By David Hallam
Environment Minister Murray Watt has conditionally approved an extension to Australia’s largest oil and gas project to 2070. The assessment for extension has taken six years, with many first nations and environmental groups arguing that the extension spells doom for the environment and Murujuga rock art that dates back some 50,000 years.
‘Juxtaposition’ is an often-used cliché, but I have no other way to describe the recent images of the Murujuga landscape. On the one hand, images of arguably the world’s most significant Indigenous rock art, including depictions of extinct animals and some of the oldest depictions of a human face. On the other hand, a combination of steel, smoke and fire (literally) belching outward from Woodside’s facilities. It is surprising that the rock art has survived even this long, with the preservation and conservation of sites with incomparable human and cultural value not this government’s forte. Rio Tinto’s destruction of ancient rock shelters at Juukan Gorge being one of numerous examples where governments have failed to intervene.
In May, a report was finally released which describes the damage that industrial processes have had on the Murujuga rock art. The report? “Not worth the paper.”
At least that was UWA Professor Benjamin Smith’s take on the report’s executive summary, which he tore up on the steps of the Western Australian Parliament. Professor Smith said that aspects of the report have been watered down to such an extent that its summary is insulting to scientists and the academic community.
With over a million rock engravings at risk, the report describes in technical detail the degradation of the ancient rock art from industrial pollutants. On Professor Smith’s own accounts, it is brilliant science which has been thoughtfully conducted by researchers predominantly from Curtin University.
I visited Professor Smith to speak with him about the report and Minister Watt’s decision.
Manganese in the rock structure is being eaten away by pollutants in the area, especially on the rock surface. “You lose the surface; you’ve lost all of the rock art” he explained. He said that although the report has many excellent findings, there are two which are most damning to government and industry. First, that the Murujuga rocks—having been exposed to pollutants in a laboratory weathering chamber—degrade quickly, even under low pollution dose rates. Second, that the rock art closest to industrial areas is degrading faster than in other areas.
It doesn’t take much to put two and two together. If the rock art is being degraded by pollutants in the area, then human processes are responsible. But the report summary and the government’s response has been to take a more ambiguous line, claiming that
industrial processes in the 1970s and 1980s are solely responsible and that more research should be undertaken to understand the nature of the processes.
Sure, industrial processes from 50 years ago could also be to blame, but the level of emissions from Woodside and others in the region is now five times higher than it was then. If that is the argument the government wishes to take now, that gives them at least five times more reason to do something serious about saving the rock art before it is too late.
Things get even worse as Professor Smith explained that scientists involved in the project signed non-disclosure agreements, prohibiting them from speaking publicly and, crucially, to the media about their findings. “I wasn’t prepared to be gagged” he said in response to whether he had been approached for the project. Furthermore, the report’s chief statistician Professor Adrian Baddeley has accused the government of unacceptable interference with figures in the report. A green line was removed from a graph which showed a lower bound for acceptable pollution levels. The ABC have reported that a government department asked Professor Baddeley to remove the line himself, which he refused. When I asked Professor Smith to explain the severity of the government’s amendments, he did not pull any punches “This is totally inappropriate. Manipulating your findings so that they support your hypothesis is not on.”
I don’t think the reader ought to pull punches either. This constitutes interference in the findings of a scientific report for political purposes. The question of whether scientists should be made to sign non-disclosure agreements is of concern to Professor Smith. “We (scientists) should be totally free to talk about our scientific findings and to engage with colleagues in proper academic discourse and discussion.” Professor Smith cannot discuss the report or its details with the Curtin researchers, even in a private.
Of course, restrictions on researchers by their funders is not anything new. The question is whether restrictions are legitimate on publicly funded research, and on a purportedly world-class monitoring program that is of massive cultural and social significance. Professor Smith thinks not.
The icing on the cake? The gas pipeline did not have to make ground at Murujuga. The pipe could have come ashore elsewhere, where there is no ancient rock art. Professor Smith calls this a quirk of history that we are stuck with. Woodside could also choose to operate in ways that do not damage the rock art but, so far, has failed to do so. In comparison, Professor Smith explained that the Korean government is spending huge amounts to protect their own culturally significant sites from dam construction and other infrastructure projects. Professor Smith offered this example to show just how inadequate Woodside’s response has been. “We are going to have to force them to do it kicking and screaming, and that says a lot about that industry. It saddens me a lot.”
Professor Smith said he is grateful to UWA and his colleagues for the immense support he has received. “It is wonderful to work at UWA and to be (part of) an institution where academic freedom of speech is valued and protected.”
Rock art aside, most are agreed: the extension of the processing facility will amount to decades’ worth of continued fossil fuel emissions. Even if the rock art is saved, it will be hard to not look back on this decision as anything other than a massive betrayal of current and future generations who are already experiencing the negative impacts of climate change.