Interview with Andrew Clennell, Sky News Sunday Agenda

ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Back home this week, the push will be on for environmental laws to be passed by the Coalition. From the government point of view, they believe the current environmental laws are holding up projects. They say their laws will lead to quicker yeses or no’s, not so many maybes, and this helps business with certainty.

They could go and negotiate with the Greens, but given the Greens' preference for a climate trigger this seems unlikely - it's not what they are after.

The number one aim of the legislation, it's been put to me, is to encourage more speediness in decisions, and Sky News can today reveal that under the new legislation the Government will set up the National Environment Protection Agency - that will be the name of it. It would be in charge of the compliance and enforcement of the laws, but the ultimate decision-making power for approvals would remain with the Environment Minister, unlike Tanya Plibersek's proposal which never made it through the Senate.

And the Environment Minister, Murray Watt, joins me live from Uluru. Murray Watt, thanks so much for your time.

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: G’day.

ANDREW CLENNELL: You’re in Uluru for the 40th anniversary celebrations. Tell us about what's going on there and what it's been about.

MURRAY WATT: Well you probably can't see this, Andrew, but right next to me the sun is rising right next to Uluru, which is a pretty spectacular thing to see. I've been here with the Prime Minister and the local member, Marion Scrymgour for the 40th anniversary of the handback of the Uluru National Park to the Traditional Owners. The way this happens now, after 40 years of joint management of this incredible national park, is that it is jointly managed between the Commonwealth Government and Traditional Owners, which ensures that we can continue protecting this stunning environment and it’s really important cultural values forevermore.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Well let's talk about the environmental laws that you're trying to pass through the Parliament, and I mentioned some of the features of the legislation just then. What are the critical parts of these laws that you're trying to get through?

MURRAY WATT: Well these laws, Andrew, have always been built on the reforms that Graeme Samuel recommended to the then-Environment Minister, Sussan Ley, five years ago. What Graeme Samuel found five years ago was that our national environmental laws are fundamentally broken - they're failing the environment, they're failing business and they're failing the broader community and they desperately need reform.

Now there's been a bit of progress made over the last few years but we still, fundamentally, have the same laws that we had five years ago that were failing.

And what we're trying to do through these reforms is deliver a balanced package that actually delivers real improvements for our natural environment and real improvements for business. We know that our environment is going backwards, and we need to turn that around. Having a healthy environment is important for us to enjoy our lives, it's important for all sorts of industries as well.

But we also need, as a country, to be able to deliver things like housing, energy projects and other economic projects much more quickly than we are at the moment.

They're currently bogged down in red tape and bureaucratic processes that don't help the environment, and we want to be able to deliver much quicker pathways to getting that kind of investment and industry undertaken as well.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Is there a special provision to get critical minerals projects through? Now that you've reached this agreement at the White House, will that be a feature of the legislation or how does it assist getting critical minerals projects up?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, it's not our intention, Andrew, to be making particular rules for particular industries. What we want to be able to do through these reforms is ensure that all industries are able to demonstrate their environmental credentials and get their approvals much more quickly than they are at the moment. 

You will have seen there have been many projects that have been tied up in these processes between state government processes and Federal Government processes for many, years. And we want to be able to reduce the time it takes to get approvals from decades to years, and years to months, all at the same time as making sure that we meet very strong national environmental standards.

This is one of the issues the Coalition faces as we get closer to this debate. They say they're a party of business, we know that business wants these reforms to be put in place to streamline approvals. I cannot believe some of the things that we're hearing from the Coalition over the last few days, that they don't want to get behind legislation that will make it easier for Australians to have homes and for economic projects to be built while protecting the environment as well.

ANDREW CLENNELL: They have concerns that business have, so let's go through a few of those, okay? The provision of stop-work powers for the Environmental Protection Authority- National Environment Protection Agency, should I say. 

The definition of unacceptable impact, which would be applied to projects in the approvals process. And concerns that the fines are greater than the Plibersek legislation I'm told, $825 million plus garnishing profits, potentially, from people looking to get projects up.
So are you prepared to move on any of these, or would you defend them?

MURRAY WATT: I'm absolutely happy to defend the bill that we'll be introducing to the Parliament, Andrew. It comes after extensive consultation with everyone from the mining industry, the property development industry, right through to environment groups as well. And we think we've struck the balance right between making sure that we are ensuring that we're protecting our natural environment while making it easier for projects to go ahead.

Just to walk you through a couple of those things. The definition of unacceptable impact; this is about making sure that the national environmental legislation of Australia sets out the types of projects that simply will not get approval. I mean if someone wanted to come here to Uluru and start mining right underneath Uluru, we must say no to that kind of thing and people deserve to know that quickly that they're going to get a no. 

This is about providing business with a faster no that they're looking for, rather than going through a process for many, many years, racking up big dollars in legal fees only to get a no at the end of the process.

The thing about stop work orders - we currently don't have the power under our national environmental law if we know that someone is about to go and bulldoze all sorts of trees with koalas or other threatened species. 

We don't have the power to get in there before that destruction occurs. All we can do at the moment is actually fine someone after the event. Now, I think most Australians would agree that it's probably a good idea that if someone is about to do the wrong thing by the environment, we should have the power to stop that from happening first, rather than coming in after the event.

And in terms of the penalties, the dollar figures are slightly higher than those that were included in the bill before the election, but that's simply an indexation point. The formula that we've put forward in this bill is the same as the one that Tanya Plibersek put to the Parliament. 

