Environmentalists launch suit to quash North West Shelf approval
A rock art preservation group backed by the Holmes à Court family matriarch has launched a Supreme Court challenge to overturn the Western Australian government's approval of gas giant Woodside's plans to extend the life of its North West Shelf operation.
Court documents obtained by The Australian Financial Review show that Friends of Australian Rock Art Inc filed an application for judicial review of the decision on Thursday, the last day of a six-month period allowing an appeal of the ruling.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Australia an energy target as Iran-Israeli war triggers global turmoil
'In the worst-case scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz is closed, it will affect both global LNG and oil markets by up to 20 per cent of their respective annual consumption,' Citi energy analysts said this week. 'Global LNG markets will be more vulnerable than oil to further escalation of Middle East tensions.' These Middle East petro states may be underpinned by oil sales, but LNG gives them much-needed diversification. And LNG assets far away from the region give them pricing and supply upside from any energy price spikes triggered by these conflicts and any related supply shocks. Santos could not be more tempting from a strategic point of view. It would give XRG a business far from the drama of the Middle East thanks to its assets in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Alaska and close to Santos' coveted Asian customers, which have a fast-growing appetite for LNG. And what would the Santos suitors make of Australia's comical industry, where operators get a lot of their gas royalty-free from Australians and then make a fortune selling it back to them as global prices surge? Santos is not the only local energy giant making a splash among the oil giants. Loading Woodside Petroleum boss Meg O'Neill was part of the Trump entourage on his recent trip through the Middle East. She signed up Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil and gas producer, as a partner for Woodside's US projects. She was almost the only female in a group photo with Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. She was quoted in the official White House press release. 'Woodside and Aramco will explore global opportunities, including Aramco's potential acquisition of an equity interest in an LNG offtake from the Louisiana LNG project as well as exploring opportunities for a potential collaboration in lower-carbon ammonia,' she said. 'Lower-carbon' is the other major reason why these petro states are now pouring more money into LNG developments than oil. Loading Even the petro states realise LNG will have a longer shelf life than oil as the alleged 'transition fuel' to a green energy future. China's total crude oil consumption dropped last year and developing nations are expected to follow as they adopt the flood of cheap EVs China is churning out. But the future of the Santos bid is as uncertain as the outcome of the Israel/Iran conflict. The XRG consortium is conducting due diligence, and as both sides are cautioning, there is no certainty that a formal offer will emerge. Loading More importantly, there are many regulatory hurdles, including government approval if a concrete offer does emerge for what is a critical piece of Australian infrastructure. The issue of domestic gas reservation, to prevent taxpayers and local businesses from getting screwed by companies supplying Australia its own gas, will be an interesting part of any takeover negotiations, especially since Santos already supplies gas domestically. The fact that Santos is trading at something close to a $5 billion discount to the $30 billion cash being offered for its shares tells you plenty about how cautious the market is about the potential success of this deal.
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Is this Gentle Jim's JFK moment? If it is, he's overlooked one thing
The request for reporters' self-restraint? He asked that the media abandon a standard form of questioning which he called the 'rule-in-rule-out game'. This happens when a minister is thought to be considering a particular policy and before the minister has had a chance to develop the policy or test it with the cabinet colleagues. An interviewer will ask the health minister, for instance: 'Are you going to put a tax on the sugar content of processed foods?' The minister, who has a background in metallurgy and a weekend interest in ferret racing, hasn't decided yet so she says she has no such plan in mind. 'So will you rule it out?' The minister feels pressure to give a premature commitment or a panicked rejection. The journalist is merely trying to get a story. A clear yes or no. But, as Chalmers said, 'limiting ourselves to ruling things in or out forever has a cancerous effect on policy debates'. And the plea to the privileged and powerful to put self-interest aside? 