A short animation based on a sandsculpture creation by artist Tim Darby for the Broome, Chinatown Revitalisation Festival 2021
Cinema Sauropod
Broome Time Beach Life 2063
Based around a year 4 school project to produce a Broome scene diorama, and using a green-screen with a few mates, we made this silly short film enter for the Mud and Saltwater Short Film Festival 2023.
The Kimberley an unforgettable land (1998)
The Kimberley – an unforgettable land
Updated: 31 July, 2015
In the far north of Western Australia lies the Kimberley – an unforgettable landscape. Majestic boab trees rise from rugged hills, monsoon rainforests shelter beneath towering ochre cliffs, and deep pools of water bathe the ancient rock walls of secret gorges.
Article from ‘Wilderness News’, Wade Freeman, December 1998
In the far north of Western Australia lies the Kimberley – an unforgettable landscape. Majestic boab trees rise from rugged hills, monsoon rainforests shelter beneath towering ochre cliffs, and deep pools of water bathe the ancient rock walls of secret gorges.
For more than 40,000 years the Aboriginal people have managed and sanctified this harsh but fragile land.
In the Kimberley we find one of Australia’s three remaining ‘world class’ wilderness coastlines. Its rugged islands, extensive mangrove ecosystems and deserted rocky bays are unspoilt. No roads, no powerlines; not a building in sight. But despite its natural and cultural importance, the Kimberley remains largely unprotected and faces numerous environmental threats.
In the late 1980s, The Wilderness Society Western Australia launched its defence of the Kimberley by adopting a ‘whole-of-region’ approach to campaigning. The result, four years later, was the North Kimberley Proposal, a progressive and positive vision for an Aboriginal owned and managed National Park – one large enough to protect the region’s coastline and its arid inland ecosystems. While the North Kimberley Proposal ultimately proved overly ambitious in its scale, threats to the region’s values continue to demand urgent attention.
I am therefore very pleased to announce the formation of a new branch of The Wilderness Society: the Kimberley Action Group.
Based in Broome, we aim to work with the many environmental, Aboriginal, industrial and governmental organisations to ensure that this area of high quality wilderness is given the respect and protection it deserves.
Accompanied by Alec Marr, National Campaign Director, I began the Action Group’s activities by meeting with Joe Ross, spokesperson for the Bunaba language group and chair for Bandaralngarri, a new organisation representing Aboriginal language groups occupying an area from the headwaters of the Fitzroy River down to the coast. We were guests on a boat trip through the exquisite Geikie Gorge, and on a helicopter ride to the beautiful and peaceful Dimond Gorge, preferred site of the Fitzroy River dam, if it were to proceed.
There, Joe Ross described the disastrous consequences any dam would have on the flood patterns and reliant ecosystems of the Fitzroy River, and also on the cultural significance of his language group’s traditional country.
Although the dam is no longer backed by corporate proponent Western Agricultural Industries, extensive monoculture cotton crops serviced by ground water are still very much on its agenda. Such plans could have dire consequences, since soils and waterways of the area are too fragile for heavily water-dependent agriculture. There are serious concerns about pesticide residues infiltrating Roebuck Bay, and salt water contaminating the inland fresh water aquifers. (Also, there is still no guarantee that plans for a dam will not be reintroduced at some stage).
Following the trip to Dimond Gorge, I was joined by David Mackenzie, WA State Campaigner, at a series of meetings with various local environmental groups and representative bodies of the Aboriginal peoples. The challenge of working with such a diversity of interests is not new to The Wilderness Society. There has been much interest here in the role played by the Society in establishing the Cape York Heads of Agreement. The Kimberley Land Council questioned whether Cape York could provide the basis for a similar agreement in the Kimberley.
However, there are significant differences between the regions. In the Kimberley, the average non-Aboriginal pastoralist has been here for about a decade. In Cape York, by contrast, many pastoralists who have farmed there for generations have a well developed awareness of the traditional owners’ history and their involvement with the land.
The Wilderness Society intends to support the Kimberley Land Council in its quest to re-establish title to the land through regional agreements, and to help develop and support proposals for increased Aboriginal involvement in National Parks.
The Kimberley Action Group aims to:
- Promote wilderness conservation in place of short-term exploitation. Much work needs to be done to redress damage done to date – by the cattle industry, for example – as well as ensuring that future developments, such as mining, do not add to existing problems.
- Protect such magical places as the remote and biologically rich Mitchell Plateau and Walcott Inlet from tourism entrepreneurs and mining companies.
- Continue consultation with the Aboriginal peoples of the Kimberley and ensure that their interests are central in any future campaigns.
- Promote a low impact and educative tourism industry.
- Support local groups, such as Environs Kimberley, in their campaigns to protect the nature and culture of the Kimberley.
