❓ Question regarding the potential disturbance and loss of rock art on East Intercourse Island due to proposed development, referencing previous statements and the Leader of the Opposition's concerns. The answer acknowledges disturbance but claims it will be minimal.

AnsweredQoN 832Legislative Council

Asked

8 April 2003

Member

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to the Burrup Peninsula (Crown Land) Bill 2002 and motion No 7. I also refer the member to the answer to a question asked in this place on 1 April when he said that he supports the development of a small portion on the western end of Intercourse Island as a lay-down area from Maitland and, subsequently, he supports a deep-water port facility. Therefore, I ask whether the member agrees with comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Colin Barnett, at the National Trust rock art forum yesterday that such a proposal would result in some disturbance and loss of rock art. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for the question. With regard to the obvious nature of disturbance due to any development on East Intercourse Island, I have stated that there would be minimal disturbance of artefacts and/or rock art sites in that area.
Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE replied: I thank the member for the question. With regard to the obvious nature of disturbance due to any development on East Intercourse Island, I have stated that there would be minimal disturbance of artefacts and/or rock art sites in that area.
I thank the member for the question. With regard to the obvious nature of disturbance due to any development on East Intercourse Island, I have stated that there would be minimal disturbance of artefacts and/or rock art sites in that area.

View on Parliament of WA