'Too often, the loudest calls for economic reform in the abstract come from the noisiest opponents of actual reform in the specific.' For example, everyone agrees that tax reform is important. But if a government devises a tax reform plan that would be good for the nation overall yet require some contribution from the powerful, woe betide it. It will be furiously opposed by every premier whose state might receive a dollar less, by any industry whose companies might pay a dollar more, and any section of the wealth-management class whose tax advantages might retreat by one cent in the dollar. A case in point. The Australian newspaper and The Australian Financial Review for years have issued stentorian demands that Labor do more to balance the budget. Yet when Chalmers proposed a reduction in the tax concession for earnings on superannuation balances over $3 million, the papers led a hysterical campaign against the change. Even though it would raise $2.3 billion a year. And the only people contributing would still be hanging onto a substantial tax concession plus their $3 million or more. Loading Through sheer hyperventilation, these supposedly serious newspapers managed to mobilise much of the country's media in a witless defence of the exorbitant tax privileges of just 80,000 of the richest people in the world. Of these, incidentally, 30 have super balances of $100 million or more. This is no longer a retirement savings vehicle; for the rich, it's a tax shelter. The screams of entitled rage against this proposed change, a minimalist piece of housekeeping, are nauseating. The median Australian worker has a super balance under $100,000. Asking the powerful and the privileged to set self-interest aside will be the hardest part of Chalmers' experiment, and probably impossible. The opposition says it will work constructively with the government, but ultimately will oppose. Is it any surprise that Chalmers wants to test the waters before he takes the plunge? 'Let's see what we can do together if we reset and renew the national reform conversation,' he said at the Press Club. 'I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit.' He promised that any proposals would be approached from the political centre, with no ideological tests applied. 'The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we'll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.' Loading The Albanese government routinely is described as timid. Chalmers dismissed that criticism by reciting dozens of policy actions in progress. He did reinforce Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's emphasis that the government's priority is to deliver on its election promises. But then Chalmers broke new ground: 'Delivering our commitments,' he said 'is the best place to start – but it's not the limit of our ambitions. They're a foundation not a destination.' And he offered this trade-off: 'Let's see what we can achieve together if we dial up the ambition a bit and dial down the rancour a bit as well.' With those two requests for self-restraint, Chalmers also has given himself two easy outs. If the media insists on playing the rule-in-rule-out game, he can shut down an interview or reject a line of questioning. If lobby groups or industry associations simply make self-interested demands, he can shrug and walk away from the entire exercise. Is this really leadership? Is this actually 'visionary'? Or is this a feeble feeler that will retract into defeat at the first real resistance? Paul Keating jolted the country out of its customary torpor by warning that Australia was going to become a 'banana republic' if it failed to mend its way. The Hawke-Keating reform era began. Loading Chalmers, too, issued warnings. 'Our budget is stronger, but not yet sustainable enough. Our economy is growing, but not productive enough. It's resilient, but not resilient enough – in the face of all this global economic volatility.' He's seeking ideas for policies that will contribute to solving this ménage à trois of mediocrity. Gentle Jim's earnest anxiety doesn't compare with Old Testament Prophet Paul's 1986 apocalyptic vision. What makes Chalmers think that Australians are prepared to shake off our traditional national enemy – complacency – long enough to take risks and make sacrifices? Trump, in a word. As the election demonstrated, the country is uneasy with the US descent into angry chaos. So are many Americans. Barack Obama made a rare public intervention this week to warn that America was approaching autocracy. Public officeholders need to honour their vows to protect the constitution, said the former president: 'And when that isn't happening we start drifting into something that is not consistent with American democracy. It is consistent with autocracies. It is consistent with Hungary under Orban. We're not there yet completely, but I think that we are dangerously close to normalising behaviour like that. And we need people both outside government and inside government saying, 'Let's not go over that cliff, because it's hard to recover'.' This is the 'banana republic' shock of our time. As Chalmers said: 'So much of the democratic world is vulnerable because governments are not always meeting the aspirations of working people. We have a responsibility here and an obligation. A responsibility to rebuild confidence in liberal democratic politics and economic institutions – by lifting living standards for working people in particular.' In essence, the treasurer is asking us to be more than ourselves. He's testing our patriotism. 'And if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus. We have everything we need but that.'
