Podcast interview: Politics with Michelle Grattan

MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: The interface between development and the environment is a crucial and much contested one. Projects ranging from housing estates to mining enterprises need efficient approval processes. The environment needs adequate protection. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is where the rubber hits the road. And it's long been seen as not properly serving the needs either development or the environment. The Albanese Government, with Tanya Plibersek as Environment Minister, tried last term to make reforms to this Act. But various issues and interests stymied a deal. Now the government is trying again under a new Environment Minister, Murray Watt. Watt says that he wants the legislation through by Christmas. To achieve that, he must do a deal with either the Coalition or the Greens, and both want substantial amendments. The Minister joins us today to discuss the state of play. Murray Watt, let's just explain the basics of the legislation for our listeners. How do you see the new environment reforms operating in practise? Can you lay out for us a couple of hypothetical cases where the proposed changes would alter things. A case that would benefit the environment and a case that would benefit developers?

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: For sure, Michelle, and thanks for the opportunity to have a chat today. You would have seen me be saying for quite some time that these reforms that we've introduced to the Parliament are a balanced package that's designed to deliver wins for both the environment and for business, not one or the other. And to give you a couple of examples, from an environmental perspective, what the laws do for the first time is provide a clear definition of what would be considered to be an unacceptable impact on the environment, meaning that a project just would not get approved. It couldn't be offset; it couldn't be altered. It just would not get approved. And I guess an example of that might be if a property developer wanted to develop an apartment block in the middle of an internationally listed and recognised wetland, then they would get a clear no. That just would not be allowed to happen. So that provides, obviously, a benefit to that environment, but it also provides some certainty to developers early on that those sorts of projects they just shouldn't even bother with. And then from a business perspective, the problem we're trying to solve is the incredible delays and duplication of processes that currently happens in the system where we need projects to be usually assessed by a state government and approved by a state government, only then to be assessed by and approved by or rejected by a federal government. And what we're trying to do is to simplify that process by empowering state governments to do an assessment or potentially an approval for us but based against our national environmental standards and subject to processes that audit those state government processes to make sure that they're up to scratch. And what that means in practical terms is that rather than say a wind farm or a housing development, something really important to the community, have happened taking many, years, we can reduce those delays and get that housing and renewable energy built much more quickly than we are at the moment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Now, you're saying that you want this legislation done and dusted by Christmas, but there's only one sitting week left. That's the end of this month. The time's very tight. Can you do this? 

MURRAY WATT: Yes, I think we can, Michelle. And I've made the point repeatedly that we have to do this quickly. This is a piece of legislation that is now 25 years old. It's out of date. It's failing the environment. It's failing business. Every day we delay is a delay that the environment goes backwards and that we see those important projects get held up in red tape. So, we've got to get moving. It's five years now since Graeme Samuel handed down his recommendations to Sussan Ley when she was the environment minister and we've made very little progress since that time. And we cannot afford to keep pushing this out because it's all too hard. So I've actually met today, again, with the Coalition's Shadow Environment Spokesperson, Angie Bell, and with the Greens Spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young to encourage them to see the real benefits in these reforms for the environment and for business. And I think it's vital that we pass these laws here so that we can get those stronger environmental protections and better processes for business. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Well, both the Coalition and the Greens have their separate demands, and those demands, I think, are quite substantial. Where do you think the negotiations are now? And do you think you have a better path potentially with the Coalition than with the Greens or is it still very equal? 

MURRAY WATT: My view is that both of those pathways very much remain open to us. You will have heard the Coalition say that they think this legislation is too pro-environment. The Greens are saying that it's too pro-business. You might take from that we've probably got the balance right, but that there are things in this legislation for both environment and business, and that's what we've been trying to secure. So I wouldn't say at this point in time that one pathway is more likely than the other. I do want to make sure that the legislation that we pass genuinely does deliver benefits for the environment and for business. And I've said all along that no one is going to get everything they want in this legislation. There's got to be some compromise from everyone involved, and that includes from me. So I'm very confident that we can still find a pathway this side of Christmas, but it's a little too hard to predict yet which way that will be. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: What aspects of the bill are no-go areas for you that you wouldn’t compromise on? 

MURRAY WATT: Well, before we introduced the legislation, I did rule out including what people have described as a climate trigger, which would require or give the minister an option to reject a project on the basis of its greenhouse emissions. And you may remember that I said that because we do have a range of strong policies in place to reduce the emissions of projects, but we didn't think it was necessary to duplicate those kind of regulations in this set of laws. That's really the only thing that I've ruled out at this stage. For me, it comes down to those principles that how do we deliver a set of reforms that does deliver real benefits for both the environment and for business? That will be the test that I'll be applying, and I think the government will be applying, when we're weighing up which bits of the legislation we're prepared to change. The other thing I'd say is that we've now gone to two elections promising to create a national environment protection agency, so a strong watchdog that can ensure the laws are followed and to come down hard on people who damage our environment illegally. So I can't see a situation where we would give up the whole idea of an EPA, but there's a range of other aspects of the reforms that we're prepared to talk about as long as we do deliver real benefits for both the environment and for business. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: The national interest provisions effectively let you choose when the legislation applies and critics say that this seems to contradict the whole purpose of protecting the environment from commercial interests. What's your response to this criticism that you've created a ministerial carve-out that undermines the reforms? 

