Interview with Peter Stefanovic, Sky News First

PETER STEFANOVIC, HOST: Minister, it's good to have your company this morning. So pretty much everyone is against it so far. Zali Steggall just accused you of being shady because details are scarce. So does this need more public consultation and more transparency?

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Good morning, Pete. Well, you would expect that people who are not part of the government would be criticising legislation that's placed before the parliament. This is just the usual argy-bargy that we see before complex and important legislation is debated within the parliament. Over the last couple of days, we've seen the Coalition say that this legislation is too good for the environment. We've seen the Greens say that it's too good for business. It sounds to me like we've got the balance pretty right. Now this bill, which we're going to be calling the Environmental Protection Reform Bill, we haven't announced the name of the bill until now, that will be introduced to the parliament in the next fortnight. It follows months of consultation since I've come into the job, with everyone from the mining industry through to environment groups. And of course, it's five years since Graeme Samuel delivered his review to the former government when Sussan Ley was the minister for the environment. So we're very confident that this bill picks up most of the key suggestions from stakeholders, but it delivers on the recommendations of Graeme Samuel's bill, and most importantly, that it delivers real gains for both the environment and for business, so it's time to get on with it.

PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, well you can't get it through on your own. What concessions would you be willing to make to get either the Greens or the Coalition on board?

MURRAY WATT: Well, of course we're open to considering amendments that might be presented, no one has done that yet. And that's not surprising, because this week was the first time that we presented significant parts of the draft bill to both the Greens and the Coalition along with a range of stakeholders. So as people work their way through that, they're welcome to come forward with amendments. But as I say, the bill that we're introducing delivers on Graeme Samuel's recommendations. They were universally welcomed at the time by both environment and business groups. So I guess the question is why are they walking away from their previous support for these reforms that were tabled five years ago?

PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay. A major concern, and given the news this week, a major concern is that this will put roadblocks on that critical minerals deal that your government signed with the United States. Is that true?

MURRAY WATT: No, quite the opposite, Pete. I mean, one of the risks that we have if these reforms are not passed is that we won't be able to capitalise on the enormous opportunity Australia has to become a major supplier of critical minerals to the world. That's not the only one. If we don't pass these laws, it will continue to slow down the delivery of housing that we desperately need. It will slow down the delivery of the energy projects that we need. And of course, it will continue to see our environment go backwards as well. So that's why it's so important that we get moving on delivering these reforms that have been going round and round in circles for five years.

Now, I find it hard to believe that the Greens Party would not vote in favour of a bill that is literally called the Environmental Protection Reform Bill. And I find it hard to believe that the Coalition would vote against a bill that would not just get in the way of delivery of critical minerals, but would get in the way of delivering housing and other business projects as well.

PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay. Would you issue a stop work order though if you weren't happy with the rare earths project?

MURRAY WATT: I wouldn't do that personally, Pete. Those sorts of powers would be held by a new federal EPA but there would be guidelines around the way that they could use that -

PETER STEFANOVIC: But the minister could, though, could it not?

MURRAY WATT: The key way that the bill is drafted is that that power would be mostly exercised by an EPA, and it is an important new power for us to be able to have. One of the issues we have at the moment is that the community from time to time report to us their concern that some sort of major environmental damage is about to occur. We don’t have the powers at the moment to stop that from happening. All we can do is come in after the event, after the environment is destroyed, and fine someone. So we think it’s a good idea for a new power to exist to prevent that kind of damage occurring in the first place, rather than dealing with it after the event.

PETER STEFANOVIC: Well, just a final one this morning. And with your former hat on regarding emergency services or emergency management, Murray, there’s strong pushback from the new Bureau of Meteorology site, despite the $4 million spend on that. Do you think it should go back to the drawing board?

MURRAY WATT: Look, the Bureau of Meteorology will be able to explain its decision making there, Pete. But my understanding is that this is based on extensive community feedback that they’ve received in the preparation of this. It’s not unusual when organisations revamp their websites that there are some complaints to begin with. I’ve seen those kind of complaints when news organisations have changed their websites from time to time, so I recognise this will take time for people to get used to. But all of the advice to me is that this is going to be providing much better, much more reliable information to Australians at a time when we’re all very interested in the weather.

PETER STEFANOVIC: We sure are. Murray, thank you so much for your time, as always. That’s the Minister for the Environment joining us live on this Friday morning.