Interview with Tom Connell, Sky News

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Joining me now is Environment Minister Murray Watt. Thank you for your time, Minister. You lobbied for this, there was reluctance because of the fact there's a major gas mine nearby which is set to have its life extended. How did you convince the decision makers here?

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: You're right, Tom. This is a really great outcome, of course, for the Traditional Owners of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape, but it's also a really special outcome for all Australians and now the world, with this incredibly unique landscape being given World Heritage listing and therefore a greater level of protection from any adverse future industrial development as well. Certainly, there were critics of this approach of the Government and there were some environment groups arguing that this area shouldn't be World Heritage listed - something I found pretty strange coming from environmental organisations. But we actually ended up with a huge amount of support from the other countries who were members of the World Heritage Committee. 18 out of the 21 countries represented on that committee actually put their name to the amendment that was moved to the initial report handed down, and there was no opposition to that amendment when it was put to the floor. So, to get unanimous support from all countries for what we were putting forward, and World Heritage, demonstrates that the committee found that this area does have what's known as outstanding universal value. It is a unique site that deserves to be protected. But it also demonstrates that people were satisfied that the scientific evidence was clear that industry and this rock art can coexist. And that's always been our intention as well.

TOM CONNELL: Can coexist. Well, plenty of experts say they might be able to, but because of that site, the biggest gas and oil site in the country, this artwork is being degraded. So, your condition appears to say reduce the element of the emissions there that's affecting it by 40 percent. So, what you're saying is it will still be degraded, but just not as quickly?

MURRAY WATT: No, that's not what I'm saying, Tom. There's a couple of things there. The lead scientist of the comprehensive scientific study that was undertaken into this rock art actually was in Paris at the World Heritage Committee as well. And he made very clear to a number of countries that there was no evidence whatsoever that current industrial activity is having a detrimental impact on the rock art. It does appear that some past industrial development that is no longer occurring there may have had an impact on the rock art. But in terms of the current industrial development and any that's proposed for the future, he was clear that it's not having an impact and that there is no evidence of acid rain either which were claims being made by [indistinct]-

TOM CONNELL: There are other expert views to the contrary though, aren't there?

MURRAY WATT: Well, I mean, people can choose to believe someone with an archaeology specialty or they can choose to believe geologists and engineers who've been studying this as part of the most comprehensive peer-reviewed study that's been undertaken into this landscape. I think that the weight of scientific evidence was clear and certainly that was the response of other countries when they saw that scientific evidence as well.

TOM CONNELL: Within your portfolio, there's a big job to do to reform the EPBC. I've seen you've been called in a profile piece, ‘The Fixer’. I think that was meant as a compliment, when it might have been the opposite for Christopher Pyne. So, read into that what you will, but how do you achieve that? Because it's always a delicate balancing act. Is the broad remit here that there will be more sites protected overall, but those that go ahead, the payoff for mining groups, if you like, is they will happen a lot quicker. Is that how you can balance interests here?

MURRAY WATT: You're right, Tom, it's a challenging task and governments have been seeking to reform these laws for a long period of time. We obviously made some steps forward in the last term, but not as much as we would have liked to. And there were a range of reasons for that. Really what we're seeking to do with these reforms is three key things. Firstly, we do want to streamline approvals processes. There's a lot of legitimate complaints from business that the current process is too cumbersome and too slow. Secondly, though, we want to lift the environmental protections that we see through developments and the impact that they have on the environment. I don't think that anyone can deny that the sort of industrial activity we've seen in Australia over the last 20 or 200 years has had a detrimental impact on the environment. And we want to start shifting that. And the third item is that we want to see more transparency and integrity in the system. At the moment, people don't feel confident that the system is working properly. So, they're the kind of guiding principles that we're adopting.

TOM CONNELL: So, on point two, though, broadly speaking, would you expect the effect of that would be that fewer projects go ahead or they're just done better to manage local environmental concerns?

MURRAY WATT: I wouldn't say that it's a matter of fewer projects going ahead, Tom, but what it's about is making sure that when we do see major projects occur, that they end up actually having a positive impact on the environment rather than a negative impact. And there's different ways you can do that. You can achieve that by the design of the project to reduce the environmental impact that it has, but also through strong and robust offset schemes which allow, if you like, for compensatory measures to be taken to build up the environment and other areas in return for some negative environmental impact in a local area. So, what we want to do through these reforms is lift the standard of protection for the environment, but also streamline those approvals so that they don't get held up as much as they have been in the past.

TOM CONNELL: It's a big task. Were you given it by the PM? Did he say, ‘you're The Fixer, Murray, here's your next job?’.

MURRAY WATT: I think other people have come up with all sorts of words to describe me, some positive, some negative over the years, and I'll leave it for people to do that. But, look, it's a big task, but our Government as a whole is up for it. We recognise the laws are broken at the moment. They're not working for the environment, they're not working for business, and that's why we want to reform them. And that's why there's going to be pressure on both the opposition and the Greens when we get to the Parliament to not stand in the way of these reforms and to work with us constructively.

TOM CONNELL: Other thing The Greens might need to work with you on is housing. So, advice today revealed from Treasury and their view, the independent review. Labor talks about the value of independent advice is that you will not meet the housing target of 1.2 million homes over five years. If that's the case, would you then put up your hand and say, you have failed to fix the housing crisis? Given you put your plan forward, Treasury said it would fail and you're obviously saying it won't. So if it does fail, would you say, yep, we didn't do the right thing to address the housing crisis?

MURRAY WATT: Well, we fully intend to achieve that target, Tom. We recognise that Australia as a country has been under investing in housing for a very long time, well before we came to office, and we need to turn that around so we remain committed to the target. We intend to achieve it. It's why we started making changes in our first term in office, whether it be to increasing-

TOM CONNELL: And if you don't, though, there's someone else to blame?

MURRAY WATT: Well, we're not contemplating that scenario, Tom. We're intending to achieve that target and we know that more changes will be needed. We will need more investment in skilled tradies. We've already started doing that in our second term, but we'll need to do more. It's one of the reasons that we're embarking on these processes, to reform the approval systems. And I've been working closely with Clare O' Neil about that, to make sure that we can streamline housing approvals to make sure that we get more built. So, our intention is to meet that target because the country needs us to.

TOM CONNELL: Minister, thanks for your time today.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Tom.