Australia's environment protection law has been criticised as ineffective after the approval of a 40-year life extension for the Woodside-operated North West Shelf gas plant in Western Australia. The decision, made by federal environment minister Murray Watt, has sparked debate about the true purpose of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
Minister Watt's 74-page statement of reasons revealed that the federal environment department rejected claims by Woodside and the WA government that acidic pollution from the plant had not damaged ancient Indigenous rock art in the Murujuga cultural landscape. Some of this art is over 50,000 years old and includes what is believed to be the oldest known representation of a human face. Watt accepted that future pollution could contribute to damaging this heritage.
Initially, Watt required Woodside to reduce acidic pollution to below the 'detectable limit' affecting rock art. However, Woodside argued this was 'not technically feasible' and would amount to an 'effective refusal'. After private negotiations, Watt softened the conditions, requiring a 60% reduction by 2030 and 90% by 2061. The minister acknowledged this increased the likelihood of short-term impacts on Murujuga's natural heritage but deemed them 'small' and outweighed by social or economic factors.
Environmentalists argue this case illustrates that the EPBC Act is misnamed, serving primarily to approve developments rather than protect the environment. Only a handful of proposals have been blocked in the law's 25-year history. The 2021 state of the environment report found Australia's wild places and unique species are in poor and deteriorating health, suggesting the current approach is failing.
