Interview with James Glenday, ABC News Breakfast

JAMES GLENDAY, HOST: Well it is going to be a big week for the nation's environment, with new laws to be debated yet again in Canberra. And for more, we are joined by the Federal Environment Minister, Murray Watt, who is of course at Parliament House. Murray, welcome back to the show.

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

JAMES GLENDAY: Now, it's been five years since a review found that Australia's environment laws were not working properly. Is this going to be the week that the stand-off ends and that a breakthrough is found?

MURRAY WATT: I'd certainly like to think so, James. We will be introducing these important law reforms in this sitting fortnight, and we want to pass them by the end of the year. As you say, these reforms have been waiting for five years to be delivered. And in the meantime, we've seen our environment go backwards. We've seen important housing, renewable energy and other projects held up by red tape. And it's time to fix that. We think that the bill that we're introducing delivers very much on the recommendations that Graeme Samuel made five years ago, by delivering a comprehensive and integrated, balanced package that delivers real gains for both the environment and for business. So we're certainly hoping and expecting that we will get support from either the Coalition or the Greens, or potentially even both.

JAMES GLENDAY: Part of this - and you've been vowing this for some time - is a new environmental regulator, a so-called tough cop on the beat to make sure that our environmental laws are enforced and that there's fines to go along with that. What sort of powers is it actually going to have?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, so this is a commitment that we've taken to two elections, James, that Labor would deliver a national environmental protection agency. We don't currently have one at the moment at the national level. So the proposal we're putting forward in this bill is that it would have independent powers when it comes to the compliance and enforcement of the laws, so the ability to investigate wrongdoing, to impose very significant fines on environmental offenders, to send a really strong deterrent to stop people from doing the wrong thing and illegally interfering with the environment. In addition, they would be providing advice to the minister of the day and undertaking assessments of projects when they're put forward for approval, so providing advice to the Minister so that the Minister can make an approval decision, which is the situation we have at the moment. And they'd also play a role in advising the Minister when it comes to ensuring that any state processes meet our national environmental standards. You may have seen that one of the main ways that we're putting forward that that we can speed up the approval process is by removing a duplication that we have between the states and the federal government at the moment, where a proponent needs to go and get a state assessment and approval, followed by a federal assessment and approval. What we want to do is work with the states so that at least the assessments can be done by a state government on behalf of both the state and federal government, potentially saving months or years in an approval process, and the EPA would have a role in making sure that those state processes live up to our national standards.

JAMES GLENDAY: As you've just alluded to, a key focus of this is speeding up approvals, ensuring that things don't get bogged down for years and years on end. And part of that is working out the sorts of projects that might have an unacceptable environmental impact so they can be ruled in or out very, very quickly. Business is concerned about what the definition of an unacceptable impact could be, so are environmental groups. Can you give us an example of what you think would be an unacceptable development?

MURRAY WATT: For sure, James. And this, again, was one of the recommendations of Graeme Samuel's review. He was saying that for both environmental and business reasons, we need to have a clear definition of the types of projects that would simply be unacceptable because of the impact that they would have on the environment. Of course, that would be beneficial for the environment in stopping unacceptable developments going ahead. But it's also really important for business to have that kind of clear definition so that they get a fast ‘no’ on a project and know that a particular project isn't going to get approved, rather than taking years and spending lots of money only to get a no at the end of the process.

To give you an example, James, for example, if a property developer wanted to build a development in the middle of an internationally listed wetland, that's almost certainly going to get a no at the end of the process. And we might as well put everyone out of their misery early and give them a quick no so that they don't waste the time and the money in putting through an assessment and, of course, making sure that we protect that environment. But, again, if a mining company wanted to go and mine under Uluru - and perish the thought they would ever want to do that - but clearly that kind of thing is going to be unacceptable because of the environmental damage that it would cause. So they're the kind of things that we're seeking to try to stop and stop early in the process to protect the environment and give business the certainty that they need.

JAMES GLENDAY: Are you going to have to negotiate on exactly what an unacceptable impact means, though? That's because the Greens this morning have been on our show. They're saying that, essentially, coal and gas should be considered unacceptable, whereas the Coalition, on the other hand, wants the definition to be much looser to allow more projects to go ahead.

MURRAY WATT: Yeah. Well, I don't think anyone's really surprised, James, that at this stage of negotiations that the Coalition are taking a position that business has got to give it everything they want and that the Greens are taking a position saying that the environment's got to get everything it wants. The reality is that Graeme Samuel put forward a package of reforms that were about balancing those issues and delivering real gains for both the environment and for business. That's the way our package has been designed. That's the way the bill will be reflecting. And that's why we think it deserves support in this parliament.

JAMES GLENDAY: Alright, a lot more to come on this to see where you end up. Just one outside your portfolio. The Albanese Government's going to take action to stop AI programs using Australian content for free. What's brought you to this position?

MURRAY WATT: Well we've taken our time and Minister Michelle Rowland in particular as the responsible minister has had a very good look and spoken to many stakeholders about this issue. The Albanese Government are strong supporters of our arts community and we recognise that they deserve their fair share for their efforts in producing product, as do media organisations. One of the things that we know about AI is that while it can produce enormous productivity gains and many benefits for us on a personal level, we also need to have proper safeguards in place to make sure that in this case artists, media organisations, creatives get their fair share from their work and that's why we will not be providing an exemption for what's known as text and data mining for AI companies. We think that's a fair approach, and again, when it comes time to legislating, we'd be looking to support from the Parliament for that.

JAMES GLENDAY: Alright. Environment Minister Murray Watt, thanks for your time this morning.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, James.