Press Conference, Brisbane

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Today, I'm announcing two separate decisions regarding environmental and cultural heritage protection in Western Australia's Pilbara region. These decisions demonstrate that the Albanese Government is committed to protecting our environment and cultural heritage and protecting jobs. First, following the consideration of rigorous scientific advice, I have today given final environmental approval for the North West Shelf Project extension. This approval is subject to 48 strict conditions designed to protect 60,000-year-old rock art at Murujuga in the Pilbara region. The approval allows for the extended operation of an existing gas processing plant in that region, and this is the last procedural step in a lengthy process following the announcement of my proposed approval in May. The decision-making scope for this proposal was narrow, relating to the risk of significant impacts on matters protected under federal environmental law. In this case, the World Heritage-listed Murujuga rock art.

In making this decision, I've imposed 48 strict conditions that will avoid and mitigate significant impacts to the Murujuga rock art. The additional conditions that I've imposed add to those already set by the Western Australian Government. The conditions will ensure that this project will be operated in a way that does not cause unacceptable impacts to the Murujuga rock art, including by restricting air emissions. Specifically, I've imposed conditions that will require a reduction in certain gas emissions below their current levels, in some cases by 60 per cent below their current levels by 2030, with ongoing reductions beyond that. The conditions will also allow for any new science achieved through the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program to be accounted for by requiring the approval holder to comply with any air quality objectives and standards that are derived by that monitoring program. Separate to this, the project will also be required to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the Albanese Government's strengthened Safeguard Mechanism.

The second decision I'm announcing today is that, in accordance with federal cultural heritage law, I've made a partial declaration to protect a significant Aboriginal heritage site at Murujuga. Such a site can be protected under the Federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act if it faces a threat of injury or desecration. Similar declarations have been made by previous federal governments, both Labor and Coalition. The protected area here that we're talking about has been carefully managed by the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Murujuga, the Ngarda-Ngarli people, for around 60,000 years. This decision follows extensive consultation that demonstrated the area is of particular significance to the Ngarda-Ngarli people in accordance with their traditions. The declaration will mean additional legal protections are placed over part of the area to ensure that Murujuga's ancient rock art is appropriately protected into the future. Importantly, this decision does not stop industry from operating in the vicinity of Murujuga. It essentially requires, by law, companies to do what they have said they will do in cultural heritage management plans, such as talking to traditional owners and custodians and coming to an agreement on how to protect this World Heritage-listed area. The decision also recognises the work being done by industry to ensure the area, including the rock art, is appropriately protected for generations to come, and I commend the industry for that work.

The Albanese Government, as I say, is committed to protecting the environment and First Nations cultural heritage and protecting jobs. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and that's what we've done today. Happy to take your questions.

JOURNALIST: In the statement you've given there, it says to avoid and mitigate significant impacts. There are concerns that there will still be impacts. What do you say to that?

MURRAY WATT: What I was required to consider under national environmental law was whether this proposed activity would have a significant impact on a particular matter listed under the national environmental law. So that's what we've taken into account, and I'm confident that with the conditions that we've imposed that won't happen.

JOURNALIST: Minister, how have these 48 strict conditions varied from what was initially outlined?

MURRAY WATT: So, you would be aware it has taken some time to reach this final decision, and I think people should take comfort from that, that we've taken this seriously. As is always the case when a proposed decision is made under the federal environmental law, a proponent of a project is consulted about proposed conditions, and that's what happened here. In essence, what we've done over that consultation period is to come up with much more specific conditions than what were included in the proposed decision to ensure that the conditions are technically feasible, that they can be implemented and also, of course, that they do protect the rock art, and that's where we've landed.

JOURNALIST: Can I get your definition of an acceptable level of damage to rock art?

MURRAY WATT: That's not what had to be taken into account here. What had to be taken into account here was whether there would be a significant impact on the rock art. Any federal environment minister when they're making a decision about a project has to consider whether that project will significantly impact on a particular matter of national environmental significance. In this case, what had to be considered was whether there would be a significant impact on the rock art being a matter of national environmental significance. And as I say, as a result of these 48 conditions, which go beyond in some cases the conditions imposed by the WA Government, we believe we've achieved that.

