Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT, HOST: Gentlemen, we’ve got to go, because Murray Watt’s standing by, we’re about to talk to him. Michael Kroger’s just been having a crack at you for the blowout in the BoM website. He says if you're in the private sector, you would have been sacked by now. That's from a very unbiased Michael Kroger, the former Victorian Liberal Party president.

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: I didn't get to hear what Michael Kroger said, but I know I disagree with it. So, you know, Michael's a paid-up member of the Liberal Party employed to get out there and spruik for a losing cause, so good on him.

KIERAN GILBERT: Well, let's get to environmental law reform in a moment, but just on that BoM website, what is going on that front?

MURRAY WATT: I've said a number of times, Kieran, that I'm not happy with how this has been managed. You may have seen a few weeks ago when the issues first arose around the issues with the website. I got the acting CEO in for a meeting and said it wasn't meeting public expectations. And since that time they've made changes. We've all now learned about the cost increases. I would just say that the website change was always going to cost more than the $4 million. And this actually began under the Turnbull Government - it's a long-term project. But I accept that this whole process hasn't met public expectations, and that's why I've asked the new CEO of the BoM to have a really close look at what happened and how we can avoid these sort of things in future.

KIERAN GILBERT: On the environmental law reform, that's why we're here, to talk about it. It's the big story of the day and the week. When you've got two lots of amendments, and I've been reading through them, quite contrasting in terms of their focus – how do you have credibility in terms of your negotiations when you've got two sets of amendments so different, one for the Coalition, one for the Greens?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, a couple of things, Kieran. I mean, for starters, we've always said that we are open to passing these reforms with either the Coalition or the Greens. And I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the sort of amendments the Coalition are seeking are things that they would say are better for business, and it's no surprise the Greens are looking for amendments that they say are better for the environment. But what I've also always said is that we want to make sure that the package we get through the Parliament delivers for both the environment and for business, not one or the other. And I'm very confident that once we pass these reforms that we will be able to point to significant gains both for the environment and for business. Now, there may not be quite as much as what some people might like there for the environment or for business, but we are definitely going to be making sure that these laws take us forward from the current laws by delivering real gains for both business and for the environment.

KIERAN GILBERT: Reading through the compromise, if we start with the Greens amendments; a big chunk of this is about limiting the fast-tracking for coal and gas projects. Particularly, this is what jumped out at me in terms of the gas project. Surely, if you're going to have a gas reservation and you know gas is an important transition fuel, wouldn't you want to retain the right to fast track projects in that space?

MURRAY WATT: So I think the reality is, Kieran, that the types of new fast tracking processes that are included in the legislation would never have been able to be accessed by big fossil fuel projects anyway. They’re more designed for things like housing and renewables. And to give you one example, you might remember there's been a bit of controversy about introducing a new national interest approval where the minister of the day can approve a project, even if it doesn't meet environmental standards, where they think it's in the national interest to do so. Now we've said we are prepared to exclude fossil fuel projects from getting that national interest approval. I've always said I don't think it's reasonable or even possible that a particular fossil fuel project could ever be justified on the national interest so that it doesn't have to meet environmental standards. That's always been intended more for defence and national security projects, those kind of things that are genuinely in the national interest. So this is not to say that fossil fuel projects can't go ahead. They would continue to go ahead under the current kind of systems. But it's about saying that those new fast-tracking processes that we've introduced for approvals in shorter periods of time, that they're more designed for things like housing and renewables.

KIERAN GILBERT: But, you know, if there's a gas project that we need to get up to shore up supply in Australia during a transition, which has been clunky at best, isn't that something you'd want to have in your back pocket? You might need it?

MURRAY WATT: There will still be ways under the legislation that we passed that we can get moving on priority projects to have them delivered, whatever kind of project they are. But what these are is about particular pathways, like that national interest approval, that would have ignored environmental standards that wouldn't be available to fossil fuel projects. Now, I think even fossil fuel executives would find it hard to argue that their individual project is so important that it's in the national interest that it overrides all environmental standards. I think it's more in those defence and national security situations that people would accept that there might be an argument to override standards for those kind of things. So I think the practical effect of these changes - if they go through, and that depends whether we do a deal with the Greens or not - would not jeopardise the transition and the need for gas into the future. But again, where this goes to is that if the Coalition don't like these amendments, then they should be doing a deal with us.

