Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) | Hansard source

I seek leave to table documents related to Murujuga rock art protection.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.

What you have just witnessed is political interference from the coalition in the tabling of documents which are in the public interest. It is our role as politicians to call out malgovernance, corruption and intransparency wherever it occurs. You need to wonder what the coalition's motives are in not supporting transparency on these matters. It is to protect their corporate donors.

I am taking very seriously my duty to stand up for community, and for accountability, transparency and good governance. That is why today I am trying to table documents that raise substantive concerns around the preservation of Murujuga rock art. In my role as a senator, it is my responsibility to bring such allegations to the public's attention so that they can be investigated. The allegations contained in the documents build on recent WAtoday reporting. The reporting exposed potential conflicts of interests of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation board chair relating to emission impacts on Murujuga rock art due to his connections with mining and resource companies.

These documents throw up concerns around the absence of attention on environmental protection requirements, as well as the scientific methodology in the Murujuga rock art management program, potentially posing real risk to the rock art. Despite repeated attempts to raise these concerns through the appropriate channels, the papers for tabling allege that concerns have been dismissed or ignored, that promises for change have not been followed through and that, in some instances, presentation of these concerns has actively been prevented or omitted from documents.

Our heritage is being threatened and destroyed all over the country. After the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters, we had at least a hope that a substantive heritage protection framework would be put in place to prevent such destruction from happening again. Yet, years after the report was handed down, we are yet to see any action on actually protecting our heritage. In the meantime, every day we lose more of it, with mining companies and developers getting away with destroying our very culture and our very being.

Murujuga rock art is one of the most extensive rock art collections in the world, and its preservation is incredibly important. Anything that puts that at risk needs to be called out, investigated and stopped. This is why I table these documents today, and I will now leave it to the responsible entities to do their due diligence and investigate these contents.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the documents relating to rock art protection be tabled.

I'm about to read out a stat dec outlining concerns about the protection of Murujuga rock art:

I, Nigel Carney, self employed make the following declaration under section 9 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:

1. My name is Nigel Carney. I am currently self-employed.

2. I was employed by Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) on 21 March 2023 on a two year contract on a full time basis. My role was Coordinator of the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy and Monitoring Program (MRAMP). Pursuant to the requirements as set out in the job description form, I worked with stakeholders to coordinate the MRAMP and the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (MRAS). I resigned from the position on 15 September 2023.

3. I was required to report to the CEO and the MAC Board. Former CEO Peter Jeffries stood down from his role shortly after I commenced. The role of permanent CEO was vacant until around November 2023. Travis McNaught acted as CEO during that period. I represented the MAC CEO on the MRAS Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG).

4. I recently read a news article published in WA Today reporting allegations of conflicts of interest made against MAC board chair Peter Hicks who also runs resources contractor Hicks Civil & Mining Pty Ltd, which has been appointed by Woodside or Bechtel the contract for haulage work on the Pluto II Scarborough LNG gas plant development. The article reports lawyers for Mr Hicks saying that he would not stand down from MAC, stating:

"Mr Hicks (in his role as chairman of MAC) cannot and has not influenced the review being undertaken by MAC (in regard to any effect of emissions on the heritage rock art) at all."

5. Based on my knowledge and experience in my employment with MAC, I believe this statement is not true and correct.

6. I consulted with industry and government stakeholders and highlighted to MAC and the SRG the absence of attention to the environmental protection requirements including the precautionary principle as required in the MRAS. I believe there were real and significant risks to the environmental protection of the rock art that were not being appropriately managed.

7. In mid-June 2023 and earlier, I had made Michelle Andrews, Director General of WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) aware of multiple risks inherent in the management of the MRAS and the MRAMP. DWER Deputy Director General Emily Briggs and DWER Strategic Policy Advisor Daniel McNevin then acknowledged the shortfalls and agreed to address and fund this aspect of the strategy.

8. A budget meeting was scheduled by DWER for around mid-July to enable the- issues to be addressed. The Woodside Heritage Advisor Daniel Thomas and Rio Tinto Corporate Advisor Indigenous Affairs, John Angel Hands were also supportive of reform. The meeting was then cancelled without my knowledge by MAC Acting CEO Mr McNaught. The MAC Chief Financial Officer Sanoj Xavier informed me of this the meeting was cancelled on 5 July.

