Kate Chaney Questions 2070 Approval for Woodside Gas Project: “Not in Our Kids’ Best Interests” (28 May 2025)
Jo Trilling:
And as you've been hearing, the federal government has approved Woodside's North West Shelf operations in the Pilbara until 2070. It is one of the biggest liquefied natural gas plants in the world. Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt released a statement about an hour ago saying he has approved the project, subject to strict conditions. Woodside now has 10 days to respond.
Kate Chaney is the independent federal member for Curtin. Kate, how do you react to the federal government's decision?
Kate Chaney:
Good afternoon, Jo. Look, I would say it's disappointing but not surprising. We haven't yet seen what the conditions are to address the rock art issue, but we have this very big issue that this has been approved under environment laws that don't even take climate change impact into account. So the process and the regulatory framework, I think, is just not fit for purpose for making these really long-term decisions.
Jo Trilling:
This decision was pushed back and delayed. The former Federal Environment Minister pushed the decision back until after the election. What does that say?
Kate Chaney:
Well, I think that the government was probably right in thinking that there would be backlash from this decision. This is the biggest issue that constituents write to me about consistently since I was elected. There's huge concern in my community about the long-term impact of this extension. Gas absolutely has a role to play in transition, and if the government was talking about a shorter term in order to smooth that transition, I think people would understand. Making decisions for 2070, when my kids are going to be grandparents, it's at a different level and we really need to be making sure that those decisions are in the best interest of the whole country.
Jo Trilling:
Would you have been more comfortable with 2050?
Kate Chaney:
Well, definitely a shorter period would have made more sense. I don't know if that's within the scope of the decision-making process under the existing environmental laws, but we're meant to be at net zero by 2050. And this will give Woodside permission to continue emitting greenhouse gases until 20 years after we're meant to get to net zero. So it just doesn't make a lot of sense, I think. And our regulatory framework just isn't fit for purpose. These environmental protection laws were made last century, and no one thinks they're adequate for business or for nature protection. One of the problems with them is that they don't even consider climate impact and the impact of climate change on the environment.
Jo Trilling:
I'm speaking to the independent federal member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, following news that the federal environment minister has given the go-ahead for Woodside's North West Shelf extension.
I've got a statement from Raylene Cooper, the former chair of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, in response to the decision by the federal government. And it simply reads: “See you in court. I'm not on my own. I'm bringing warriors from the Nauru with me.”
We’ve heard even this morning, Kate, that a draft decision from the UN is looking at knocking back Australia's bid to add the Murujuga cultural landscape to the World Heritage List due to degrading rock art. And even on our morning’s programme we heard about scientists' grave concerns about a WA government department interfering with a report into how industry in the Burrup has degraded the rock art. What are your thoughts on that?
Kate Chaney:
Well, there are a lot of issues with this decision. The UNESCO advice really advises the government to prevent any further industrial development near the Murujuga cultural landscape. I haven’t seen what the strict conditions are that the minister says will be imposed, but they will really need to use the best science to prevent future damage. I would suggest that they should also allow review of this decision if more information about damage becomes available, which is another argument for shorter-term approvals, if there is going to be an approval.
There are 40,000-year-old petroglyphs, and if they were anywhere else in the world, I think they'd be protected in a very different way. But they happen to, unfortunately, sit next to a gas processing facility with not much tourism going on. So they're just not treated the same way.
With the report from the state government, the scientific report is the thing that we need to look at—not a government executive summary that selectively picks which lines to put on the graph. The fact that there's even any question about that just shows how sensitive an issue it is and reflects the level of community concern, and the government knowing that this is not going to be well received by all the people who want to see us protect our unique Aboriginal cultural heritage and also make decisions in the best interests of our children and grandchildren, rather than only in the best interest of fossil fuel companies.
Jo Trilling:
What about the jobs that Woodside provides and of course the gas? I mean, on the East Coast, there are concerns about rising power bills and not enough energy supply. And here we do use gas. As we transition, there is always the argument made that we need gas through that process. Can you see a need?
Kate Chaney:
We do need gas in transition. Unfortunately, we haven't solved all the problems that we need to solve. But we've got to remember that the gas from the North West Shelf—80 or 90% of it—is exported. So this argument that we have to extend it for 45 years for domestic consumption purposes just really makes very little sense.
I think we absolutely should be prioritising gas for domestic use, as long as that gas is being used in transition—not replacing renewables or longer-term sources of energy, but replacing other sources like coal that have worse emissions.
In terms of jobs, we have so much potential in WA to expand green industries—green metals, renewable energy, critical minerals—all these things that the world is going to want. There's no one there to argue for protecting those jobs because we've still got to make those jobs. But pretending that gas jobs are the only jobs we're going to have in the energy sector in the next 30 years, I think, is unfortunate.
Jo Trilling:
Kate, thanks for your time this afternoon.
Kate Chaney:
Thanks so much, Jo.