And again, I think Australians would agree that if someone deliberately goes out there and tries to destroy nationally important environmental places like the one I'm standing in front of, then there should be really tough penalties for people.

But we need to remember at the same time that there are huge things in this bill for business. This is about reducing the duplication between states and Federal Government processes. Currently, if someone wants to do a housing development or a wind farm or some other project, a mine, they need to go through a state government process, only to have the same thing happen all over again at the federal level. 

And what we want to be able to do is cut that back to one process where people do have to meet national environmental standards, and shave months and years off the approval process.

So this is a good deal for business as well as it's a good deal for the environment, and business deserves the kind of certainty they'd expect.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Well, just briefly, are you prepared to move on any of it if it means passage of the legislation, those provisions?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah look, I mean, of course we're open to amendments being put forward and I expect that we'll see some in the coming weeks. But people should be under no illusions that we will be passing these laws through the Parliament. The only question is how quickly we do it and who we do it with. We've said all along that we are open to passing this legislation with either the Coalition or the Greens-

ANDREW CLENNELL: -but the Greens want a climate trigger.

MURRAY WATT: -they've come out both saying, oh, it's too good for environment, too good for business-

ANDREW CLENNELL: -you've ruled out a climate trigger, haven't you? The Greens want a climate trigger-

MURRAY WATT: -absolutely. Absolutely.

ANDREW CLENNELL: So are you prepared to put that in there if need be?

MURRAY WATT: No, we're not. We have categorically ruled that out, Andrew. The Greens know that and it'll be up to them to decide whether the bill that we're putting forward, without a climate trigger but with very strong measures to improve our natural environment, are the kind of bill they should support. And I find it hard to believe that the Greens Party would not support a bill called Environmental Protection Reform.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Well you're having a whack at them all, basically. Now look, is there a clock so to speak? Is there a different clock on- is there a time limit on when approvals have to occur by? Because how can we be assured it's going to be speedier?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, there are already timelines under the existing legislation, which we intend to keep, that put in place timelines that departmental officials need to respond to things and the proponents of projects need to respond to things. This is a two-way street, Andrew. Of course, I want to make sure that departmental or EPA officials do move through processes quickly. Equally, we need proponents of projects to be providing the kind of information that we need to assess it.

But the way that we will get quicker approvals is, as I say, by removing the duplication between state and federal processes so you don't need to double up. We want to put in place regional plans that are agreed with state governments, that in a particular region you can designate the areas you can develop and get a quick approval, and the areas that you can't develop because the environmental values are too high.

So there's all sorts of things in this bill that are about changing the processes to remove the red tape, to simplify the processes, to get approvals through more quickly while managing the environment. And again, this is why I expect that the Coalition ultimately will come to support this bill, because otherwise they will be saying no to business getting faster approvals than what they currently get.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Alright, well let's talk about this Anthony Albanese visit to the White House. Very successful visit, but some question marks over some of the agreements. Does the Government know what the Navy Secretary meant when he talked about, quote, AUKUS improvements, unquote?

MURRAY WATT: Well I'm sure those sorts of discussions are happening, Andrew, between the relevant ministers. I'm obviously not part of that myself. But I think what we need to keep in mind is that someone as senior in the US administration as the President of the United States expressed his support for AUKUS, made it very clear that the submarines underpinning that agreement will be delivered. And I think that provides a lot of reassurance to the Australian people, and probably the Australian media who've been asking questions about this for a long time.

ANDREW CLENNELL: In terms of the interaction with Kevin Rudd and the President, you've heard overnight what Donald Trump's had to say, that he doesn't forget, even if he said all is forgiven in there. Is this a problem?

MURRAY WATT: I think it's clearly not a problem, Andrew. I mean, you've seen for yourself the results that came out of that very warm and productive meeting between Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump. We measure these things by the results that are delivered. Ambassador Rudd has clearly done an excellent job in the lead up to that meeting, paving the way for those very strong statements about AUKUS and for a deal on critical minerals that will transform that industry in Australia. So, you know, I think whatever the commentary that might be going on, look at the results. The results are very strong and Ambassador Rudd deserves some credit for that.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you concede Kevin Rudd's previous statements have been an issue for at least some in the administration, potentially including the President?

MURRAY WATT: Well again, I think the evidence shows that none of that has difference in terms of achieving the results that we were looking for. I mean, let's not forget, Andrew, that President Trump's own Vice President had a little bit to say about him a few years ago and they seem to have a very good working relationship. And again, we've demonstrated this week that, under Prime Minister Albanese, Australia has a very good relationship and is able to achieve excellent outcomes under President Trump, and will continue working hard on a range of issues with the administration.

ANDREW CLENNELL: When President Trump says he'll consult Anthony Albanese over the ambassador to Australia, doesn't that show he wants the same consultation over our ambassador?

MURRAY WATT: I wouldn't necessarily read it that way, Andrew. I mean, different countries will make their own decisions about ambassadorial appointments. What you've seen from the Albanese Government is that we will always appoint people who have a track record in being able to deliver great outcomes for Australia. Ambassador Rudd has done that. High Commissioner Stephen Smith has done that in London. All of our ambassadors’ right across the world are working hard every single day to strengthen relationships with the countries they're based in and delivering outcomes that are in Australia's national interest, and that's clearly what occurred in the US.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Murray Watt, thanks so much for your time.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Andrew.