9. The MRAMP was promoted as a partnership between DWER and the MAC, the $30M program funded by the major polluters. Under the proposed terms, MAC would take increased responsibility for managing the MRAMP and MRAS, including environmental protection of the rock art.

10. It was revealed to me that a third-party private contractor was in effect managing the MRAMP and MRAS. A project management document was provided to me (via a DWER JAWUN secondee) which revealed that control of the key parameters of the project were managed by Calibre Ventures Pty Ltd (Calibre), who also managed projects for Rio Tinto.

11. I was given the task of developing the legal partnership and financial agreement. I reported to MAC and DWER that the proposed MAC agreement would not be feasible without significant changes to the existing management structure, due largely to conflict of interest and related issues. I also became aware that these issues had also been highlighted by my predecessor in the role of MRAMP Coordinator, and were views shared by others.

12. I had also been advised by my predecessor Joseph Sollis that he had also been excluded from meetings to effect proper consultation, including a meeting on 28 August 2022 between then MAC CEO Peter Jefferies and Deputy Premier Roger Cook regarding the Woodside Pluto II Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

13. In the course of my role and field work, I recorded multiple scientific flaws in the management of the MRAMP and reported these to the project manager (Calibre) in order to address the issues. I believe that a Curtin University scientist Mawutorli Nyarku was dismissed, but the quality issues of sample collection and other issues were not addressed. The issue raised was that there was no evidence of world's best practice science shown in the delivery of the project, impacting on the UNESCO World Heritage nomination to achieve positive outcomes in aid of reducing industry emissions to mitigate loss of heritage value to the rock art.

14. I was encouraged by the MAC Company Secretary and Governance Officer Sarah Scott to report as a matter of urgency the issues impacting the integrity of the MRAMP and on 21 July 2023 a meeting with Mr Hicks as the MAC board chair was arranged at 1pm at the SOAK Cafe Dampier, so that I could first present the concerns to him. The meeting occurred and Mr Hicks agreed the issues needed to be presented and that I must provide him a copy of the report and presentation.

15. The Company Secretary since March also expressed concerns that I was excluded from all meetings with Perdeman Chemicals and Fertilisers, an SRG stakeholder, who Mr Hicks was meeting with during the course of my tenure. I approached Perdeman directly cordially in the MAC Office and via email and they did not respond to my meeting request. When I then approached Amy Stevens, the MAC Heritage Advisor who was prior to her engagement with MAC associated with Calibre (Tocumwal—Scott Franks—cancelled 2019 MAC-DWER agreement), she replied bluntly, 'Stay out of it".

16. I also approached MAC Circle of Elders member Vince Adams (of Woodside Energy) on two occasions seeking to discuss issues of concern, but no time was available to meet with or share with him.

17. I prepared a report outlining numerous deficiencies with the MRAMP science, noting that Woodside had done no significant emissions upgrade work on the Karratha Gas Plant since 2008 and the precautionary principle was being ignored. Calibre management of the SRG Conflict of Interest register was one of many other issues I documented in the MAC Board report. I made recommendations to address the risk issues outlined in the report and was optimistic in a positive response from the MAC Board.

18. At the SOAK Cafe meeting, Mr Hicks initially agreed that the issues should be presented to the MAC board meeting on 25 July 2023.

19. On 23 July 2023, I sent a copy of my report and slide presentation to Mr Hicks and acting CEO Mr McNaught.

20. On 23 July 2023 I had a positive meeting with Woodside Corporate (Karratha) and a planned meeting the same week with Rio Tinto regarding embracing the precautionary principle and industry cooperation. Since my role began, I sought industry expertise to facilitate positive outcomes and to address the strategy shortfalls identified and I received in writing commitments from DWER and Woodside to assist the changes required. (June 15)

21. On 24 July 2023, I received multiple messages via text and phone from Mr McNaught discouraging me from presenting to the board. He assured me he could deal with the matters in the report, he wanted to know the budget I was requesting. I assured him that DWER and Woodside and Rio Tinto were in agreement that funding could be made available to address the issues.

