UN envoy intervenes in Woodside gas plant challenge

The UN special rapporteur has waded into legal challenges to Australia's largest oil and gas project. (ABC News: Chris Lewis) A UN special rapporteur has intervened in Australia's decision to extend Woodside's North West Shelf gas project by another 40 years. The submissions by Astrid Puentes Riaño were filed in three Federal Court challenges seeking to overturn the extension. The Federal Court will take the submissions into account when hearings resume in July. Link copiedShareShare articleAustralia did not adequately consider the climate impacts of extending its largest gas project, an independent United Nations expert has told the Federal Court. The special rapporteur for the right to a healthy environment is intervening in three Federal Court challenges brought against Woodside's North West Shelf by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (FARA). In an exclusive interview with the ABC, Astrid Puentes Riaño urged the Australian government to consider reviewing its decision to draw out the project's life span until 2070 and ensure compliance with international law. "We are living a triple planetary crisis, not only climate change, but also biodiversity loss and toxic pollution," she said. Astrid Puentes Riaño says UN special rapporteurs frequently intervene in other courts around the world. (Supplied) Environment Minister Murray Watt granted Woodside a 40-year extension of its Burrup Peninsula facilities in September 2025, imposing 48 conditions to protect nearby Indigenous rock art. He found the project's emissions — the third-highest in Australia — were likely causing irreversible damage to the World Heritage site, Murujuga, home to some of the world's oldest known rock carvings. Conditions were imposed on the extension to preserve Murujuga rock art. (ABC Pilbara: Alistair Bates) But Mr Watt said his ruling, which followed green ticks by the WA government, did not have to consider the project's impact on climate change, as most of the resource would be exported overseas, where it would fall outside of Australia's emissions commitments. Australia joins 140 other countries in passing a major United Nations resolution backing a landmark legal ruling on climate change. Under reforms to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) passed after the North West Shelf decision last year, proponents must disclose their direct emissions, but there is no trigger for denying projects based on climate pollution. "It's a huge piece that is missing when [states] are evaluating projects today," the UN special rapporteur (UNSR) said. As recently as last month, Australia was one of 141 countries to endorse a landmark resolution by the International Court of Justice, which found that states had a legal imperative to consider climate in their environmental impact assessments. Ms Puentes, who took up the UN mandate of a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 2024, said part of her decision to intervene was to make sure that Australia was aligned with what had been clarified under international law. Justice Catherine Button accepted Ms Puentes's submissions as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, last week, marking a first for the Australian Federal Court. Astrid Puentes Riaño says Woodside's North West Shelf should be reconsidered in light of its climate change impact. (Supplied) Lawyers representing the Mexico-based academic told proceedings she could offer special insight into Australia's human rights obligations. "Protecting the environment, protecting the climate system, making sure that access to justice, public participation, access to information is done well is a human right," Ms Puentes said. "This is exactly what the right to a healthy environment is and it is also essential elements for the rule of law, law and democracy." An affidavit outlining Ms Puentes's submissions, obtained by the ABC, claimed Mr Watt misinterpreted the "substantial cause" threshold of the EPBC Act and minimised the North West Shelf's greenhouse gas contributions. "The Minister's reasoning was purely arithmetical," the affidavit said. "It did not consider the specific risk and significant harm that the action would have had, as mandated by international law. "International law supports the construction of 'substantial cause' advanced by the Applicants [ACF and FARA]." Woodside opposed the move and submitted nine pages of written argument rebuking her involvement on "procedural grounds". The on-shore gas processing plant near Karratha. (ABC News: Charlie McLean) "The special rapporteur's application was made independently and not on behalf of the United Nations," a Woodside spokesperson said. "Our position was that the procedural impacts of allowing the UNSR to be joined as amicus curiae would be disproportionate to the assistance the UNSR could be expected to bring to the court. "Our objective is to conduct business in

UN envoy intervenes in Woodside gas plant challenge

Key takeaways

More in international