David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 8 August 2006 the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, addressed the Senate about the need to protect the rock art located on the Burrup Peninsula in my home state of Western Australia. Madam Acting Deputy President, you may recall that Senator Brown waxed lyrical about his observations and opinions and entreated us all to ‘urgently acquaint’ ourselves with the matter and move to protect the Burrup rock art for the nation.

At the risk of appearing to have learned some facts from Senator Brown—which of course is not the case—I can report to the Senate that I am reasonably acquainted with this issue and have some relevant information to put on the record and, indeed, to correct the record. This is an important heritage issue and one that requires the Senate to be fully and accurately informed. I also agree with Senator Brown that the Burrup has extraordinary cultural values, extraordinary rock art and is a truly significant place. Unfortunately, and despite a personal visit to the area, it would appear that Senator Brown did little to verify the accuracy of the statements that he put before the Senate; statements which later formed the basis of Senator Siewert’s motion on 16 August.

First of all, let there be no misunderstanding. The Burrup Peninsula and the wider Dampier Archipelago, which is the subject of a proposed national heritage listing, is widely recognised as containing a significant concentration of Aboriginal rock art. More than 10,000 petroglyphs, or engravings, have been officially recorded on the Burrup itself, with some engravings scientifically estimated to be more than 3,800 years old. The area is also home to some of the country’s most important industrial development.

The Woodside-operated North West Shelf venture alone provides about one per cent of Australia’s GDP; about two per cent of our exports; tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs; and, in the past year alone, generated about $A1.3 billion in government royalties and excise. The question we need to ask ourselves is twofold: firstly, is the rock art adequately protected and are there measures in place to ensure its effective management; and, secondly, can this vital industrial development continue alongside this heritage asset? The answer, as Senator Brown is well aware, is that rock art in Western Australia has extensive legislative protection under the state Aboriginal Heritage Act. This act is also augmented by the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—a fact that I would hope Senator Brown is aware of, considering his address on the Burrup was made in relation to an amendment bill to this very act. The rock art is also protected by the WA Environmental Protection Act, which requires industry to obtain approval from the state minister for the environment before commencing any proposal that is likely to have a significant impact upon the environment. The definition of environment under this act includes cultural heritage. But what does all this mean for the Burrup?

As Senator Brown knows and as I know, current standard compliance with legislation and the North West Shelf venture commitment to minimise its impact on the Burrup means: firstly, the North West Shelf joint venture conducts heritage surveys and comprehensively consults the traditional Aboriginal custodians; and, secondly, it designs the footprint of its operations to minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites as far as is practicable. It is important to note that, if there is no way around avoiding disturbance of rock art, you must always seek permission under the state Aboriginal Heritage Act. The North West Shelf joint venture, Woodside, Rio, Dampier Salt, Burrup Fertilisers and Pilbara Iron all work this way. Under the processes of the act you must consult the appropriate local Aboriginal groups and have the matter considered by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. This  advisory body includes scientists and senior Indigenous men and women from different parts of the state and aims to ensure that culturally appropriate decisions are made about sensitive material or sites.

The practical implications of this process mean, for example, that part of Woodside’s proposed Pluto development on the Burrup will be on what is known as industrial site A, where the company plans to construct LNG storage tanks and from which it will build an LNG loading jetty. During the archaeological heritage survey of site A, 1,240 rock art panels, or groupings of single or multiple engravings or motifs, were identified. The company estimates that 38 panels, or about three per cent of the total, lie within the project’s revised disturbance footprint. Within the 1,240 panels, Woodside and the Indigenous surveyors recorded 2,487 rock art motifs or engravings. Of this total, about two per cent or 60 motifs or engravings may be disturbed. As with many good corporate citizens in designing their facilities, Woodside’s objective is to avoid rock art. I am told that the company continues to refine its plan and footprint—just as the existing legislative and consultative processes envisaged—to determine if all 38 panels can be relocated.

On industrial site B, which is next to site A, Woodside proposes to construct LNG processing facilities for the Pluto project. Site B is about twice the size of site A, and contains between 300 and 400 panels. Woodside is continuing to refine its plant design for this site, in consultation with the Indigenous groups, and I am told the company expects that most, if not all, of the panels can be either undisturbed or relocated. On sites A and B, I am told that Woodside expects about 90 per cent of the rock art across all of its lease areas to remain undisturbed and that it intends to relocate the remainder.

Some of us may have seen Senator Brown’s media release in which he claims he ‘watched as bulldozers wrecked two hilltops containing ancient artwork and standing stones’. However, Senator Brown neglected to mention some key facts including that, firstly, during his visit he was personally briefed on the approval process for what was actually the widening of a road—done by bulldozers; secondly, the approval process involved surveying and monitoring by all the relevant Indigenous groups; and, thirdly, the earthworks did not require any disturbance of rock art or standing stones. The very example Senator Brown used to highlight the need for further protection is, as I understand it, a great example of how the system works effectively to protect such heritage.

In his address to the Senate Senator Brown also asserted that 40 per cent of the rock art was to be destroyed by development. Some background may have been useful. For the benefit of my colleagues, Senator Brown was referring to a comprehensive agreement entered into in 2003 by the Western Australian state government and all the native title claimants. This agreement resulted in the transfer of more than 60 per cent of the Burrup to Indigenous ownership and to be set aside for conservation. The agreement also allowed for industrial development to occur on the Burrup, established comprehensive heritage protection measures, and delivered significant economic and social benefits to the claimants. There are two key points I would like the Senate to take away from this speech. First of all, this agreement and the provisions for industrial development were freely arrived at with all the native title claimants. Secondly, industrial development will simply never cover the entirety of the industrial estate and, as such, considerable amounts of rock art in the industrial estate will not be touched or affected.

Even on historic leases such as the North West Shelf venture many sites remain undisturbed 25 years after development started even though the company has had permission to do so. This information is freely available to Senator Brown; sadly he has failed to convey it to the Senate. Senator Brown also asserted that there was a wide open industrial park ‘just down the way’—they were his words—where industry could be developed. As Senator Brown stated, this would also require the development of West Intercourse Island where a port would be required. However Senator Brown well knows, despite his glib answer to the chamber, that any port on West Intercourse would involve significant disturbance of rock art and especially rock art which has hitherto been relatively undisturbed—rock art that is recognised as being of a highly significant nature; as highly significant as any of that located on the Burrup.

Senator Brown also failed to acknowledge that although Maitland may be appropriate for some industries it could not accommodate a liquefied natural gas plant. The reason is simple: natural gas must be cooled to minus 161 degrees Celsius to liquefy it to 1/600th of its volume. To process the gas and then keep it cool in pipes all the way to West Intercourse Island vast amounts of energy would need to be generated by using the very gas we want to export and sell to customers. It is simply not a sensible or viable use of that valuable resource, and Senator Brown well knows this.

The fact is that the Burrup is a valuable place both for its rock art and for its economic contribution to our country. There is certainly much more to be discovered and much to be learnt. However it is a matter that requires more research and consideration than a visit by a couple of senators keen to find issues to hitch their election campaign to. I encourage all senators to better acquaint themselves with the facts and the truth surrounding the development of an industry on the Burrup Peninsula and the protection of vital Australian Aboriginal heritage.