by the Department of Fisheries and towed into Broome was to be disassembled and buried onshore. (1) The Broome Fishing Club put forward a proposal to sink the boat in 40 metres of water to create an artificial reef in Roebuck Bay. Why was the proposal rejected? (2) What is the estimated cost of removing the boat to disassemble and bury onshore? (3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(1) The Broome Fishing Club put forward a proposal to sink the boat in 40 metres of water to create an artificial reef in Roebuck Bay. Why was the proposal rejected? (2) What is the estimated cost of removing the boat to disassemble and bury onshore? (3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(2) What is the estimated cost of removing the boat to disassemble and bury onshore? (3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(1) The Broome Fishing Club put forward a proposal to sink the boat in 40 metres of water to create an artificial reef in Roebuck Bay. Why was the proposal rejected? (2) What is the estimated cost of removing the boat to disassemble and bury onshore? (3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(2) What is the estimated cost of removing the boat to disassemble and bury onshore? (3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(3) When was the boat last fumigated? (4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(4) Is it possible to reverse the public decision and sink the boat so it can create an artificial reef? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question and for providing me with a copy of the question one and a half hours ago. It was important he did that because with issues of this nature that involve commonwealth agencies I needed to perform some checks. I have now done that. (1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(1) Vessels considered suitable to be sunk as artificial reefs are usually of steel construction. Steel is stable and not buoyant and provides a rigid structure that is safe should diver access occur. It is also biodegradable and ecologically inert. The High Aim 6 , which I am told is the name of the ghost ship - I did not know that before although I have seen it - is constructed of non-biodegradable fibreglass and foam and has a wooden frame. It therefore retains buoyancy and is subject to storm movement and deterioration leading to marine debris pollution. It can also pose a potential navigational and marine safety hazard if it moves during a cyclone or storm surge. (2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(2) The cost of destruction is a matter of contract between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Broome Port Authority. AFMA is the commonwealth agency I referred to. (3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(3) The vessel was inspected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - another commonwealth authority - upon arrival and periodically thereafter. (4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
(4) Response (1) details why the vessel is not considered suitable to sink and utilise as an artificial reef. Members may not be aware of much of the story of the ghost ship. I have seen the vessel and heard something of the story. It is an amazing story; one that could have been the subject of a novel in other circumstances were it not true. I know that it has been the subject of great interest in the Kimberley. I certainly understand Hon John Fischer’s question. If there were some way of retaining the ship, because I think it will become part of local mythology, I am sure we would have tried to do so. Hon John Fischer will be aware that the vessel is in a pretty poor state. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to use it as an artificial reef. That is regrettable.
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.