Looking over the senate hansard from yesterday (yes, I know) I see that Greens leader Larissa Waters asked environment minister Murray Watt about his gas approvals:

My question is to the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Peter Dutton promised to approve Woodside’s mega gas plant in the Burrup Peninsula within 30 days of the election. Not to be outdone in delivering for major political donor Woodside, the Labor government gave draft approval in just 15 days, conditionally approving a carbon bomb that emits more than all of the coal-fired power stations in Australia all the way out to 2070. Minister, will you cancel the conditional approval?

Watt:

I congratulate you on your election as Leader of the Australian Greens. I do look forward to you delivering on your commitment to work more constructively with the government in this term. I very much welcome those remarks you made. I assume the Greens heard the message of the last election—that is, being obstructive to progress on environmental matters is not the route to electoral success.

On the question you’ve asked, Senator Waters, as you say I have made a proposed decision to approve an extension to the existing onshore Karratha gas-processing plant on the Burrup Peninsula, made subject to strict conditions (which the government have not released. So no one knows what these ‘strict’ conditions are)

It hasn’t suited the Greens’ narrative around this topic, but the decision that I was required to make under the act related to the potential impact of that project on the incredible 50,000-year-old Indigenous rock art present on the peninsula.

What I said in the statement I issued on the day of my proposed decision was that the strict conditions that I had applied to the proposed decision (which have been kept secret) are particularly related to air emission levels and their potential impact on the rock art. The Greens have tried to conflate the issue of climate change with this decision, which was about the potential impact of this project on the rock art. (It’s all connected though isn’t it?)

The conditions that I have applied to the proposed decision are all geared towards the potential impact of this project on the rock art, and that impact has been central to my decision.

One other thing that the Greens have not wanted to acknowledge as it relates to this project and my proposed decision is that the government, in its first term, legislated the safeguard mechanism and strengthened the safeguard mechanism. I might point out that the Greens voted for those changes, so the Greens were comfortable with the safeguard mechanism, which requires this project to reduce its emissions by five per cent a year and become net zero by 2050