Doorstop, Parliament House

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Thanks for coming. Very pleased to report that we're continuing to have constructive negotiations with both the Coalition and the Greens, despite what they might be briefing out. I've been in discussion again today with representatives of both the Coalition and the Greens to try to seek a deal to pass these important reforms. You'll be aware that we've provided amendments to both the Coalition and the Greens to address some of their concerns, and that demonstrates that we are willing to move. But, as I've always made clear, we want to make sure that the laws that we pass this week do deliver gains for both the environment and for business. It can't be one or the other. We want a balanced package, and that's what we'll be doing this week.

JOURNALIST: Which version do you like, the one you've constructed with the Greens or the one you've constructed with the Coalition?

MURRAY WATT: Well, I don't have a personal preference as to which party we negotiate this with. We've always said that we're open to passing the laws with either the Coalition or the Greens. Now, of course, the sort of amendments the Coalition is seeking are more what you might think of as pro-business amendments. And of course, what the Greens are seeking is more pro-environment amendments. But what I keep saying to each of them is that it can't be one or the other. At the end of this negotiation, we will be able to point to very real gains for both the environment and for business, and it has to stay that way.

JOURNALIST: To strike a deal with the Coalition, and the Coalition is the party of government, or parties of government, surely, that's preferable, given its more certainty to environment and business?

MURRAY WATT: I've said previously that there are benefits from the major parties of government working together to pass these laws. But frankly, you've got to have an alternative negotiating partner in the Coalition who's up to doing a deal. I mean, we've reached the point now where I've got multiple people from the Coalition coming to me claiming to be their negotiator. Every time I have a meeting with them, and they tell me it's the final list of amendments, I get sent some more. They've got to get their house in order. I mean, this is not a group assignment at university or at school where you've got multiple people contributing. They've got to come to one position and stick to it. Otherwise, it's impossible to do a deal with them. But having said that, I am open to doing a deal with them, they just need to be clear on what their position is.

JOURNALIST: Are you willing to budge on the definition of unacceptable impacts? This is clearly a fairly significant red line for the Coalition.

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, look again, I've said a number of times now over the last few weeks that I recognise this is an issue the Coalition have, and some business groups have, and that I am open to making some amendments to that. But having said that, it can't be degraded so much that it ends up being meaningless. For those who haven't been following this so closely, what this is about is saying very clearly in the law the kind of projects that have an unacceptable impact on the environment, and therefore should get a quick “no.” I mean, obviously there's an environmental benefit in that, but it also gives business the quick “no” that they're looking for as well. So, we are open to making some changes to that, but not so much that it ends up being meaningless and not stopping even the most egregious projects from happening.

JOURNALIST: The Greens are asking why it has to happen this week, why can't you work over summer to get this finalised? Why have you got this deadline of this week?

MURRAY WATT: Well, I would have thought the Greens party of all parties would know that every day we delay, we see our natural environment go backwards. I mean, as you've heard me say a number of times, Graeme Samuel delivered his blueprint for reform five years ago, and over those five years, the environment has been going backwards, we've seen important projects like housing and renewables held up in red tape. We've got to get moving on this. Now, sure, we can just sit around, spin wheels, drag this out for another few months or another couple of years, but that'll just see the environment go backwards, and housing and renewables not delivered. We've got to get on with this. I mean, the Australian people elected us to deliver a better environment, to deliver housing, to deliver renewables. They didn't elect us to come in here for endless sessions of sitting around gas bagging and talking. They want action, and we're determined to make that happen.

JOURNALIST: You've said multiple Coalition members have tried to negotiate with you. How many is multiple?

MURRAY WATT: It's more than two. I'm not going to give names, but it's more than two –

JOURNALIST: Frontbenchers?

MURRAY WATT: More than two frontbenchers over the last few weeks have come to meet with me, setting out what they want. So, you can imagine that makes it a little bit difficult.

JOURNALIST: Was Jonno Duniam one of them?

MURRAY WATT: I’m not going to give names.

JOURNALIST: Are you effectively negotiating with two parties of Coalition at this stage?

MURRAY WATT: It certainly feels that way, because you will have seen that while on the one hand, I have members of the Liberal Party telling me that they are very keen to work with us and pass these reforms. You see Bridget McKenzie, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, going out there in the media and saying they want to push it off to next year, and that she'll be lobbying Sussan Ley to that effect. So again, the Coalition have actually got to decide, do they want to be part of doing a deal that delivers big improvements for business in terms of getting approvals, or do they want to sit by and cry and moan while we do a deal with the Greens? The ball's in their court.

JOURNALIST: Minister Watt on the three-year timeline for wrapping up the native forestry industry in the environmental standards? Are you open to shortening that timeline so that’s shorter than three years?

MURRAY WATT: So just to be really clear, and you may not have meant it this way, but we are not going to be shutting down native forestry. So, when you say wrapping up native forestry, I don't want there to be any doubt we’re not – you mean including them?

JOURNALIST: Yeah, just complying them with the standards.  

MURRAY WATT: Yes. So, look, the Greens have certainly asked us to reduce that timeframe, we have not agreed to that at this point in time. We do think it's important to have sufficient time to be able to do this in an orderly manner if we do that. So, that's all subject to us actually coming to a deal with the Greens anyway. If we do a deal with the Coalition, then we may not be looking at that kind of thing in any way. But yeah, they are certainly seeking a shorter timeframe.

JOURNALIST: Would a two-year time frame be sufficient in your view?

MURRAY WATT: I don't want to get into nominating what would be a sufficient timeframe in terms of months or years.

JOURNALIST: Why not?

MURRAY WATT: [Laughs] Well, you know, we're having lots of good discussions about these points. But as I say, I recognise that it’s important that any change to any industry has to be done in an orderly manner. And as I say, far from shutting down native forestry, as some people will suggest this is about, this is about actually ensuring a longer-term future for the forestry sector and the jobs that it involves. Again, just a quick education point for those who aren't across this level of detail. Under the current law, native forestry is completely exempt from assessment or approval under the EPBC law as it stands. One of the things Graeme Samuel recommended was that the national environmental standards should be applied to native forestry in the same way they apply to mining, to housing development, to renewables and other industries. So that's the kind of thing that we're looking at, that the Greens have put to us. But, as I say, helping this industry demonstrate that it has very high environmental standards, I think, is actually a vote of confidence in the industry for its future.

JOURNALIST: Are you willing to negotiate on further protections of not just native forestry, other types of forestry, land clearing, is this all in play?

MURRAY WATT: I think you're pretty familiar with the kind of things the Greens are asking for, and they include those sorts of things and other things. We won't be agreeing to everything the Greens are asking for. We've already made that clear to them. For example, they want to shut down the native forestry sector, we've said we're not going to do that, very clearly, often. They've said they want to stop coal and gas projects, we've not done that, you know, we've made some changes around some of the fast-tracking processes, but they would still be able to have their approvals met under the EPBC. So, there are things that we're saying no to from the Greens, just as there are things we're saying no to from the Coalition, and we'll keep working around the clock until we get a deal. Thanks everyone.