Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. I refer to the minister’s deliberation on how to protect the heritage values of the Burrup Peninsula. Is the minister aware of other appropriate sites for development in the Pilbara region? Does the minister believe that the best way to promote development and return to the heritage values on the Burrup is for heavy industry to be encouraged to alternative sites such as Onslow or Maitland or the joint venture site on the Burrup? If so, is the federal government willing to support measures encouraging industry to set up in alternative locations?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for the question, which relates to an incredibly important part of Western Australia and, of course, Australia—that is, the Burrup Peninsula. A number of companies are proposing expansions of operations in this area. It is the home of a multibillion-dollar export business around liquefied natural gas—a business that obviously creates massive employment for Australians and underpins a lot of our gross domestic product. Very importantly—and this has been missed by a lot of commentators—it also makes a fantastic contribution to lowering the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A lot of the gas that comes from the North West Shelf and will come from the proposed expansions of the LNG facilities at the Burrup will go to China and hopefully North America. I think we need to remember that, whenever you substitute good, clean north-west Australian LNG for coal or oil, you get an immediate benefit in the order of a 40 per cent to 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere which will, of course, help us to address the significant global challenge of climate change. Here on the Burrup, alongside that phenomenal environmental and economic benefit, you also have some quite historic and incredibly important Aboriginal rock art, known to the experts as petroglyphs, going back up to 10,000 years.

These operation expansion proposals—for example, for the Pluto project—are looking at a footprint area of around 20 hectares. I remind the Senate that I think this does need to be put into context, because I happen to believe very passionately and firmly that you can balance the economic development interests of Australia with what I am currently considering for the National Heritage List—and which on the face of it looks like incredibly important heritage—in that unique part of Western Australia. To put it into context, the Burrup Peninsula itself is an area 27 kilometres long and four kilometres wide; so just the Burrup Peninsula, which is only one part of the precinct, is 108 square kilometres. I go back to the Woodside expansion proposals, which have a footprint of disturbance of around 20 hectares—that is, 20 hectares as part of 108 square kilometres.

One of the National Heritage List areas proposed by the traditional owners comprises an area of 220,000 hectares. Again, I say that this is a 20-hectare area of potential disturbance of rock art that is spread out over an area in excess of 220,000 hectares. The area of the Dampier Archipelago, which comprises 42 islands, islets and rocks ranging from two hectares up to 3,290 hectares in size, covers an area of something like 4,000 square kilometres. The rock art, I remind all senators through you, Mr President, is spread across this area. It ranges from 7,000 to 10,000 years old. It is incredibly important archaeology. That is why the government has spent so much on it. Senator Siewert asked about alternative—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Siewert did indeed ask about Maitland, Onslow and alternatives where there is no rock art. The minister should have addressed that question, and he has failed to do so. He should get on with answering the question before his time runs out.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has 25 seconds to complete his answer.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to talk about the alternative question that Senator Siewert asked, which was about the alternative sites. Maitland, Senator Brown seems to think, has no rock art involved. I am sure that, when Senator Siewert asks her supplementary question, it will give me the opportunity to go into some detail about the impact of the development of Maitland on rock art.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the minister’s comment in this morning’s Australian Financial Review. He said, ‘No-one in their right mind would propose saving every single last bit of heritage on the peninsula unless they want to close down the economic development of Australia.’ Does the minister actually believe that locating industry at alternative sites, as BHP has done at Onslow, will really close down economic development in Australia? If so, what process will the minister be following to decide what proportion of Australia’s heritage is expendable?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the Australian Greens, you do need to be very honest and frank about this and you need to put it into context. The context is that Senator Bob Brown, Senator Siewert’s colleague, was on the radio this morning saying that you could relocate to Maitland. The reality about the Maitland site, for example, is that you would need to develop a new port if you were to put industrial development on the Maitland estate. The site for the new port is on West Intercourse Island, which is a site that has petroglyphs all over it. Wherever you move in this area, you will have an impact on Aboriginal rock art. There is no simple solution.

The Greens solution is to have no development and not to have the environmental benefits of exporting Australian greenhouse-reducing natural gas into China. We want to export gas into China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the world and create a multibillion-dollar industry. We want to do it by minimising the impact on the rock art and we want to do it through a good management process. (Time expired)