Murray Watt ‘personally lobbied' Unesco over barring of WA rock art from world heritage list
Australia's environment minister, Murray Watt, has lobbied national Unesco ambassadors in a bid to overturn a recommendation that ancient rock art in Western Australia's north-west should not receive world heritage listing unless nearby industrial facilities shut down.
Delegations from the Australian government and the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, a body established to represent five traditional Indigenous language groups, plan to attend a Unesco meeting in Paris next month to argue for an immediate world heritage listing for the Murujuga cultural landscape.
The ramped up lobbying campaign follows the UN body last month finding facilities – including Woodside Energy's controversial North West Shelf gas processing plant – needed to be removed from the region if Australia wanted to win world heritage listing for more than a million petroglyphs, some nearly 50,000 years old.
The Unesco recommendationfollowed advice from the International Council on Monuments and Sites that, while Murujuga met the main requirements for a world heritage listing, industrial pollution was making the 'integrity and the authenticity of key attributes…highly vulnerable'.
Speaking to Guardian Australia, Watt repeated his claim that the Unesco report included 'factual inaccuracies' and said the authors did not have access to 'the latest evidence', including a rock art monitoring report compiled last year and released by the WA government in May.
Watt claimed the recommendation had been 'clearly influenced by some campaign efforts' by environment organisations. 'Our view was that the decision was overly influenced by that kind of political activity rather than the scientific evidence, and rather than the wishes of the traditional owners,' he said.
'I think they're the kind of things that should come first.'
Watt said he had 'personally lobbied a number of Unesco ambassadors who will be making this decision' at a UN Oceans Conference in France last week. 'Obviously, our government officials are doing that as well. I would say we got a good hearing on our points. I wouldn't say that people have decided. They're obviously going to have to think about it and consider the evidence, but we'll be lobbying hard in favour of the listing,' he said.
The Unesco report was released just hours before Watt announced he planned to approve Woodside's application to extend the life of the North West Shelf development – one of the world's biggest liquified natural gas projects – from 2030 to 2070. It followed the proposal receiving approval from the WA government in December.
The decisions have been criticised by environment organisations, academic researchers and the traditional custodians body Save Our Songlines on two grounds: the potential impact of local air pollution on the culturally important rock art and the billions of tonnes of greenhouse emissions that could result from gas produced at the plant.
The group Friends of Australian Rock Art has launched a bid in the WA supreme court to challenge the state government's approval decision.
Watt was not required to consider greenhouse gas emissions as climate impact is not grounds to refuse or limit a development application under Australia's national environment law. The government says it deals with industrial emissions under its safeguard mechanism policy.
On rock art, the minister said his proposed approval included 'strict conditions' relating to local air emissions that could affect Murujuga rock art. The conditions have not been made public and Woodside was given 10 days to respond to them. That time has since been extended.
Prof Benjamin Smith, an archaeologist and rock art expert at the University of Western Australia, criticised the decision and the WA government's rock art monitoring report. He said a government summary of the report incorrectly claimed most existing damage to petroglyphs from industrial pollution occurred in the 1970s and 1980s and that key pollutant levels had declined since 2014. He claimed scientists who worked on the report were being gagged so they couldn't raise their concerns about how their data was being interpreted.
Watt said the conditional approval decision had 'not been blind to potential impacts on the rock art. In fact, that was the entire basis of the decision'. Watt said if Murujuga received world heritage listing it would 'add another layer of protection to ensure that it is cared for into the future'.
He argued there had been a 'concerted campaign' by some environment groups to discredit the rock art monitoring report, but one of its authors, Prof Ben Mullins, had told the ABC that he agreed with the public interpretation of its findings. 'I think, unfortunately, this issue has become politicised, and what's really important is that we all take a step back and listen to the views of the traditional owners,' Watt said.
'Yes, there are some individuals who are not supporting the listing. But the representative body for the traditional owner groups is not just supporting their application, they're leading it.'
The chair of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, Peter Hicks, said 'misinformation, misrepresentation and statements that are simply untrue' over the state of rock art protection had led to 'grief and sadness in our communities'.
'We co-exist with industry and support the science,' he said. 'As the traditional owners, we have every confidence that the Murujuga rock art will continue to endure for thousands of years.'
The Unesco recommendation is due to go before the 21-country world heritage committee on 6 July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Jim Chalmers is dreaming of big economic reform. But is history – or even Albanese – on his side?
