GARY ADSHEAD: Madeleine King is the Federal Resources Minister and joins me now. Thanks very much for your time, Minister.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Oh, great to be here, Gary.

GARY ADSHEAD: Ok, so this guarantees, it appears, the future of the North West Shelf gas industry. Does it guarantee the future of the world's oldest Indigenous rock art?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, what we've seen today from Minister Watt is the proposed decision, and there's, you know, it's still, it's not final. We're going through a process and an orderly process, which is really very important for decision-making in the country. It's something, you know, we've spoken about a lot through the election campaign, how important it is to have that decision-making process done, you know, in a really orderly and sensible fashion. So, what Minister Watt has proposed is strict conditions around the ongoing operation of the North West Shelf, and that does relate to the preservation of the really important rock art there in the Kimberley, so sorry, in the Pilbara. So, it really is a very, you know, important step, the protection of this cultural heritage. And I heard Meg O'Neill just reflect on what the conditions are relating to, and it's about air emissions, and I think Senator Watt said that in his statement as well.

GARY ADSHEAD: Okay. Can I just ask, though it doesn't, it doesn't seem to sit well, a decision like this, with the talk of it being central to the rock arts preservation, with what UNESCO have come back with, ahead of them making a final decision onto whether to World Heritage list Murujuga rock art. I mean, I'll just read it. It's pretty obvious from what they say that they won't commit to any World Heritage listing for this area until there's the total removal of degrading acidic emissions currently impacting, currently impacting upon the petroglyphs of the Murujuga cultural landscape. And they want a prevention of any further industrial development adjacent to and within the Murujuga cultural landscape. It sounds like they want that North West Shelf gas in the industry with it to go before they're prepared to give it heritage listing.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, the decision, or the draft decision, for the World Heritage listing is, of course, disappointing. It's also disappointing that traditional custodians are not consulted or given an opportunity to respond to those proposed recommendations. And that's, you know, despite their strong desire for a World Heritage listing of that area, which we support them in. So, I mean, a UNESCO report and a proposed decision of the Federal Government of the Minister of Australia are quite separate things, even though I do accept, of course, they're relating to the same area and the same cultural heritage. But what Minister Watt had to decide on in his work and his proposed decision was around the impacts of the extension of that life of a plant that's been there for some time on the national heritage values, as well as the economic and social matters concerning that development. So, UNESCO has a whole set of other things it might consider and a different way of doing things, as one would understand a decision-making process that didn't engage in that fashion with the traditional owners. And Minister Watt has a completely different set of processes to go through under Australian law and the EPBC Act, as it stands.

GARY ADSHEAD: A lot's going to be put on the science of this in terms of what Murray Watts' statement has said as well, that the rock art's central to it. Are you concerned, though, that in the last 48 hours, the science has been very muddled?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: I'm sorry Gary, I don't know what you're referring to. There's a lot of --

GARY ADSHEAD: A University of Western Australia, worldly-renowned rock art expert ripped up the executive summary relating to this report that was done by Curtin University and said that it's been written by the government and it's an absolute spin.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: My understanding on that report, and I must confess, this is a WA government matter, it was - from the federal perspective, it was one of the wide resources - many bits of evidence that the department and the Minister has gone through, and this is but one. The gentleman in question is, you know, he can say what he wishes, tear up what he wishes, that is completely up to him, of course. But that report itself was something commissioned by the WA government, and I'm sure they'll step in to defend that as they believe they need to.

GARY ADSHEAD: But that's been part of the consideration for the Federal Environment Minister, hasn't it? That report?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: It is one of many, many, many bits of evidence which is also, you know, contributes to why it has taken some time and you'll recall there's been a lot of discussion about extending this decision making process and that is because of the wide range of scientific, economic and all number of public submissions, all number of parts of evidence that goes in to this submission. So, I think reflecting on one report, whilst that is an important report, doesn't really embody the whole of the decision-making and the depth and the extensiveness of that decision-making before the former Minister and the Minister right now.

GARY ADSHEAD: But Minister, doesn't it raise alarm bells when one of the current lead authors in relation to monitoring the rock art says that a graph was altered in the report that went to the state government, and therefore to Murray Watt, it was actually altered. There was an indicator line removed from it.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, again, Gary, this is a matter for the state government who have commissioned that report --

GARY ADSHEAD: It is, but it's a matter for the Federal Government because a decision's just been made using a lot of that evidence, and we're hearing that there's parts of that that's been removed.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: No, hold on, Gary. What I said is that report is but one of many, many other pieces of evidence, and, you know, it is but one. There's, as everyone has mentioned regularly before this report hit the limelight, with the tearing up of the papers the other day. You know, thousands of pages of evidence have already been through the process of examination, and this is another. But I would add what I understand though, that contesting that accusation, and that's of course a matter for them, and I'm not going to get into that because I haven't seen the original graph myself and I am not a Commissioning Minister, but I think to reflect simply on one report when there is - It's like reflecting on one bit of correspondence you might get in an office like mine, or one text you might get from your listeners as well. We all know there's a, you know, an extraordinary amount of input into these decisions, into these shows, into all the things we do, and to grasp at just one. I don't know if that is productive.