JOURNALIST: So, in terms of that though, significant means a significant amount. That is to say that there will be damage to rock art there?

MURRAY WATT: I'll leave it to you how you want to interpret that.

JOURNALIST: But that's surely something that's in your remit there, to -

MURRAY WATT: No, the legal requirement on me is to consider whether a particular activity will have a significant impact on the rock art in this case.

JOURNALIST: So, what would you consider an impact versus a significant impact?

MURRAY WATT: I'm not going to get into semantic debates about that -

JOURNALIST: But there are people who are very invested in this who do want to know specifics.

MURRAY WATT: As am I. I am very invested in protecting this rock art. You might recall that I accompanied the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, who have the cultural authority to speak for this rock art, when we obtained World Heritage listing of this site. So I am personally very invested in protecting this rock art, as is our government, and that's exactly why we've set those 48 conditions which go to things like reducing nitrogen oxide gases by 60 per cent 2030, and more beyond that, which go to reducing sulphur oxide gases, which go to reducing a range of other gases that, if not controlled, would have a significant impact on that rock art. So that's what we've achieved through this decision.

JOURNALIST: What happens to the company if there is an impact to that rock art?

MURRAY WATT: Well, as with any environmental approval, if the proponent here were to breach its conditions, then they would face penalties under the law.

JOURNALIST: Does this pave the way for more projects to be approved at Murujuga?

MURRAY WATT: Well, every project proposal of course will be considered its merits. But I think you'll find that the Western Australian Government has actually already stated that they don't intend to allow any new development in that area going forward. And, of course, the fact that the area has now got World Heritage listing as a result of our efforts along with the Western Australian Government and the traditional owners, that will put further protections on this area going forward.

JOURNALIST: Does this decision undermine our climate credibility with our Pacific neighbours, especially given the concerns they’ve raised about this specific project, including it could be a breach of the ICJ ruling on climate change?

MURRAY WATT: First of all, what I'd say is that our government, representing Australia, always acts in accordance with international law, and we've done that here and will continue to do so going forward. I don't believe that it does undermine our reputation when it comes to climate change in the Pacific. Our government is recognised as having massively advanced Australia's contribution to fighting climate change on the world stage. You will remember before we came to office in 2022, we were an international laughing stock as a country when it came to climate change. We’ve set much more ambitious targets, 43 per cent by 2030. You'll be aware that my colleague, Chris Bowen, before long will be announcing more ambitious and achievable emissions reduction targets. Our government has approved, including myself, 99 renewable energy projects since we've come to power in a bit over three years. So, I believe that our climate change credentials are strong, whether it be in the Pacific or more broadly.

JOURNALIST: Just on Chris’ question, you know, Pacific leaders raised Woodside and North West Shelf at the Pacific Islands Forum. I guess, how do you interpret this to be received by our Pacific neighbours in terms of targeted climate action?

MURRAY WATT: I'll obviously leave it for Pacific leaders to speak for themselves. But as I say, I believe that our climate credentials are strong in the Pacific. That has been recognised by Pacific leaders. You will have seen when the Prime Minister was at the Pacific Forum this week, we became the largest financial contributor to a new Pacific resilience facility, and that was met with a great degree of welcome by Pacific leaders. But I'll leave it to Pacific leaders to speak for themselves.

JOURNALIST: Just on that 60 per cent reduction of emissions by 2030, what's the starting point? What type of emissions need to be reduced?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah. So, to give you a couple of examples, some of the gases that are emitted at this facility, which if not controlled properly could have a significant impact on the rock art, include things like nitrogen oxide. And the conditions that I've imposed require this facility to reduce its emissions of nitrogen oxide by 60 per cent by 2030 and by 90 per cent by 2061. What we've actually put in place is a requirement not only that the emission levels are capped at what they currently are at, but that they get reduced progressively to reach a 90 per cent reduction by 2061 and reaching 60 per cent by 2030 alone.