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Is this Gentle Jim's JFK moment? If it is, he's overlooked one thing
The request for reporters' self-restraint? He asked that the media abandon a standard form of questioning which he called the 'rule-in-rule-out game'. This happens when a minister is thought to be considering a particular policy and before the minister has had a chance to develop the policy or test it with the cabinet colleagues. An interviewer will ask the health minister, for instance: 'Are you going to put a tax on the sugar content of processed foods?' The minister, who has a background in metallurgy and a weekend interest in ferret racing, hasn't decided yet so she says she has no such plan in mind. 'So will you rule it out?' The minister feels pressure to give a premature commitment or a panicked rejection. The journalist is merely trying to get a story. A clear yes or no. But, as Chalmers said, 'limiting ourselves to ruling things in or out forever has a cancerous effect on policy debates'. And the plea to the privileged and powerful to put self-interest aside? 'Too often, the loudest calls for economic reform in the abstract come from the noisiest opponents of actual reform in the specific.' For example, everyone agrees that tax reform is important. But if a government devises a tax reform plan that would be good for the nation overall yet require some contribution from the powerful, woe betide it. It will be furiously opposed by every premier whose state might receive a dollar less, by any industry whose companies might pay a dollar more, and any section of the wealth-management class whose tax advantages might retreat by one cent in the dollar. A case in point. The Australian newspaper and The Australian Financial Review for years have issued stentorian demands that Labor do more to balance the budget. Yet when Chalmers proposed a reduction in the tax concession for earnings on superannuation balances over $3 million, the papers led a hysterical campaign against the change. Even though it would raise $2.3 billion a year. And the only people contributing would still be hanging onto a substantial tax concession plus their $3 million or more. Loading Through sheer hyperventilation, these supposedly serious newspapers managed to mobilise much of the country's media in a witless defence of the exorbitant tax privileges of just 80,000 of the richest people in the world. Of these, incidentally, 30 have super balances of $100 million or more. This is no longer a retirement savings vehicle; for the rich, it's a tax shelter. The screams of entitled rage against this proposed change, a minimalist piece of housekeeping, are nauseating. The median Australian worker has a super balance under $100,000. Asking the powerful and the privileged to set self-interest aside will be the hardest part of Chalmers' experiment, and probably impossible. The opposition says it will work constructively with the government, but ultimately will oppose. Is it any surprise that Chalmers wants to test the waters before he takes the plunge? 'Let's see what we can do together if we reset and renew the national reform conversation,' he said at the Press Club. 'I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit.' He promised that any proposals would be approached from the political centre, with no ideological tests applied. 'The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we'll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.' Loading The Albanese government routinely is described as timid. Chalmers dismissed that criticism by reciting dozens of policy actions in progress. He did reinforce Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's emphasis that the government's priority is to deliver on its election promises. But then Chalmers broke new ground: 'Delivering our commitments,' he said 'is the best place to start – but it's not the limit of our ambitions. They're a foundation not a destination.' And he offered this trade-off: 'Let's see what we can achieve together if we dial up the ambition a bit and dial down the rancour a bit as well.' With those two requests for self-restraint, Chalmers also has given himself two easy outs. If the media insists on playing the rule-in-rule-out game, he can shut down an interview or reject a line of questioning. If lobby groups or industry associations simply make self-interested demands, he can shrug and walk away from the entire exercise. Is this really leadership? Is this actually 'visionary'? Or is this a feeble feeler that will retract into defeat at the first real resistance? Paul Keating jolted the country out of its customary torpor by warning that Australia was going to become a 'banana republic' if it failed to mend its way. The Hawke-Keating reform era began. Loading Chalmers, too, issued warnings. 'Our budget is stronger, but not yet sustainable enough. Our economy is growing, but not productive enough. It's resilient, but not resilient enough – in the face of all this global economic volatility.' He's seeking ideas for policies that will contribute to solving this ménage à trois of mediocrity. Gentle Jim's earnest anxiety doesn't compare with Old Testament Prophet Paul's 1986 apocalyptic vision. What makes Chalmers think that Australians are prepared to shake off our traditional national enemy – complacency – long enough to take risks and make sacrifices? Trump, in a word. As the election demonstrated, the country is uneasy with the US descent into angry chaos. So are many Americans. Barack Obama made a rare public intervention this week to warn that America was approaching autocracy. Public officeholders need to honour their vows to protect the constitution, said the former president: 'And when that isn't happening we start drifting into something that is not consistent with American democracy. It is consistent with autocracies. It is consistent with Hungary under Orban. We're not there yet completely, but I think that we are dangerously close to normalising behaviour like that. And we need people both outside government and inside government saying, 'Let's not go over that cliff, because it's hard to recover'.' This is the 'banana republic' shock of our time. As Chalmers said: 'So much of the democratic world is vulnerable because governments are not always meeting the aspirations of working people. We have a responsibility here and an obligation. A responsibility to rebuild confidence in liberal democratic politics and economic institutions – by lifting living standards for working people in particular.' In essence, the treasurer is asking us to be more than ourselves. He's testing our patriotism. 'And if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus. We have everything we need but that.'
