❓ This question scrutinizes conflicting statements from the WA Premier and the Commonwealth Environment Minister regarding the impact of industrial emissions on Murujuga rock art, specifically referencing the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP) report.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 1717Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring program and to statements by the Premier reported by the ABC that the MRAMP report "should provide the community with confidence that current industrial processes on the Burrup have not had an impact in relation to the rock art. What it did point to was some industrial processing, I think it was a power generator that was placed there in the 1970s, which may have had an impact in relation to the porosity of some of the rock art," Mr Cook said. "But it's very pleasing that there is no ongoing impact as a result of that industrial activity. I also refer to statements by the Commonwealth Minster for the Environment that "there is a body of peer-reviewed scientific and other literature, including the MRAMP, asserting that industrial emissions are adversely affecting the rocks of Murujuga. Further, I note that there are multiple lines of scientific and other evidence suggesting that nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and other acidic airborne emissions are having a significant adverse impact on the rocks of Murujuga. And that '[t]he whole of the specified area is under threat of injury or desecration on the basis of activities related to industrial emissions from all ongoing and proposed industrial facilities .' And I ask:
(a) how far away is the Dampier Power Station site from the northern area of porous rock art detected in the last MRAMP report;
(b) how far is the Woodside North West Shelf facility from the northern area of porous rock art detected in the last MRAMP report;
(c) does the Minister or department stand by the Premier's claim that there is no ongoing impact to the rock art from industrial emissions, and that the impact detected in the MRAMP report can be attributed to historical emissions from the Damper Power Station;
(d) when is the next MRAMP report due to be published; and
(e) will the DWER or other WA Government agency be writing the executive summary of the next MRAMP report?
Answered on
(a) how far away is the Dampier Power Station site from the northern area of porous rock art detected in the last MRAMP report;
(b) how far is the Woodside North West Shelf facility from the northern area of porous rock art detected in the last MRAMP report;
(c) does the Minister or department stand by the Premier's claim that there is no ongoing impact to the rock art from industrial emissions, and that the impact detected in the MRAMP report can be attributed to historical emissions from the Damper Power Station;
(d) when is the next MRAMP report due to be published; and
(e) will the DWER or other WA Government agency be writing the executive summary of the next MRAMP report?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.