Similarly, we've put provisions and conditions in place around reductions in sulphur oxide gases and a range of other gases that if not controlled would have an impact on the rock art. And that's why I say we're confident that the conditions that we've set are the right ones to protect the jobs and the economic opportunities arising from this plant, but also, importantly, to protect the rock art.

JOURNALIST: What would you say to the gas industry that has frequently criticised the amount of red tape in Australia to do business, especially since this project is facing 48 conditions, not including Western Australian ones?

MURRAY WATT: I mean, you would be aware that one of the major roles that I'm undertaking in this new portfolio is the reform of Australia's environmental laws. And I've recognised publicly that our current environmental laws aren't working for the environment and they're not working for business. And that's why we want to, through that that reform process, put in place much stronger environmental protections than we have at the moment, but also make the approval and assessment process much quicker and more efficient for business. And we think that we can achieve both of those things.

JOURNALIST: Just on the conditions, how many of those 48 were changed? And can you specifically say any that Woodside were particularly unhappy about?

MURRAY WATT: Well, in essence, there were a handful of issues in the proposed conditions that we had any serious degree of discussion with Woodside about. And as I say, the point of that was to result in conditions that were more specific than the proposed conditions had been, that were technically feasible and could actually be put into operation, and also of course protect the rock art. Now, it's very commonplace for proposed conditions to change following consultation before a final decision is made. I think pretty much every decision I've announced since coming to this portfolio, there has been a change between the proposed conditions and the final conditions, and that's the point of having that consultation with proponents to work through those conditions. But what I'd say is that I think, as I say, people should take comfort from the fact that it has taken us a bit of time to work through these conditions, because my job, of course, is to protect the environment, but of course to do that in a way that is technically feasible.

JOURNALIST: Larissa Waters says this project will be a carbon bomb and will make it substantially more difficult to reach emission reduction targets. What do you make of that?

MURRAY WATT: Well, the Greens political party always campaign on these sorts of issues. The reality is that under the Albanese Government we are making strong progress towards achieving 43 per cent emissions reduction targets by 2030. It's not a Greens party who delivered that, it's a Labor government who are on track to achieve emissions reduction targets. And it will be a Labor government that very soon brings down even more ambitious and achievable emission reduction targets. It won't be the Greens doing that.

JOURNALIST: Just on the go zones and no-go zones you announced earlier this week, why didn't you speak to the Crisafulli Government before making that announcement?

MURRAY WATT: We have been in discussion with a number of state governments, including the Queensland Government about the idea of regional planning, which is what I spoke about this week. So, if they think that they haven't been spoken to, maybe they need to talk to each other.

JOURNALIST: They said that this is something they're already doing, so you've kind of copied their homework.

MURRAY WATT: Well, they would say that. The reality is that there is, what I said this week is that we think that through reforms to our national environmental laws, we can really scale up the regional planning that is happening around the country at the moment. Of course, there's some regional planning happening around the country but it's going incredibly slowly, and part of the reason for that is that we don't have a system at the moment where state government processes speak to federal government processes, and that's what we're trying to achieve.

JOURNALIST: Minister, there are emission reductions targets here in Queensland legislated by the former government. The current government will outline their energy plan next month. Do think that energy plan will align with the Commonwealth's emissions targets?

MURRAY WATT: Well, it's obviously up to the Crisafulli Government to decide what they do around emissions reduction targets. We certainly hope that every state government, regardless of their political colour, continues to set ambitious and achievable emissions reduction targets. The whole country needs that to happen. And you will have seen what I did say this week, which I know the Queensland Government wasn't necessarily happy with, was that it doesn't help anyone, including the Queensland Government, to achieve their emissions reduction targets if they go and cancel renewable projects based on ideology. So I'd certainly encourage them to maintain strong, ambitious and achievable emissions reduction targets and get behind the sort of renewable energy projects that are crucial for delivering them.