In October, ACF, represented by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), lodged two challenges against Environment Minister Murray Watt in relation to his assessment and approval of the North West Shelf gas extension.
Court case challenges can be dense and confusing to grapple with. In this blog, we're breaking down what the North West Shelf gas export project is, why these challenges are important and what will happen next.
What is Woodside's North West Shelf extension?
Woodside Energy is Australia's largest oil and gas company and its North West Shelf gas plant, located in Western Australia, accounts for nearly 5% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) LNG exports.
In September 2025, Environment Minister Murray Watt approved an extension for the project to run until 2070. The approval also includes permission for the project to process and export new sources of gas, such as gas from the yet-to-be-approved Browse offshore gas project which poses a huge threat to Scott Reef. While Woodside's proposed Browse offshore gas project hasn't yet got the tick of approval, by granting permission for the North West Shelf plant to process new sources of gas, the Environment Minister is paving the way for a Browse green light and devastating environmental consequences.
The North West Shelf extension is a climate bomb that would spew out a staggering 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution, equal to almost ten times Australia's total annual emissions.
What would this climate pollution mean for people and nature?
We are already living in the era of climate consequences, and our window to avoid the worst to come is rapidly closing. We are seeing devastating fires sweep through Victoria, mass bleaching events at Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef, communities displaced and wildlife pushed to extinction.
Independent Analysis estimates that the North West Shelf extension will cause loss of around 11,000km2 in Arctic sea ice and $268 billion in extreme-heat related damages globally.
We cannot afford more climate pollution. The last thing we need is a green light for billions more tonnes of climate pollution. The approval of the North West Shelf extension is a betrayal of people and nature.
The extension also directly threatens 50,000-year-old sacred rock-art in Murujuga which is already being damaged. This is history, memory and culture for Murujuga Traditional Custodians that cannot be replaced. The Minister acknowledged this damage, but he approved the project anyway.
What are ACF's court challenges against Environment Minister Murray Watt?
Court challenge #1:
ACF is challenging the Environment Minister's refusal to consider the devastating climate change impacts of the North West Shelf extension on a huge range of protected matters - such as World Heritage places and countless threatened species and ecological communities.
In 2019, then Environment Minister Sussan Ley decided that the 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution Woodside's gas expansion would generate did not need to be assessed under Australia's national environment law. In May 2025, Minister Murray Watt affirmed this decision.
Minister Watt was given a chance to change Sussan Ley's decision. He was given hundreds of pages of new information about the consequences of this massive gas expansion for the places and species we love.
He ignored the facts, refused to stand up for nature and backed Sussan Ley's decision.
Court challenge #2:
ACF is also challenging the Environment Minister's decision to approve Woodside's disastrous North West Shelf extension to 2070. ACF will argue that the Minister's approval was legally wrong, pointing to four errors in the Minister's decision which mean the Court should set the approval aside:
The Minister considered something he wasn't allowed to. He justified his decision by including the supposed economic benefits of the Browse gas project at Scott Reef that isn't yet approved. That's a legal misstep.
The approval left out critical details. The Minister gave the green light without knowing what kind of gas the project will process and what pollution it will cause. That's like handing out medicine without checking the ingredients. We argue that the law requires these details to be clear before approval.
The decision was legally unreasonable. The Minister claimed the project's impacts on the Dampier Archipelago's heritage could be managed but didn't have a solid basis for that claim. ACF will argue that this leap of logic makes the decision legally flawed.
Climate change impacts were ignored. The Minister had information about how the project would increase the effects of climate change - but failed to properly consider it. That's a serious oversight, especially given the scale of emissions involved.
Why do we need two separate challenges?
While the two cases are closely linked, they challenge two separate decisions by the Environment Minister:
- The first challenge targets the scope of the Minister's assessment, and in particular the Minister's failure to consider the climate impacts on nature.
- The second challenges the approval of the extension itself. One of the grounds is that, in approving the extension, the Minister failed to properly consider the impacts of climate change.
The Minister's faulty approach to climate change is in issue in both of ACF's challenges. Australia's national environmental law required the Minister to take the climate consequences seriously and not sweep them under the rug.
UN Special Rapporteur to join legal cases
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment has applied to make submissions in ACF's two legal challenges.
In the wake of last year's seismic International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, international law is clear: the Minister's approach to the North West Shelf's contribution to climate harms is inadequate.
The Special Rapporteur, an independent human rights expert, wants the opportunity to address:
Australia's international legal obligations.
The international law context which is relevant to how the court interprets Australia's national environment law (the EPBC Act).
How the international law context should be considered when interpreting the meaning of 'impact' under the EPBC Act.
Whilst ACF welcomes her application, the Court will ultimately decide whether to allow the application in the next few months.
What's next, and what can you do?
Taking on two court challenges isn't easy. Thanks to backing of our community, we're throwing everything we have at this. But this is worth the fight. And we're ready for it. This is one of the largest fossil fuel decisions in Australia's history and we won't back down.
ACF has the opportunity to amend its applications at the end of January. We'll update you if we do.
Last year the Labor Government made significant amendments to Australia's national nature laws. However, the government failed to include climate considerations in the new legislation. The government had an opportunity to embed climate considerations and deliberately chose not to.
This case isn't just about one project. It could set a protective legal precedent: that climate harm must be considered under Australia's national environmental law
Help support our challenges
With two court cases on the go, now's the time for ACF to double down and supercharge our efforts - and we need you with us.
Will you donate today to help us win this fight in court?
Together, we can hold the government to account for making outrageous decisions that harm our future.
