‘We got there!’: Text messages reveal Woodside’s negotiating tactics

Having spent 16 weeks exchanging more than 130 texts with a senior federal public servant, the Woodside Energy employee expressed relief. “Thanks Rachel!” they wrote on September 12.

“We got there! Touch base next week on EPBC [reforms to federal environment laws]!”

Rachel Parry, then-deputy secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), gave the text a thumbs up.

Text messages released under freedom of information laws reveal that after Environment Minister Murray Watt announced in May he had provisionally approved Woodside extending its North West Shelf operation to 2070, the gas and oil giant embarked on a months-long campaign to secure advantageous terms.

Woodside employees exchanged almost 200 texts with Parry and Kylie Coulhan, an executive in WA’s environmental assessment division, including dozens asking for updates on the timing of the announcement and requests for information about government messaging on the project.

The text messages were obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation under FOI laws and provided to this masthead.

ACF chief executive Adam Bandt said the volume of texts represented “relentless, persistent and at times after-hours communication” to senior bureaucrats.

“What we’re seeing here is a gas giant having unfiltered, casual access – at all hours – to senior departmental officials, who are bending over backwards to respond to demands and requests,” he said.

A Woodside spokesperson said it was wrong to describe what took place as lobbying, pointing to provisions within federal environment laws that require the government to consult on conditions it attaches to environmental approvals processes.

“The Australian Federal Government’s approval of the North West Shelf Extension followed a comprehensive and extended assessment carried out by both Commonwealth and Western Australian State regulators in accordance with statutory processes.”

During one text exchange, Parry told Woodside the department was “working through the issues you’ve raised, and we will come back to you when we have landed a position”.

“If you can just hang tight,” she wrote. “Thanks.”

The Woodside employee replied: “Hi Rachel – I have been hanging tight but I am getting significant pressure from above to know if we have implementable conditions or not. When are we going to know?”

In May last year, Watt said he had imposed strict conditions on his provisional approval of Woodside’s bid to extend its North West Shelf operations in Karratha to 2070.

His department negotiated the terms of those conditions with Woodside until September 6, before Watt announced on September 12 the 48 conditions on which his approval rested.

Woodside was particularly opposed to a condition proposed by the department that it monitor levels of various emissions in real time.

After months of negotiations, Watt announced on September 12 that Woodside would be permitted to implement continuous emission monitoring or predictive emission monitoring of air emissions by June 30, 2030, though Woodside will be required to continuously monitor air emissions in new third-party gas processing.

A spokesman for Watt said the minister was not involved in discussions with Woodside and had accepted the advice and recommendations of his department.

“It is a matter of public record that the decision was varied between the proposed and final decisions. This is normal practice on major project approvals.”

On Saturday, September 6, the Woodside employee, whose name was redacted from the released documents, texted Parry: “Rachel – we are about to send you our response which identifies 3 items of factual correctness which if modified would then constitute a document we can accept.”

On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, the Woodside employee raised the looming announcement and added: “Also, any chance we can see the final conditions as put to the Minister?”

Parry demurred. “Minister will be considering the final decision package so you will see the final condition set when the decision is made. Thanks, Rachel.”

In another message sent to Coulhan, a Woodside employee sought information about what the minister might say publicly on his decision.

“Hi Kylie any feedback on whether your messaging will be reactive or proactive. From minister or DCCEEW and content?”

Coulhan replied: “At this stage I don’t believe it will be proactive. I have told the office that you would like visibility if they were thinking of proactive. Will let you know if I hear anything different.”

Anthony Whealy, KC, a former NSW Court of Appeals judge and chair of the Centre of Public Integrity, reviewed the emails for this masthead.

He said they showed a nurturing of a “disturbingly close relationship between a lobbyist and a senior bureaucrat”.

“This is not a discussion at arm’s length. It gives every impression that this is akin to an intimate conversation between two partners in a joint venture.”

Claire Snyder, executive director of Climate Integrity, said Australians deserved to know that major decisions of significance, like the extension of fossil fuel projects, were being made in the public interest.

“What the messages seem to show is that the government, during the lobbying window, rewrote the conditions of the approval of the North West Shelf in response to the lobbying. So if that’s true, it really does show that the government compromised.”

A spokesman for Watt said it was “vital that departmental officers engage in a professional and courteous manner with all their stakeholders, and that occurred in this instance”.

“Any insinuation that these hardworking public servants had an ‘unusually close relationship’ or that any ‘favours’ were done for the proponent is grossly insulting and completely wrong.”

A spokeswoman for DCCEEW said consultation was “a standard procedural step for all projects that have conditions attached to a proposed approval”.

“Consultations must be undertaken with the proponent on the proposed conditions which would be attached to an approval. When finalising conditions for a project, any comments received on the proposed decision and proposed conditions must be taken into account.

“As this matter is currently before the Federal Court, it is not appropriate to comment further.”

Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.