UN interference unwelcome over WA’s North West Shelf gas project

by Senator Slade Brockman – originally published in The West Australian on 19 November 2025

In recent weeks, a United Nations Special Rapporteur has sought to intervene in Australian litigation over WA’s North West Shelf gas project.

To some, this may appear technical or even benign — an expert offering insight on environmental and human rights issues. But the implications are much deeper.

Allowing UN officials to influence domestic court proceedings strikes at a fundamental principle of sovereignty and democratic self-government: Australia must decide Australian matters.

The application to be a “friend of the court,” the first of its kind in Australian legal history, should be rejected. The issue is not whether one supports gas development or opposes it. I personally am a strong supporter of this industry and the key role it will play in our energy future.

Reasonable people have strongly held views all sides. However, the issue we must confront is the fundamental importance of national sovereignty, accountability, and the proper role of our courts in a democratic nation.

UN Special Rapporteurs are not neutral judicial authorities. They are independent individuals appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, not judges, and certainly not democratically accountable to the Australian people.

Their reports, public comments, and interventions often reflect political positions rather than an objective view or one based on judicial restraint.

Their mandate encourages narrow, ideological interpretations, not careful engagement with the specifics of domestic law. That may be appropriate within the UN system. But it is precisely the opposite of what we expect in an Australian courtroom.

Our courts are guided by legislation passed by elected representatives and by common law precedent shaped by Australian judges.

They are not designed to be receptacles for international activism. Once we open the door to external “friends of the court” from UN bodies, where does it stop?

Will every major infrastructure project become a platform for international interventions? Will Australia’s environmental, economic, and heritage policies be adjudicated not just in Canberra or Perth, but in Geneva and New York?

Permitting a UN rapporteur to influence a domestic case risks undermining the clarity of Australian statutory interpretation. The central question before the court is how to interpret the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

That is a question grounded in Australian legislative intent, Australian legal principles, and Australian democratic choices.

International law can be considered when Parliament chooses to incorporate it. But Parliament has not invited UN officials into the courtroom. Allowing them to participate indirectly rewrites our constitutional structure by potentially privileging external viewpoints over domestic ones.

Judges can — and do — examine both Australia’s treaty obligations and, in some cases, foreign case law without needing a UN rapporteur to advocate for how it should be interpreted. The presence of a special rapporteur adds political messaging, not legal necessity.

This intervention risks distorting public debate by elevating international opinions above domestic democratic deliberation. The future of Australia’s energy sector — particularly gas — is a matter of profound national importance. It affects jobs, export revenue, regional development, energy security, national security, international relationships, and our role in global markets. These are decisions that the Australian public grapples with through elections, parliamentary debate, and community consultation. They should not be pre-empted or reframed by international actors who bear none of the consequences of their recommendations.

Allowing the intervention could set a troubling precedent for judicial overreach in the name of international norms. Courts would be pressured to treat non-binding UN commentary as authoritative, potentially expanding domestic obligations beyond what Parliament enacted. This is particularly problematic in areas as politically charged as energy policy and future development.

The more international bodies influence court decisions, the more Australia’s elected branches lose their capacity to design policies that reflect national priorities, regional realities, and democratic mandates.

Finally, there is the issue of public trust. Australians expect courts to be impartial arbiters, insulated from both corporate lobbying and ideological pressure. International interventions muddy that perception.

They fuel cynicism that environmental cases are becoming battlegrounds for global advocacy groups rather than forums for applying Australian law to Australian facts. Judicial authority rests on public confidence. Foreign involvement risks weakening it.

Australia cannot allow external actors to shape our domestic legal processes. The appropriate venue for UN rapporteurs to make their case is through public reports, diplomatic channels, or submissions to government — not inside the courtroom influencing judicial interpretation.

Ultimately, the question is simple: Who should decide Australian energy policy and the future of key developments of an essential commodity such as gas?

The answer must be the only group with democratic legitimacy to do so — the Australian people, through their elected institutions and their independent courts.