Are Australians ready to have a mature conversation about the difficult reforms needed to underpin our future prosperity? Jim Chalmers reckons we are. The treasurer says there is a hunger in Australia for bold and ambitious reform and the only thing standing between us and policy nirvana is a national consensus to get it done. Labor has a 'responsibility' to future generations to put in place the settings to drive the next era of prosperity, Chalmers says. And the government is ready to go well beyond what they took to voters in May. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'We're trying to say we have a big, ambitious agenda, and we're going to roll that out as we said we would. But we're going to test the country's appetite for more than that,' he told the National Press Club on Tuesday. Reform succeeds when you can bring people with you, Chalmers said. 'It requires courage but it requires consensus as well.' Courage and consensus – two things sorely lacking in political life for … decades? Chalmers entreats attendees at the upcoming three-day reform roundtable in August to leave their narrow interests at the door and consider the national interest instead. It will be a big ask. Chalmers is right to call out those who make loud demands for reform but shoot down every single step in that direction. 'Too often, the loudest calls for economic reform in the abstract come from the noisiest opponents of actual reform in the specific,' he said on Tuesday. Look no further than the confected outrage in some media outlets of the $3m super tax. Chalmers is also trying to dictate how journalists interrogate the government. He claims the 'rule-in rule-out game' that the media play is 'cancerous' to reform. If you force the government to 'rule out' changes to the GST, for example, then that instantly rules out some major options for holistic tax reform that could leave most Australians better off. Chalmers is not wrong but he is asking for trust – and that needs to go both ways. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Labor has shown it prefers to keep the fourth estate at arm's length, treating journalists as a problem to be managed and, where possible, manipulated. Good luck being allowed to talk to somebody in the bureaucracy to help you better understand an issue, or get some time to talk with a policy adviser. That might be inside baseball but there's a more obvious question mark hanging over Chalmers' vision. Is there really the claimed appetite for political risk around the cabinet table, starting with the prime minister, Anthony Albanese? Meaningful reform involves winners and losers, as Chalmers repeatedly noted. But a glance at any budgets over recent years suggests policies are carefully designed not to create any losers, unless they are small groups such as wealthy Aussies or multinational firms. Finally, Chalmers was cagey about whether members of the opposition would be invited to take part in August's talkfest. Which begs a perhaps even more fundamental question: can major economic reform, particularly in heavily contested areas such as tax, happen without bipartisan support? History suggests not. Patrick Commins is economics editor for Guardian Australia
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
What could Albanese do to improve productivity? Here is a short, non-exhaustive list
In his address last week at the National Press Club, the prime minister announced a 'productivity roundtable' in concert with the Productivity Commission's latest inquiry into the issue. I won't be at the round table, but I do have a few ideas. First off, remember that productivity is the amount you produce with the hours and equipment you have. Work better with what you have or (usually) get better equipment to do your work faster, and productivity increases. It is not about reducing the cost of producing things. Getting paid $10 less an hour to do the same amount of work does not increase productivity even if your employer is more profitable. Unfortunately, productivity is often confused with profit and so business groups argue the key is lower company tax. They claim this will increase investment in things that increase productivity (such as new equipment or new buildings and structures). The evidence, though, is pretty nonexistent. The massive 2017 Trump company tax cuts, for example, which cut the federal US company tax rate from as high as 35% to a flat rate of 21% did bugger all to spur investment: If the graph does not display click here Hopefully the Productivity Commission will heed the advice of the current productivity commissioner, Danielle Wood, who in 2018, wrote that cutting the company tax rate would 'see national incomes go backwards for six years'. And income is really what productivity is about – specifically workers' income and their living standards. In theory, the real value of how much you earn an hour should rise in line with productivity. In the 1990s this mostly happened, but from 2000 onwards workers have missed out: If the graph does not display click here So, when worrying about productivity, we must remember to ask who benefits. But what could the government do to improve productivity? Here is a short, non-exhaustive list. This year, the government will pay about $10bn in diesel fuel rebates to mining and transport companies and the agriculture sector. By 2028-29 it will be $13bn. Despite growing almost as fast as the NDIS, we never hear the government talk about needing to rein in the expense: If the graph does not display click here But the fuel tax credit not only encourages use of fossil fuels, it creates a disincentive to investment in more efficient, and productive new vehicles – such as electric trucks. Research and development is vital to produce new equipment and technology (such as electric trucks). But the Australian government spends much less on R&D than most other OECD governments: If the graph does not display click here The government in April extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business. This was purely a political rather than economic decision. Rather than encourage investment in productivity enhancing equipment, it is mostly a tax rort to buy big utes. How do we know this? Well, last week the AFR's wealth reporter, in a column about avoiding paying tax, described the instant asset write-off as 'a favourite perk of small businesses and sole traders'. They ain't lying. What else is a bad productivity investment? Residential land. It adds bugger all. But Australians devote far too much capital to property – almost 2.5 times that of the US: If the graph does not display click here Our tax system encourages this with the 50% capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, while also reducing housing affordability. