Originally published by Colin Packham of The Australian
02.03.2026
A secret donor has wiped out a $6.5m loan to the Environmental Defenders Office after the activist organisation’s costly Federal Court defeat in which a judge criticised it for coaching witnesses.
The debt forgiveness was disclosed in the EDO’s audited financial statements.
The unsuccessful EDO challenge to Santos’ Northern Territory LNG development was aimed at challenging an approval to the Barossa gas project, which will backfill Darwin LNG.
The Federal Court ordered the EDO to pay more than $9m in legal costs, a ruling that pushed the organisation into deficit.
The Barossa judgment was notable not just for the outcome but for Justice Natalie Charlesworth’s rejection of EDO conduct such as a “cultural mapping” exercise she concluded was “lacking in integrity”. In the aftermath, Santos pursued extensive discovery – running to thousands of pages – as it sought clarity over who stood behind the proceedings.
Ordinarily, the EDO acts as legal representative for the applicant, in this case the Tiwi Islanders, and is not itself liable.
The accounts recorded a loss of more than $8.5m after recognising a $9.04m legal settlement provision. While the EDO rejected suggestions its viability was in doubt, a sustained multimillion-dollar liability would have constrained staffing and appetite for litigation.
Its annual report does not identify the lender that agreed to forgo repayment. There is no explanation of the terms of the arrangement.
The EDO receives government grant funding in addition to private philanthropy. Supporters argue its work strengthens environmental oversight and access to justice. Critics counter that a taxpayer-supported organisation should provide full transparency about its funding.
Australian Energy Producers chief executive Samantha McCulloch said donations should be transparent.
“The EDO’s mysterious $6.5m financial lifeline raises serious questions about who is funding activist lawfare in Australia and what their interests are. It is hypocritical for the EDO to demand transparency from Australian companies while hiding behind ‘commercial-in-confidence’ to shield anonymous donors,” Ms McCulloch said.
“When litigation becomes a tool to influence public policy and put Australia’s energy and economic security at risk, the public has a right to know the interests behind it.”
EDO chief executive Jo Shulman said the legal organisation abides by the law.
“EDO is a registered charity that complies with all the laws and regulations applicable to charities in Australia. We use grants and donations to provide Australian communities with legal advice on Australian environmental laws,” Ms Shulman said. “While the terms of the loan are commercial-in-confidence, it demonstrates that our expertise is highly valued by Australian communities.”
The financial reset comes against the backdrop of another legal setback.
Last month the Federal Court dismissed the long-running climate disclosure challenge brought on behalf of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, in which the EDO acted as lead counsel.
Filed in 2021, the case targeted statements in Santos’ 2020 annual report describing gas as “clean energy” and asserting a credible pathway to net-zero emissions by 2040. After hearings late last year, Justice Brigitte Markovic found the representations were not misleading or deceptive when read in context and ordered costs in Santos’ favour, underscoring the evidentiary hurdles facing greenwashing claims under Australian law.
Taken together, the Barossa and climate disclosure losses amount to a losing streak for the EDO. In Western Australia, Liberal figures have flagged cutting state support if elected, while at the federal level the opposition has pledged to review or withdraw grants following criticism of the EDO’s conduct and priorities.
Justice Charlesworth ruled in Munkara v Santos: “I am satisfied that this aspect of the case does indeed involve ‘confection’ or ‘construction’, at least in part, and that it cannot be an adapted account of the kind discussed by the anthropologists.
“I have also concluded that the exercise created a situation in which the evidence of those Tiwi Islanders who participated in it should now be treated with considerable caution not only with respect to the adaptive Ampiji account, but more generally.”
Ampiji refers to a rainbow serpent or serpents.