Election 2025: Doctors for the Environment Australia in bid against WA gas project

The EDO and Doctors for the Environment have lodged an application in the Federal Court against both Woodside and the federal regulator, targeting the WA Scarborough gas project.

The Pluto LNG plant in Karratha, northwest WA. Picture: Woodside Energy

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The taxpayer-funded Environmental Defenders Office has helped lodge an 11th-hour legal challenge to block Woodside’s $16bn Scarborough gas project.

A group called Doctors for the Environment on Wednesday lodged an application in the Federal Court against both Woodside and the federal regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, targeting the Scarborough project.

The Coalition, which has pledged to pull federal taxpayer funding for the EDO, seized on the legal development as Michaelia Cash described it as “another underhanded move by the Albanese government against WA”.

“The Albanese government is enabling environmental lawfare against critical projects in my state through their golden handshake with the EDO,” she said.

“It should never have funded this organisation, and if it had any backbone, the ALP would end this arrangement immediately,” Senator Cash said.

The EDO found itself at the centre of controversy last year after the Federal Court found it had helped garner flawed evidence as part of a legal challenge against the Santos Barossa gas project off the Tiwi Islands.

The court made the extraordinary decision of ordering the EDO to cover the legal costs incurred by Santos. The order left the EDO facing a $9m legal bill.

The EDO is mostly funded through donations from individuals and trusts. The ­ government contributes about $2m a year.

Environmental regulation of the oil and gas industry shapes as one of the most sensitive political areas in the event of a minority Labor government, with both the Greens and teal MPs having taken positions strongly against new and extended oil and gas projects. The next government will need to make a decision on whether to allow Woodside to proceed with its 50-year extension of the North West Shelf LNG project, which has been vehemently opposed by environmentalists.

The Scarborough project already has both state and federal approvals in place and is 82 per cent complete. It is scheduled to produce its first LNG in the ­second half of 2026.

Woodside says the project is expected to generate more than $50bn in indirect and direct taxes and will support up to 3000 jobs during its construction.

Opposition environment spokesman Jonno Duniam said the government had questions to answer about its arrangement with the EDO.

“It is an unbelievable situation when you have the federal government enabling an organisation to reverse federal govern­ment approvals. They must come clean on whether their explicit funding to the EDO is being used to stop this project,” he said.

“Industry must have confidence when it comes to environmental assessments, but this government has made a mockery of this process. They are more interested in gaining Greens votes than overseeing timely and high quality assessments.”

A spokesman for Woodside said the company was looking forward to a swift resolution.

“The Scarborough Energy Project’s Operations Environment Plan was assessed in accordance with the law and Woodside will defend its position during these proceedings,” the spokesman said.

Doctors for the Environment Australia executive director Kate Wylie said the organisation believed NOPSEMA had acted unlawfully by accepting the Woodside application “without fully understanding how the impacts of the Scarborough gas project will be managed”.

“Woodside acknowledges that there is uncertainty about whether gas from the Scarborough

project will displace even dirtier fuels,” Dr Wylie said.

“DEA will contend that Woodside’s proposed controls in this EP are so vague and uncertain that

NOPSEMA did not meet its own tests for whether an EP can be approved.”

She said it was incumbent on civil organisations to hold government agencies accountable when they failed to meet their own legal standards.

“In these circumstances, the least our government can do is to ensure such projects are subjected to thorough scrutiny to ensure proposals meet the legal standards enacted by our parliaments,” she said.