KIERAN GILBERT: Well, they're saying that you haven't been serious. In fact, that you've mismanaged the process is how Sussan Ley described it. Sussan Ley says-

MURRAY WATT: [Laughs] Sorry, the idea that Sussan Ley wants to accuse anyone of mismanaging something is literally laughable. But anyway, she's entitled to her say.

KIERAN GILBERT: One of the things that she said that her colleague, Angie Bell, has put to you is, you haven't come back and addressed with them specifically, like unacceptable impacts - that's the one that she said is a red line. Why haven't you addressed those specifically?

MURRAY WATT: Well, it would be really good to know what the Coalition means when they say, ‘we think there should be some changes to unacceptable impact definitions’. It's like, ‘okay, what changes?’. ‘Oh, we just think there should be change’. One of the problems that we've had with the negotiations with the Coalition all the way along is the fact that they haven't been able to focus on what they want, because they've obviously been focusing on their internals. Now, we're now at a point where I've got multiple people from the Coalition seeking to negotiate with me rather, than one. Every time I meet with them, there are additional-

KIERAN GILBERT: -multiple, who?

MURRAY WATT: I'm not going to name names out of respect for their- but I've got multiple people coming to me saying that they're the negotiator for the Coalition. Every time I meet with them there are new amendments that are added to the list. You know, last week I was given the final seven list that they wanted and the very next day I got 17 more amendments. I mean, if you want to talk about mismanaging a process, they might want to have a look in the mirror.

KIERAN GILBERT: Why don't you get the Prime Minister on board as part of the talks and just get it done in that sense at leader-to-leader level with you obviously supporting the negotiations? Are you considering that, just to elevate it?

MURRAY WATT: Well, I've certainly been keeping the Prime Minister very much up to date, did it again today, about where the negotiations are up to and whether he's prepared to offer the kind of amendments that are being sought. I'll leave it for him to explain whether he's got confidence in the way that I've managed this, I'm pretty confident of that. But you know, there will inevitably come a point where leaders get involved. But it's up to people like me and whoever the Coalition spokesperson is one day to the next to actually get as much of this done as possible for it-

KIERAN GILBERT: -isn't it better for the Coalition to be on board with this, though? And I ask you this in the context of you’re still talking to the Greens, to say whoever's in office - because it's either Labor or the Coalition - that they will maintain this approach. It gives it business certainty in terms of investment.

MURRAY WATT: I agree with that, Kieran-

KIERAN GILBERT: -so you'd rather do a deal with the Coalition?

MURRAY WATT: Well, what I've said- I've never expressed a preference one way or the other, but one thing I have said, and Jim Chalmers said this last week as well, is that there are benefits in the major parties of Government reaching a deal on an item like this. But that requires both parties to be able to come to an agreement. And as I say, if you have- you know, we're clear what we want, it was the Bill that we passed through the House of Representatives.  But if you've got the Coalition constantly coming to us asking for changing amendments and they want this and then they want that, it makes it a little bit hard to reach an agreement with them. But having said that, I am still in negotiations with them. We are still willing to do a deal with the Coalition. But the reality is we are also having discussions with the Greens and putting forward possible amendments to them as well.

KIERAN GILBERT: On, finally, the reports today in the Financial Review in relation to public service cuts, what's happening on that front? Is it a five percent reduction across the board?

MURRAY WATT: No, it's not. And Katy Gallagher has given some interviews about this today as well. What we think is that as a good, responsible manager of public funds, it is important to always think about what you can reprioritise. It's not always about new spending. And programs in each department from time to time reach their lifespan, they're not the highest priority. And so what we've all been asked to do is to think about within our individual budgets, what could we reprioritise? I think that's another example of good fiscal management and that’s what we’re doing.

KIERAN GILBERT: It's not hypocritical, given the campaign you ran so fiercely against Peter Dutton?

MURRAY WATT: No, I don't think so. I mean, for starters, he was talking about immediate job cuts, which would have decimated the public service. But secondly, these are not job cuts. What we've been asked to do is identify areas we could reprioritise that would then be considered. There's no five percent cut in the budget, we've not been asked to do that.

KIERAN GILBERT: OK. So it's not five. Is there a number on it?

MURRAY WATT: Look, I think every Government has efficiency dividends from time. To be honest, I've been a bit focused on this (EPBC reform).

KIERAN GILBERT: Yeah, no, I got that.

MURRAY WATT: But absolutely, we have not been asked to cut five percent out of our budgets.

KIERAN GILBERT: Environment Minister Murray Watt, thanks as always. Appreciate it.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Kieran.