Interview with Tom Connell, Sky News Politics Now

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Minister, thanks for your time. So, we're getting some details of this new law, new act you're going to introduce next week. The power to strip companies of profits when they're making money from breaking environmental laws, so how does that work? If a company's working on a project, if any law is broken within that project, if they made $100 million in a year, they get fined $100 million - is that what would happen?

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: What we're doing through these laws, Tom, is putting in place much stiffer penalties than what we have under our current laws. Because we do need to send strong messages to businesses who might want to do the wrong thing, but that they will pay a price for that. The legislation that we'll be introducing to the Parliament provides a range of options as to how that fine could be determined, and one of those options, as you say, is to strip a company of 10 per cent its profits if it's a particularly egregious breach of environmental law or its conditions.

Of course, not every breach would end up being that kind of amount of money, but potentially that's a very high amount of money, potentially even up to $825 million is the maximum there. But of course, more minor breaches would result in smaller fines, but this is a way of making sure that we are protecting the environment and sending that clear message.

TOM CONNELL: And how do you decide if it's the more extreme version or the harsher penalty? Would intent need to be involved, for example?

MURRAY WATT: That would certainly be my expectation, Tom. I mean, all of these kind of decisions would be made independently by a new national EPA, so, I certainly won't be directing them about which companies they should fine and exactly what kind of fines they should be issuing. But they'll be able to weigh up a range of factors, including intent, including previous offences, all of the types of things that you would expect a decision maker to take into account when determining what level of fine is appropriate for the particular case.

TOM CONNELL: We've heard a lot around this streamlining things, avoiding duplication so that if a project is approved, it's done quicker. Can you think of a particular project, a specific one that, in the past, was held up for a long time and still approved, and under your new laws would happen quicker?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, I can certainly think of those kind of projects, Tom. I mean one of the projects that I've approved since coming into the role is the redevelopment of housing around the Queen Victoria Market in Melbourne. That had to go through a state process, it had to go through a federal process. That did extend the delay in that project at a time when we desperately need housing.

There are other projects that I've considered, particularly when it comes to renewable energy, where again, if we have a strong, robust state-based system to assess projects against our national environmental standards, what that means is that a proponent of a project only needs to get the assessment done by one level of government and that can do the job for the federal government as well without needing to repeat the exercise.

So yes, certainly I can think of a number of projects like that that would have been able to get done more quickly, even in the short time that I've been in the role, if we'd had these changes made.

TOM CONNELL: And on the other side the Government's saying, where needed there will be better protection. So, can you name a project under these new laws that would not have gone ahead or would have been significantly different in how it went ahead if these had been in place?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah. I mean, one example I can give you from my home state of Queensland is that you might recall a residential development that was proposed for Ramsar listed wetland on the outskirts of Brisbane in Moreton Bay. Now, one of the things we're trying to achieve through these laws is to put in place a definition in the legislation of what would be considered an unacceptable impact of a project.

I've seen a bit of criticisms from some quarters about this idea, but this is really about trying to send really clear red lines to businesses about what types of projects just will not get through the system, and so people shouldn't be bothering wasting their time, their money trying to convince us to approve a project that is clearly unacceptable.

So, they're the kind of things, again, that I would put forward as an example, which of course go a long way to protecting the environment but also give business the certainty and clarity upfront so that they can make better decisions and either move on to different sort of projects rather than wasting that kind of time and money. So it's a win-win there.

TOM CONNELL: And the unacceptable risk there was what? What's the example of that threshold where it would meet that unacceptable risk?

MURRAY WATT: Well, a project like that is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on an internationally recognised wetland in terms of its impact on migratory species, birds, and other wildlife as well. I think most people would accept that if we're talking about World Heritage areas - internationally listed wetlands, projects that threaten the viability of a particular species - that they shouldn't go ahead. Because what we're seeking to do here is to foster the kind of housing and other development that we need but not by trashing the environment in a way that it cannot possibly recover from.

What ordinarily happens under the existing laws and would continue under the new laws is that we assess whether a particular project would have a significant impact on particular environmental matters, and we obviously have the opportunity to apply conditions to that project to make sure that it doesn't have that significant impact. But of course, if a project were to have a totally unacceptable impact, that it would destroy a World Heritage area, that it would destroy the Great Barrier Reef, the wetland example I put forward to you, then it's not going to get approved, and business needs to know that early on, just as much as we need the confidence from the community about protecting the environment.

TOM CONNELL: Have you told any business groups to lobby the Opposition to help pass these laws?

MURRAY WATT: Yes, I have. I've encouraged a number of different business groups to lobby the Coalition to pass these laws because this is the way that we will see faster approvals for business in the way that they're seeking. Equally, I've told environment groups that they should be lobbying the Greens because this is the way that we can see real improvements to our natural environment that environmental groups want to see.

Tom, I don't rule out the possibility that we can ultimately get support from both the Coalition and the Greens for this bill, I know we're a long way from that at the moment. But there are real improvements for both the environment and for business in this bill, so both the Coalition and the Greens have got every reason to get behind them.

Because, of course, the alternative is that if they vote against these bills they'll be voting against improvements for business to get approvals done more quickly. They'll be voting against improvements to the natural environment, and I wouldn't have thought either the Coalition or the Greens want to be accused of that.

TOM CONNELL: Is it fair to say, so far, business groups are a bit worried the overall streamlining isn't really happening - there's some more green tape and they're not convinced the red tape disappears all that much?

MURRAY WATT: I've seen some early reactions along those lines, Tom, but I’d just encourage some of those people who are saying those things to take a closer look at the bill. We have presented this bill to stakeholders this week. Based on months of consultation since I've been in the job and obviously consultation that occurred before, in most of these major areas we have reached a point with key business groups and key environment groups that it will deliver those benefits in terms of streamlining approvals as well as improving our environmental protections.

Anyone who is claiming that there is no improvement for business or the environment from this bill is lying, and they just haven't closely looked at the bill.

TOM CONNELL: There's no climate trigger - you've spelt that out after a lot of speculation. Projects have to be carbon neutral by 2050. So, just clarifying here, that's the operations - obviously, if it's coal, extracting the coal. So, if we're talking about a coal mine, roughly speaking, ballpark, how much of the emissions are from that extraction versus the actual burning of that coal?

MURRAY WATT: Look, that's obviously going to depend on the particular project, Tom. But really, what we've done in this legislation is to set a threshold, if you like, that links identically to the requirement under the Safeguard Mechanism.

So you would be aware that there's a number of coal mines in Australia that are already covered by the Safeguard Mechanism because of their emissions. Not all of them would be, depending on their size, for example. There are a number of power plants and other facilities as well that are covered by the Safeguard Mechanism. We've used exactly the same threshold in this legislation, and for the first time, it would include a requirement when people lodge their applications.

TOM CONNELL: But a pretty small percent, wouldn’t it, in terms of how much is extraction versus burning?

MURRAY WATT: Sorry, a pretty small percent of the? -

TOM CONNELL: When it comes to extraction versus burning.

MURRAY WATT: I’m not going to give you some figures because we're going to be talking about different kinds of mines. But obviously, there are a number of facilities around the country - mines and other facilities - that generate enough Scope 1 and 2 emissions to be captured by the Safeguard Mechanism, and they're the types of projects that we're talking about here that would be required to disclose their expected Scope 1 and 2 emissions and a plan for how they're going to reduce them.

What we're also doing through that legislation is drawing a much clearer link to the Safeguard Mechanism. And what that means is that we can have early preparation for what might be needed through that separate mechanism to manage the emissions of that project.

TOM CONNELL: Minister, I appreciate your time today. Thank you.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Tom.