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that removing the tax discount and negative gearing on investment properties would raise about $13.35bn in 2025-26. Dental health hurts the economy and reduces productivity because workers avoid going to the dentist because of the cost and end up with chronic issues that reduce output. A public system would be much more productive because it would massively reduce the cost hurdle for workers. The PBO estimated that putting dental into Medicare would cost $13.7bn. Rather conveniently for us, that is essentially the same as removing the CGT discount and negative gearing. By the same token, we know health systems that are dependent on private health insurance, such as in the US, are unproductive because the resources devoted to them deliver worse outcomes than public health: If the graph does not display click here Australia's health system is generally well regarded, but a recent report noted that we faired quite poorly when it came to access to care. Private health insurance is not a productive industry – consider the hours and expense devoted to marketing that yields no extra benefit. The same goes for private schools and the fees people pay fees. A 2022 study found that private education does not improve a student's academic performance. More resources devoted to no better outcomes is the essence of poor productivity. Currently both are exempt from GST, which effectively incentivises people to spend money on them (as does allowing donations to build structures in private schools to be tax deductible). Including both within the GST would deliver revenue that could go to improving productive public schools and hospitals, while repairing the shrinking tax base of the GST. Best of all, because richer households spend more of their income on both private school and private health insurance, the tax would actually be progressive. If the graph does not display click here Controversial? Of course. Which is why a government would also want to announce something huge – like say dental in Medicare. Productivity is an ongoing issue, but the key is to always think about who benefits from changes, and that the solutions are not about increasing profits or offshoring labour or reducing workers' pay, but should always be about making people's lives better. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Lifetime tax breaks for mothers should be a priority, argues Liberal MP before party review
Special tax breaks for mothers should be considered as part of an overhaul of the tax system to better support 'modern families', a Coalition MP has argued. As Jim Chalmers opened the door to a national debate on tax reform, the opposition backbencher Garth Hamilton said 'everything must be on the table' to redesign the system in favour of families. The new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, will soon outline details of the process her party will use to review its policies – including on tax and net zero – after its thumping federal election defeat. But Hamilton, who was the deputy chair of the house economic committee in the previous parliament, said he was not waiting for the party review process to start, joining other Liberal MPs in publicly floating tax ideas. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The advocacy offers a preview of the types of ideas that will be raised, and how public and contested the internal policy brawl will be, as the Liberals thrash out a platform to fight the next election. Hamilton is planning to run a tax review process of his own, which would bring together like-minded MPs during parliamentary sittings and host events with expert speakers. 'Our tax system must have a purpose and that purpose must be to make life better for Australian families. It's no longer enough to invent new taxes just so governments can have more money to spend,' the Groom MP told Guardian Australia. 'We need a tax system that's inclusive, that supports modern families, whatever shape they may be. If you are looking after each other, Australia should be looking after you.' Hamilton said one of the ideas that should be on the table was lifetime tax rate deductions for mothers, in recognition of the fact they faced lower salaries when returning to the workforce. Viktor Orban's far-right government in Hungary is introducing a radical version of the idea, offering lifetime income tax exemptions for mothers of two or more children as part of a plan to address the country's falling fertility rate. Hamilton understood the fertility rate argument but said he viewed the policy as more of an incentive to work and to help women build their super balances. He is also among the conservative MPs who support income splitting, a recurring policy idea that would allow parents to split combined incomes evenly across two tax returns, lowering the household's overall tax bill. For example, if one parent earned $120,000 and the other earned $40,000 then both would be taxed at the rate of someone on $80,000. One Nation pushed the policy at this year's federal election as a means of supporting stay-at-home parents. The former Coalition senator Gerard Rennick asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to model a similar policy earlier this year, which calculated it would cost roughly $12.5bn over two years. In a sign of widening support in conservative circles, the rightwing Liberal senator and shadow assistant minister for families and communities, Leah Blyth, has publicly argued the case for income splitting over the past week. 'It's not fair. It's not sustainable. And it's time we backed families,' Blyth said of the existing tax settings in a social media post last week. The Australian Financial Review reported Blyth was also working on a proposal to make private school fees tax deductible while cutting taxpayer funding to them. Speaking before Chalmers used a speech to the National Press Club to set the scene for tax changes, the shadow finance minister, James Paterson, reiterated that the Coalition was prepared to work 'constructively' with the government. 'It is self-evident that we do not collect tax in this country as efficiently as we could, and it holds back our prosperity and our productivity and our efficiency as an economy, and there are gains that can be made by reforming the tax system,' Paterson, who is acting shadow treasurer, told Sky News. 'But that is not a blank cheque for this government to increase taxes.'