– See more at: https://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/kimberley-unforgettable-land#sthash.gIXArBIf.dpuf
WA Labor’s pre-election commitment to a public inquiry on fracking is gathering support after the Barnett Government approved Buru Energy’s fracking for gas in the iconic Kimberleys. ACF’s Wade Freeman reports.
Indigenous Protected Area – video
Kimberley fracking plans deserve rigorous environmental assessment
Comment: Changes to Aboriginal Heritage Act threaten Aboriginal sacred sites in WA
Ancient Indigenous rock art on the Burrup Peninsula is literally thousands of years old. Yet the WA government has de-registered it as a sacred site.
How should we honour and preserve a display of at least 10,000 examples of Indigenous art that are around six times older than internationally venerated sites such as Stonehenge?
At the very least we should surely ensure such work is protected.
Yet, as revealed last month in the WA Parliament, only after extensive questioning from Greens MP Robin Chapple, the worlds’ oldest and largest rock art on the Burrup Peninsula and at least 23 such sites, including the beautiful coastline of James Price Point, have been de-listed by the state government from the Aboriginal Heritage Act (AHA).
How did this happen?
Back in November 2012 the State Solicitors Office (SSO) advised that according to section 5(b) of the AHA these 23 sites did not qualify to be included because they did not fall under the definition of being a sacred site: “For a place to be considered a sacred site, it must be demonstrated that it is devoted to a religious use rather than just a place subject to mythological story, song or belief.”
However, earlier this year, after having the matter taken to the Supreme Court by Diana and Kerry Robinson of the Kariyarra native title claim group, Supreme Court Justice Chaney found the advice of the SSO was wrong.
In other words, these sites should have never been removed from being listed in the AHA in the first place. In essence, Justice Chaney ruled that a site and a place where one and the same.
This week the WA Planning Commission released its Dampier Peninsula Planning Strategy which boldly includes the defunct LNG processing precinct at James Price Point that was also amongst the 23 sites questionably de-listed from the AHA.
WA Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Peter Collier is on the record stating his support for the changes to the AHA asserting that changes in the pace of development economic development, particularly in mining and construction, had highlight what he sees as inadequacies in the current legislation.
Does he simply mean that he would like to see these protections to some of the worlds’ oldest and most significant rock art removed to allow mining to go ahead unheeded?
Just last week the department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) issued a self-congratulatory media release stating it was “satisfying that the department is consistently finalising in excess of 90 per cent of applications within the target timelines.”
But while the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum is congratulating itself on meeting mining timelines, 30,000-year-old Aboriginal rock art is losing basic heritage protection. We already know that more than 10,000 rock carvings have been lost in the Burrup Peninsula due to Iron Ore mining for Hammersly Island and other developments.
After Justice Chaney ruling we are still waiting to hear if Minister Collier has instructed the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to reinstate all 23 sites to the Aboriginal Heritage Register.
It’s now time for the State or Federal government to take decisive action to ensure this internationally recognised treasure trove of rock art is given the respect it deserves and afforded proper protection.
We seek urgent clarification from the WA Aboriginal Affairs Minister Peter Collier and Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt to ensure these internationally recognised Indigenous treasures on the West Australian coastline are not lost.
Wade Freeman is the Broome-based Kimberley project officer for the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Kimberley NHL announcement
wa-government-moves-to-approve-25-contentious-resource-projects
WA government moves to approve 25 contentious resource projects
Conservationists say retrospectively validating the projects reveals the flaw in ‘one-stop’ state environmental decisions
theguardian.com, Thursday 11 September 2014 14.09 AEST
The WA government plans to retrospectively validate 25 contentious resource project approvals, a move the Australian Conservation Foundation says shows the proposal for “one-stop-shop” state environmental decisions is “deeply inadequate”.
The WA government is introducing legislation to provide reassurance to 25 huge resource projects which were approved by the state’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) between 2002 and 2012. EPA board members were subsequently found to have a conflict of interest, and in 2012 a supreme court ruling found that the environmental approval of a $40bn gas hub at James Price Point in the Kimberley was illegal.
Chief justice Wayne Martin found that three board members had a series of conflicts of interest and should never have been involved in the decision.
That case cast the validity of 25 projects into uncertainty, and operators have sought reassurance that they are not under any threat of legal challenge, prompting the state government to introduce the legislation.
“We are deeply concerned this bill is simply a way for the state government to make sure the EPA’s previous environmental approvals stand immune from challenge – even though there is a strong case to say some should be re-examined,” said Wade Freeman, Kimberley project officer for the Australian Conservation Foundation.
“This whole episode shows again why we need federal involvement in important environmental decision making – and why the proposal for state-based so-called one-stop-shops for environmental decision making is deeply inadequate.”