22. On the eve of 24 July 2023, Mr McNaught told me that I must attend a meeting prior to the MAC board meeting at the insistence of Mr Hicks, I enquired as to the purpose of the meeting and this was denied. I attended the meeting (July 25) which was half an hour prior to the board meeting (8.30 am) and was aggressively admonished by Mr Hicks who stated that two industry stakeholders had made complaints about me. Given that I had met with Woodside on 23 July, I assumed it was likely to have been this stakeholder.

23. I was startled by his claim as I had always cordial and positive relations with all stakeholders in my role, and received no complaint or negative feedback until this meeting. I enquired as to who the stakeholders were and what the complaint was and Mr Hicks declined to provide this information.

24. Mr Hicks then told me that until further notice I was to have no contact with any industry stakeholders, but I could continue communications with DWER. Mr Hicks stated that I could still present my report to the board. After the meeting with Mr Hicks and Mr McNaught I left the acting CEO's office and stated that I would present to the board. When I approached the board room door, however, I was physically obstructed by Mr McNaught, who stood between me and the board room door, and moved to block me as I tried to walk around him. Mr McNaught appealed to Mr Hicks who was also in the foyer and then Mr Hicks firmly instructed me not to enter the board room.

25. The Company Secretary witnessed the altercation. She told me she was concerned for my welfare. I had printed and bound copies of my report for the board and asked her if the reports had been received. She stated that she had already been instructed not to include the report in the kit (which was a standard procedure). I understood that this advice was given to her prior to my meeting with Mr Hicks and Mr McNaught.

26. On July 31, I presented my concerns in an email to the WA Government, the Chair of the SRG and the MAC Executive and Chair describing the dilemma I faced, being effectively removed from the SRG. There was no response from any of the recipients.

27. Coinciding with this I discovered that critical minutes of recent government meetings (June MRAMP Quarterly meeting Perth) were incomplete and not inclusive of concerns that I had raised in relation to the lack of scientific data integrity.

28. I also stated that on account of the myriad issues unfolding that the management of the SRG needed to be addressed. Mr McNevin agreed and stated that MAC would need to advise the SRG Chair and the Minister of the Environment WA. This was also missing from the minutes as well as concerns regarding the integrity of the draft Scientific Review of the MRAMP, given data and protocol error issues highlighted to Calibre and Curtin University.

29. A member of the SRG stated and shared documents confirming this was a regular occurrence. I had made email enquiries concerning to Calibre seeking to correct the minutes. I received a voice message from the Calibre Assistant Project Manager Taylor Tufte stating that emails to my MAC email address murujuga.org.au were bouncing back, suggesting she said there was a problem with the MAC server. I was not aware that any other MAC staff were experiencing a similar problem.

30. Without notice to myself Mr McNaught arranged with DWER a solutions meeting to address issues on 4 August 2023, but I was not permitted to contribute to the agenda of the meeting. I emailed my concerns to MAC and the DWER, hoping to contribute my report and concerns. I received no response. I appealed via text and phone calls to Daniel McNevin and Emily Briggs to postpone the meeting and or enable me to play a role in the agenda, they did not respond.

31. On 31 July 2023, I emailed Joy Hillman of the WA Public Service Commission seeking a meeting. There was no response. In March 2023 she had warned the SRG of the risks of conflicts of interest in the SRG and the dire ramifications should this occur.

32. On 2 August 2023, I received an email stating that I was suspended from my role and that I must return all MAC property immediately, and that I was under investigation for my conduct. I was prohibited from returning to the MAC office and instructed to leave the MAC property in Karratha.

33. I believe the claims herein can be substantiated by email, telephone and text message records.

34. Based on the foregoing, Mr Hicks has clearly been in a position to influence the MAC Board in relation to environmental issues affecting the Murujuga rock art, and has done so, by suppressing my report and the issues raised therein,

I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular, and I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of 4 years.

Nigel James Carney

Question agreed to.

I table the documents.