Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the rock art site on the Burrup Peninsula, Western Australia.

When I asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage what he was going to do to protect the rock art on the Burrup Peninsula from development, he said that he did not want to see any new impediment to development on the Burrup. This is the minister for heritage. Perhaps he should be the minister for development, not the minister for heritage.

The Burrup Peninsula and the Dampier rock art precinct are of unique world importance. Early this month, the national Heritage Council issued its report on the values of the rock art. It made it clear in no uncertain terms that this rock art deserves to be on the National Heritage List. What is more, the council proposed a very significant boundary, excluding the current development but including everything else that remains on the Burrup. The council was very clear. I would like to quote from its report. The Australian Heritage Council said of the Burrup:

It is one of the densest concentrations of rock engravings in Australia, with some sites containing thousands or tens of thousands of images.

And it said of the engravings that they:

... provide an outstanding visual record of the course of Australia’s cultural history through the Aboriginal responses to the rise of sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age.

Further, the area was described as having an outstanding potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the nation’s cultural history.

Most people understandably focus on the rock art, but the report also notes a high density of standing stones, stone pits and circular stone arrangements. These range from single monoliths to extensive alignments comprising at least 300 or 400 standing stones.

On the basis of this evidence, we Greens believe that the minister should have moved immediately to list this area on the National Heritage List, where it truly belongs. But what did we see? Just prior to when he should have made an announcement on what he was proposing to do about the Burrup, he made an announcement that he would seek further consultation about this extremely important area. In the meantime, the Western Australian government is proposing to further develop the Burrup.

What I wanted to know today was how the minister intended to protect this nationally significant rock art while he undertook this consultation. You would have thought that this was a legitimate question. Here is the minister for heritage, who I believe has responsibilities for protecting the heritage of Australia, deciding to further consult on an area that the Australian Heritage Council truly believes should be listed on the national list. He chooses to further consult. Wouldn’t you have thought that he would put in place provisions to protect this rock art while he consulted?

He acknowledges it is of national significance but chooses to further consult. It is rather like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. While the minister consults to see how he can best protect this heritage, the rock art of the Burrup is under threat. As I said, one would have thought that he would have moved to have protected that area. When I asked today what he was intending to do with it, he could not answer. He could not answer what he intended to do to protect the Burrup. I believe that he should make perfectly clear what he intends to do. Does he acknowledge that rock art will be destroyed? Site A of the Woodside Pluto development contains significant rock art that will be destroyed if the Woodside proposal goes ahead. The state government is considering this proposal. Therefore, rock art will be destroyed while the minister is consulting. I urge the minister to reconsider his approach to this rock art and to at least offer a level of protection to the rock art while he is deciding the boundary of the area that he is proposing to list. It seems difficult for the minister to comprehend this.

It is not a choice of rock art or development. That development can go elsewhere. There are at least three other sites that this development can go ahead in. So it is not a case of rock art or development; we can have both. We can have both if the minister facilitates discussion between the developers, the state and the Commonwealth. That way we can protect the rock art of the Burrup and have development, the thing the minister says he wants. He could have both. The minister for heritage could have both. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the end of the debate?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The time for the debate has expired, Senator Brown.