FOI emails raise new questions about government's role in scientific report into Murujuga rock art

Australia Broadcast Center

2 days ago

The lead scientist on a globally-significant Aboriginal rock art project claimed a WA government agency put a "very rosy spin" on his team's scientific results, 7.30 can reveal.
Emails obtained via Freedom of Information also include a claim that government bureaucrats insisted on writing a summary report that was supposed to be written by scientists, and then sat on it for a year.
The emails follow a controversy that erupted in May around a seemingly innocuous seven-page government-authored summary document about safe levels of industrial emissions in an area surrounded by world-renowned ancient Aboriginal carvings.
The document in question was a summary of an 800-page scientific paper by Curtin University researchers who are investigating the potential impacts of industrial emissions on Murujuga, a sacred area in Western Australia's far north.
7.30 can also reveal that another senior scientist, who earlier complained of inappropriate government interference in the work, has now quit the project.
Murujuga contains an estimated one million ancient carvings, including the world's oldest known depiction of a human face, with some artworks estimated to be more than 40,000 years old.
The area is also home to several large industrial projects, including Woodside's North West Shelf LNG facilities.
The $27 million rock art monitoring study, funded by government and industry, is being led by the WA government in collaboration with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), using independent science from Curtin University.
The goal of the five-year study is to establish acceptable and unacceptable emissions standards to protect the rock art from degradation.
In late May, the WA government released a major report from Curtin University's second year of research, known as the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program monitoring studies report.
Its release came less than a week before Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt announced he had provisionally granted Woodside a long-awaited 40-year licence extension for its LNG plant.
The report found that rocks located closer to industry had elevated porosity — or degradation — than those further away, but that historic emissions from an old power station were likely a major contributor.
It also found no evidence to support an acid rain theory proposed by separate researchers concerned about industry emissions threatening the future of the rock art.
The findings were welcomed by the state government and the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, who last month successfully secured a UNESCO World Heritage listing following years of campaigning.
But five days after its release, the report's chief statistician, Curtin Emeritus Professor Adrian Baddeley, wrote to staff from WA's Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) with concerns about "unacceptable interference".
His complaint centred around a line in a graph that was removed from the government's summary document against his wishes, but signed off on by the report's lead scientist, Professor Ben Mullins.
In a June interview with the ABC, Professor Mullins said the summary document was only ever meant to be "a simple layperson summary for the general public".
But Professor Mullins' email to senior Curtin staff a week earlier, obtained via FOI, paints a different picture.
On the evening of May 27, Curtin University's Vice Chancellor Melinda Fitzgerald wrote to Professor Mullins asking if he agreed with Professor Baddeley's concerns about the "aqua dotted line" being removed from the graph in the government's summary document.
"We argued to leave it in but MAC and DWER insisted," Professor Mullins responded.
"The entire summary report was intended to be written by Curtin (as per the contract) and the first draft was, but a year later when DWER finally decided to release the report, they insisted on writing it as the primary author.
"[DWER] did get us to review it once or twice. However they put a very rosy spin on the results and I think hoped everyone would only read the summary and not the full report."
7.30 wrote to Professor Mullins requesting an interview, but he opted to provide a statement instead.
"We initially advocated for including the aqua-green dotted line in the summary graph to maintain consistency with the full technical report," he said in a statement.
"However, through the collaborative drafting process, we acknowledged the position taken by DWER and MAC to remove it.
"Given the complexity of explaining the line's significance in a brief format, we agreed that its removal was appropriate for effective communication.
Professor Mullins added that all parties stood by the high-quality science presented in the full report, which remained unaltered.
"We look forward to continuing our research collaboration as it has proven to be an effective and successful project for Western Australia and is now integral to the UNESCO world heritage inscription," he said.
Professor Baddeley's complaint email, sent on May 27, focused specifically on a graph that he claimed DWER had asked to be altered for its summary report, against his wishes.
The graph in question included benchmarks for acceptable levels of pollution, with two lower guideline levels serving as "early warning" indicators, and a higher standard level that is the "threshold at which there is a risk of unacceptable change in rock art condition".
In his complaint letter sent on May 27, Professor Baddeley said the graph prepared by Curtin University scientists had included two early warning indicator lines, but one of them — a green-aqua dotted line, which presented a lower threshold — had been deleted from the summary document.
"If the green-aqua dashed line were reinstated, it would show that five of the monitoring sites were experiencing pollutant levels above the interim guideline, and again these are the five sites closest to industry," he wrote.
7.30 has learned that Professor Baddley recently quit the rock art monitoring project, ending his contract early.
It is understood that researchers on the Curtin University project signed contracts with consultancy group Calibre that prohibited them from speaking with the media.
Professor Ian Gordon from the Statistical Society of Australia, which is the peak national body for statisticians, has written hundreds of consulting reports for clients including industry and government.
The Melbourne-based statistician said that in his opinion, the removal of the threshold line from the summary document's graph was "unusual" and "concerning".
Professor Gordon, who is Chair of the Society's public advocacy group, said it painted a picture of "pressure and interference" by government in the scientific process.
"They may say that is the stance they have already had, because the lead scientist signed off on the [summary], but we can see, I think, that there has been some pressure because of the course of events that have occurred."
A spokesperson for DWER said: "The summary document was developed to help publicly communicate the findings of a highly technical and complex scientific study".
"As part of the drafting process the graph in the summary document was simplified to focus on the interim guideline environmental quality criteria," they stated.
"DWER respects the independence of the Curtin University scientific team, and its role in providing objective research and data to inform future protection of the Murujuga Rock Art."
In a statement, the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation said finalising the summary report was a collaborative process.
"DWER, MAC and Curtin University discussed the content of the summary document, through multiple drafts," they stated.
"The final version was approved by Curtin University."
Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV
Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.