Freeman said state governments were often at risk of conflicts of interest in resources projects because of the potential royalty income.
“The so-called one-stop-shop plan removes an important layer of protection for special places, including James Price Point on the Kimberley coast, where the WA government still fantasises about building a massive industrial gas processing plant.”
The proposed legislation will not revalidate the James Price point project, which is being reassessed by an independent panel.
The chairman of the EPA, Paul Vogel, who gave final approval to the James Price Point project but was not found to have a conflict of interest, has rejected calls for his resignation. He said the flawed approval process did not discount the science behind the decisions.
“My judgment at the time was based on Section 13. That was found to be flawed – I accept that,” he told News Corp. “I genuinely believed at the time I was managing those conflicts appropriately.”
The WA opposition leader, Mark McGowan, said a full inquiry should be held but Labor would support the legislation to validate the approvals.
Some of the projects were approved while Labor was in office but McGowan did not accept that his party needed to take responsibility for the problem.
He said the environment minister had admitted to causing the “stuff up” after the Liberals changed the rules in 2008 to allow EPA board members with a conflict to make decisions.
Labor had legislated in 2003 to prevent that happening, McGowan said.
“The buck stops with the government,” he said. “It is a mess of their making.”
Greens MP Lynn MacLaren said if the projects stretched back 10 years, both Labor and Liberal governments were “complicit” in allowing the EPA to operate this way, and described the mistakes as a travesty.
“How this was allowed to continue for so long brings to question the practices we have in place to monitor processes that ensure state authorities are not corrupt,” she said.
MacLaren told Guardian Australia the Greens were concerned about “any kind of blanket retrospective approval of projects that were approved by conflicted EPA boards”.
EPA bungles show need for Canberra oversight
Since winning office, the Abbott
Government has been pushing
the argument that the Federal
Government should hand over
its environmental approval
powers to the States.
If ever there was a case to
demonstrate the need for Federal
involvement in important
environmental decision-making, the
current fall from grace of WA’s
Environmental Protection Authority is
such a case.
In 2012 Justice Wayne Martin ruled
that EPA chairman Paul Vogel acted
wrongly and overstepped the authority
of his office by attempting to
single-handedly approve the
development of a gas project at James
Price Point.
That case arose because EPA board
members were found to have conflicts
of interests — in some cases having
shares in projects they were
evaluating — and the Supreme Court
subsequently found the environmental
approval was unlawful.
Through the period in question, Dr
Vogel allowed board members to
participate in EPA meetings about the
project despite them holding shares in
Woodside Petroleum and another who
worked for Browse joint-venture
partner BHP Billiton.
Yet last week Environment Minister
Albert Jacob introduced to the State
Parliament legislation designed to
safeguard 25 other projects that were
approved by the agency between
2002 and 2012 — projects approved
by the same compromised board of
the EPA.
That means conflicts of interests on
EPA decisions made during that time
frame won’t even be tested under
retrospective legislation.
There is a strong case to say some of
these rulings should be re-examined.
For example, in the case of the Roe
Highway stage 8 extension, the EPA
ignored some of its own advice when it
gave approval for the highway to be
built through one of Perth’s most
important wetland ecosystems, the
Beeliar Wetlands.
It beggars belief and raises serious
questions about the integrity of the
EPA that a conflicted EPA board was
allowed to rule over such major
infrastructure and environmental
projects for so long and would have
continued had not the Supreme Court
intervened.
We expect better of our public
offices, particularly when it comes to
protecting our State’s natural assets.
This is an argument for objective,
science-based rigour in assessing all
potential developments that are likely
to affect our environment.
These assessments must, as a
starting point, always be carried out
free from personal and commercial
interests.
That’s why we need to retain the
Federal layer of protection and
oversight.
The way for the WA Government to
start to win back public trust is not to
rush through Parliament legislation
designed to resuscitate a wounded
EPA, but to embrace a transparent,
Federally administered regime of
environmental approvals.
Most West Australians would agree
we need to strike a balance between
economic development and protecting
the unique natural and cultural values
of our State.
The fact is that State governments
often have conflicts of interests when
it comes to resources extraction
projects because they are dependent
on the royalty income from projects
that are approved. This is not unique
to WA.
Many people in WA today will be
asking whether EPA stands for the
Environmental Protection Authority
or the Environmental Plundering
Agency.
The whole episode shows clear as
day precisely why good management of
nationally significant environment
matters require national rules and
enforcement to be truly effective.
Wade Freeman is the Broome-based
Kimberley project officer for the Australian
Conservation Foundation
There is a strong case
to say some of these
rulings should be
re-examined.
West Australian, Perth
15 Sep 2014, by Wade Freeman
rumabambusa 