Kate Chaney Criticises Woodside Gas Extension in WA on ABC's Afternoon Briefing: “Outdated Laws, Oversized Impact” (29 May 2025)
PK:
Teal independent for the seat of Curtin in WA Kate Chaney said before the election she wasn't opposed to extending the life of the North West Shelf if the decision met certain conditions. It's a big issue, of course, where she is and to the people she represents. And she joins me now. Welcome to the programme.
Kate Chaney:
Thanks very much, Patricia.
PK:
You said before the election that you weren't opposed to the extension of the North West Shelf, but there needed to be conditions. So just talk to me about the decision that's been made by Murray. Do they meet those conditions?
Kate Chaney:
Yeah, well, what I said was, like any project, it should go ahead if it stacks up when it takes into account environmental, cultural issues and climate impact. Now, this has not taken into account climate impact. This is an approval that's gone through the EPBC Act which is not fit for purpose. It's law that was written last century and business and environmental groups have both said it's not fit for purpose. And I think one of the problems with it is it completely ignores climate impact. You know, this is a project that is being approved through to 2070, when my kids will be grandparents. And I just don't buy that this is a necessary decision to make now, given what we know about the climate impact of the project.
PK:
OK, so to be clear, you're opposed to this decision?
Kate Chaney:
That's right. And what we need is a regulatory framework that allows governments to decide what is in the best interest of the country, all the factors, including climate change. This has a huge climate change impact. The emissions from the gas that will go through this processing facility over its life are the equivalent to 10 times our current annual emissions from all sources in Australia. So the scale of it is huge. We're not talking about something that's necessary for a smooth transition over the next 5, 10, 15 years. We're talking about approving something for 40, 45 years until 20 years after we're meant to have hit net zero.
PK:
So on what basis should the Environment Minister Murray Watt have rejected this then?
Kate Chaney:
Well, this is the challenge. The problem is with the laws. He was only looking at the environmental and the cultural heritage issues, and I think that there are still some outstanding issues there. But we don't have a regulatory framework that allows the government to take into account the climate change impact. And that's the fundamental problem is we need to get the regulatory environment right. And then some projects might go through and others won't. It depends if they stack up. But when we're having to make decisions under these flawed laws, we're not going to be making the best interest for the country, the best decisions for the country.
PK:
OK, so there are conditions. We don't know all of the detail, but some of the conditions in relation to this extension, particularly, and its impact on the rock art. Are you satisfied that those are enough?
Kate Chaney:
Well, I haven't seen them yet so it's very, very hard to say if they're enough. If it is possible to, you know, I would love to see the rock art protected. I think it's really important for Australia and the world. So I'm very curious to see what those conditions are. One way of dealing with this under those conditions would be to make a shorter-term approval while we're still getting more information about that damage. But we really have to wait and see what those conditions are.
PK:
The Prime Minister said that... of course, coal's shutting down in WA and made that case. You talked about Collie shutting down in 2027 and that this is needed as a firming fuel. Do you support... Do you concede the point he makes, rather?
Kate Chaney:
Well, we do need gas in transition and we haven't solved all the problems we need to yet. But 90% of the gas that goes through the Northwest Shelf is either used to turn that gas into LNG for export or is actually exported. So only about 10% of the gas actually comes to the domestic market. So I think it's a little bit rich to say we need this in order to protect the domestic gas market. If anything, this approves emissions for gas to export that could create additional demand that could increase the price of domestic gas supply because domestic gas will be maybe competing with export gas for export. So it's not clear that we don't need this for transition. If they were talking about extending it for five or 10 years, I'd be open to that. We need it to be a smooth transition, but we need to use as little gas as possible for as short a time as possible, not for another 45 years.
PK:
So the timeframe you've got trouble with, you think they shouldn't be supporting this beyond what you said, five, 10 years?
Kate Chaney:
Well, I don't know exactly what that number is, but I think that's the discussion we should be having. We need a smooth transition and it may be that ending right on 2030, we're not ready at that point. So let's talk about if that is the case, how short a time we can extend the life of this to ensure that we have a smooth, smooth transition. That unfortunately is not the conversation that we're having. And I think a big part of that is that climate change impact is not taken into account at all when deciding whether to approve the extension of this facility.
PK:
Yeah, in terms of the way you explain the economics of this, I mean, isn't more gas always going to make prices cheaper? Isn't it... Like, you need... You know, it's a supply and demand thing, right? If you've got more, it will put a downward pressure on prices.
Kate Chaney:
Well, I guess it depends how this gas is being used. So, if this facility is processing gas for export, into that processing facility. Now, right now, Browse or other sources for future gas have not been approved. So the gas that's currently being pumped through this facility is running out and new sources haven't been approved. So approving the emissions and the processing facility without knowing where that gas is coming from may be that that's creating price pressure on domestic gas if that's allowed to be exported. The other factor on that with the economics is if we make gas cheaper, if there's going to be a glut of gas and gas all the way through to 2070, that starts to change the economics of renewables too. So we have to make sure that by approving additional gas, we're not actually making it harder to make that transition.
PK:
Right. Just to be clear, you're saying that because of this extension, you think that it'll be harder for renewables to compete?
Kate Chaney:
Well, potentially going into the future, but it depends on how the economics play out. But the main thing is we have to use as little gas as possible for as short a time as possible. And 45 years is not consistent with that. We have to hit net zero by 2050. We've made that commitment to the world. And if projects are only stacking up, if they need that approval through to 2070, those projects shouldn't go ahead.
PK:
Obviously, there's a lot of politics in all of this. And WA is a big resources state. You're taking a pretty strong line on this in this interview. Do you accept that, you know, in your state, that is not the sort of majority view?
Kate Chaney:
Well, this is the issue that I've had more correspondence on than any other issue since I was elected. People deeply concerned about the North West Shelf going ahead and gas expansion. So I think it's overly simplistic to think Western Australia has one view. There are people who work in the gas industry who recognise that we need to have a transition. Potential for Western Australia through renewables and green industry. And we need to shift our focus to that so we have the jobs of the future, not jobs that we know will decline over time. So, you know, I hear a lot from my community about this. There's a lot of concern at the moment about this decision. And I'm representing those views that I hear in my community.
PK:
Kate Chaney, just finally, while we've been on air, One Nation has claimed a Senate spot in your state of Western Australia—Tyron Whisson claiming that last spot in the state. I'd just like to get your response to that because that is some, well at least One Nation is claiming it, of course we'll verify with the AEC.
Kate Chaney:
Well that's news to me. I haven't heard of him or met him. One of the things about our parliament is that it does represent all different interests from across the country and we have to put our heads together and make decisions about the future of the country and I'm very keen on that process and I think we can do that and the more voices that we have there that are better able to speak freely representing their communities the more robust our democracy is.
PK:
Thanks for your time.
Kate Chaney:
Thanks very much Patricia.