GARY ADSHEAD: I think the point I'm trying to make is that the Premier, certainly in this state, has said that the science is in. But then, on the other hand, one of those lead authors has revealed, and it's come out now through an email that he has said and written to one of the state government departments about this, that a line was removed from a graph which would have dramatically changed the narrative around the report that they provided to both the State and of course, then subsequently to the Federal Minister for his decision making. Is the integrity of this decision in question?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Indeed. No, I don't, not at all. And, you know, it's a condition, it's a proposal that has still got longer to go. We've put up, you know, proposed - sorry, Minister Watt has got a proposed decision. But I would also want to reflect on academic opinions as you've raised them. And I've worked in the university sector for nearly 10 years, and I'm not a professor myself, and I'm not an academic, but I work in the legal office and have some knowledge of how views are contested across the academy, whether it be within one institution or across institutions. Indeed, across the academic world, globally. So, you know, what one professor says, another one could test, and that's kind of the idea of academic studies, right? And so, equally, we see some activist academics, and I want to be very clear, I'm not saying this is the case here, but we saw in other legal cases where another professor has, in fact, themselves brought the whole case into question around these links to Indigenous cultural heritage. So, I think what my point is, you know, everyone has to be pretty considered and thoughtful in this, and you know, that professor has his view and he's welcome to it, and I have no doubt, absolutely guided by decades of work in his chosen profession.

GARY ADSHEAD: There's two, though. There's not just one now. You've got two professors now --

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: That's fine, I get that, I get that. I'm just saying it's contested and - but Gary --

GARY ADSHEAD: Minister, you've got, you've got, you've got a professor now who has written in an email that he was asked to remove something from a graph which goes to the heart of what threat there is to the rock art. He refused to do so. The report comes out, and it's been done for him. That is the integrity of that report is clearly, clearly in trouble.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, the state government that commissioned that report will be the ones that answer to that. It would be --

GARY ADSHEAD: No, but Minister, sorry, I'm going to object to that because the Federal Minister is the one who makes the decision, and it's just been made.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Gary. No, we've just been through this, as I said, and now this will be the third time I've explained to you and your listeners that this is but one report of many thousands of bits of evidence that the Minister --

GARY ADSHEAD: It's the one that the government's relied on in the state, and of course, then sent it to --

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, that is the state, it's different to the federal --

GARY ADSHEAD: So, have you got another one?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: -- it is the state. Well, no, there are thousands of bits of evidence; there's an extraordinary array of evidence in this decision, like there is in most decisions of government, I might add. But I've got to say I'm not the decision maker in this particular decision around the North West Shelf extension of an existing refinery. So, you know, that is Minister Watts' world to go through that with his department. But this report, which is the focus today, is one piece of evidence, and there are many, many others. And I'm not saying those others are the same or contradictory because I don't know them all, right? Because I'm not the decision maker. That is for the Minister Watt and his department. But I think it is really a matter for the state who committed it. And the accusations are not -- they're being thrown at the state government, and I think they should have the chance to say what they think about these accusations. That would be fair in the circumstances.

GARY ADSHEAD: All right. Now, in the meantime, though, it means that Woodside can continue its activities up there. Of course, there will be strict conditions. We don't know what they are at this stage, but it could continue now till 2070. Why is that so important to Western Australia?

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: Well, we expect, and the Western Australian economy will need gas to continue its industry, just like the rest of the country as well. We are minimising the use of gas. The state government is very clear on its work and trajectory towards its own net-zero goals, as well as investing in renewables and batteries, and the Federal Government is backing them on this. But there are certain parts of our industrial landscape that will require gas for some time. It might not be right up to 2070, but it will certainly be for some time, and that's around the processing of minerals. Indeed, the greatest growth in the use of gas is in the minerals processing industry. And of course, we need those minerals to create more green technology to enable that decarbonisation process. So, none of this can happen overnight, and you know, it can't happen from wishful thinking. It has to take time and effort. We have introduced a safeguard mechanism to ensure emissions are brought down by industries such as the gas industry, and that is having an effect. And, you know, after the 10 years the former government did nothing, I'm really proud of the Labor Government that has put in these goals, has put in actual laws to make sure industry does reduce its emissions to actually have an effect. But we will need that gas to be able to build our future of green energy technologies also, as well, of course, for very important national security applications.

GARY ADSHEAD: Minister, thank you very much for making yourself available. Appreciate it.

MINISTER MADELEINE KING: No, thank you, Gary. See you next time.