Noongar woman files application to Federal Government to stop Matilda Bay ferry terminal

A push to stop construction of a ferry terminal in Matilda Bay has been lodged with the Federal Government, arguing the river transport node would “desecrate” sacred Indigenous sites.

The claim — submitted by a local, unnamed Noongar woman — covers the waters of Matilda Bay, spanning from near the Blue Boat House to near the Matilda Bay Reserve Boat Ramp.

According to her application, under the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act the proposed ferry terminal and supporting infrastructure “poses a threat to a culturally and spiritually significant site”.

The application claims the terminal would “permanently alter the cultural landscape, desecrate sacred sites, sever ongoing cultural practices, and irreversibly degrade the environment”.

A section 10 application was lodged with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in January by the woman, who did not want to be named.

It comes after the ferry plan for Matilda Bay was met with strong community opposition, with locals concerned the terminal would impact the amenity and usability for users of the bay.

A tender process is already underway to select a builder for the terminal at both Matilda Bay and the less controversial Applecross site across the river, while construction of ferries to service the route has also begun.

The woman said she feared the ferry would cause a loss of access and sever the connection to a “quiet peace and nature”.

“The fact that there’s so many Aboriginal elders and communities who don’t feel heard and who are distressed about the outcome was enough for me to feel like some other action could be taken, and the Federal process is there for that reason,” she said.

It is the second such application made public in the past week, with a similar one encompassing the entirety of Rottnest Island.

The application will ultimately be determined by Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt who can impose restrictions at the site if he is satisfied the area is “under threat from injury or desecration”.

While an independent report is automatically triggered they rarely result in meaningful restrictions, with only seven long-term declarations having been made since 1984.

A DCCEEW spokesperson confirmed the application had been received but did not give an expected timeline, citing the ongoing assessment.

A Public Transport Authority spokesperson denied the application was disrupting construction plans.

“Aboriginal heritage approvals have been progressed under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA), including the completion of heritage surveys and consultation with Traditional Owners. All relevant approvals under that Act have been obtained,” they said.

“The Public Transport Authority is committed to delivering the project in a culturally respectful manner and in accordance with the project’s Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

“Project procurement and ferry construction activities are continuing as planned.”