MURRAY WATT: Well, this was a direct recommendation of Graeme Samuel in his review. What Graeme said was that we needed to introduce for the first time strong, clear national environmental standards for decision makers to consider when deciding whether to approve or reject a project. But he also said that elected governments should have the ability in rare circumstances to approve a project, even if it doesn't meet those environmental benchmarks, if it's in the national interest to do so. So we've picked up that recommendation, as we have almost all of Graeme’s recommendations, but I guess what it comes down to is that there may be rare instances where after a project has been fully assessed with public consultation and after a proponent has been required to reduce the environmental impacts of a project, there may be rare circumstances where it's still in the national interest for that to proceed. Now, obviously, there's been a lot of criticism of that aspect of these reforms since we tabled that bill and I'm prepared to listen to that and think about whether there's ways that we can, you know, minimise the risks of that kind of a power. But it was a direct recommendation of Graeme Samuel and again, it comes down to whether governments who've been elected should have the power to make decisions. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: So you would be willing to look at putting more limits on this override power, this ministerial override power, than in your present legislation? 

MURRAY WATT: Potentially. I mean, I'm open, as I've said, to considering requests about a range of different issues within this legislation, provided we still can secure those goals of stronger environmental protections and quicker decision-making processes. I mean, to give you another example, even under the current legislation that we're seeking to reform, there is the ability for a minister to grant an exemption from the Act if it's considered to be in the national interest. And some of the times when that's been used is, for example, if a cyclone has torn through a region that contains important roads and infrastructure, as well as World Heritage listed rainforest, if a government needed to get in and do work on that road to keep it safe, if that was going to have some sort of impact on World Heritage listed rainforest to do that work, then normally what would be required is a full environmental assessment that could take years to do and in those situations, I think the public interest is served by being able to go in and maybe make some changes - cut down some trees in that World Heritage Area to restore the safety of that road. Of course, you wouldn't want any more damage than was absolutely necessary. But the point of it is to enable quicker decisions where there is a national interest involved. But yeah, I'm obviously open to hearing from different parties about whether that's something that should be compromised or codified, and we'll continue to have those discussions.

MICHELLE GRATTAN: One thing that business is pressing for is for the new protection authority, environmental protection authority, to focus purely on compliance. What's your thought on that?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, the way we've designed this new National Environment Protection Agency is actually very similar to what you see in state EPAs, where they perform a range of roles, including compliance with the law, enforcement of the law, you know, fining those who illegally damage the environment. But also many of the state EPAs also have the role of assessing and approving projects. So we don't think that there's anything, you know, unusual about the way we've designed those powers. It is about having, you know, the right expertise housed in one agency to not just enforce the law, but to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal as well. So I would be reluctant to change that because, as I say, you know, we think that there are many other models that exists already that this is very similar to. But again, I have said that we're willing to consider modest changes to this legislation as long as we can deliver those environmental and business benefits that we're looking for.

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Neither the current law nor your proposed reforms give the government power to protect the Great Barrier Reef from land clearing. And this has been a 25-year-old loophole. UNESCO's warned Queensland about this. Why aren't you taking the opportunity to close this loophole in this legislation? 

MURRAY WATT: I certainly recognise the calls from environment groups to deal with this matter. And we do know that things like agricultural land clearing are having an impact on our natural environment. But I guess my priority in delivering these reforms has been to implement the recommendations of Graeme Samuel’s review. He didn't address this point in his review. And even to deliver his recommendations is a pretty mammoth task. It's a pretty comprehensive bill as it stands. So we've really just tried to concentrate on the issues that he made recommendations on. And I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the bill as it currently stands still contains extremely strong benefits for the natural environment, even if we haven't dealt with every single issue that people would like to see covered. You know, it will introduce for the first time clear national environmental standards that need to be considered when projects are being assessed and approved. It will introduce a national EPA for the first time in Australia's history. It will require proponents to avoid and minimise environmental impacts. And if they do seek to offset those impacts, there's got to be a net gain for the environment. So the environment's got to be a winner out of it in the end. There's much stronger penalties for those who do the wrong thing, clear definitions to stop unacceptable projects from proceeding. So there's still a lot in this bill that would really transform our environment for the better, even if we haven't addressed every single issue. But I respect the fact that there are people who would like us to do additional things. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: So on the Barrier Reef, would you be willing to next year consider other legislation, separate legislation, to deal with that issue? 

MURRAY WATT: Look, I think it's inevitable that environment groups and many Australians will continue to agitate for other environmental reforms into the future and we'll consider them on their merits, whether it be about this particular issue or other things. As I say, my focus at the moment is really delivering Graeme Samuel’s review, which will deliver really substantial gains for the environment, but will really streamline those processes so we can get more renewables in the ground, which in itself is a good environmental win. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: On another subject, the Liberals this week are considering their position on net zero. And as we speak today, the feeling is that they will dump that commitment. Now, obviously, you would defend net zero strongly, but do you think the public is in fact starting to move away from feeling that a commitment to net zero by 2050 is the best way to go? Do you detect a change in public sentiment coming? 

MURRAY WATT: I don't think there's a change in public sentiment around the need to take serious action on climate change and that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is an important part of that. I think Australians are still very concerned about the impacts of climate change and, you know, we see its impacts in terms of our natural environment being in decline, but also we're about to enter the high-risk disaster season. I've got no doubt that any bushfires, floods, cyclones that the public's mind will return to the very serious real-life consequences of climate change. So I don't see a decline in interest from Australians on the need to take climate action and the need to reach net zero by 2050. I do think there is concern in the Australian community about power prices, and there are obviously some people in politics who seek to conflate net zero and power prices, despite the fact that the CSIRO and every other reputable body has pointed out that the cheapest way we can deliver our power needs in the future is through more renewables and by reducing our emissions. So, I think what the message from Australians is that they want us to keep taking action to keep power prices under control while also taking action on climate change and achieving net zero by 2050. I mean, I think Australians are increasingly aware also of the economic benefits of moving towards net zero by 2050. Right around Australia, there are jobs and businesses that are relying on more clean, cheaper energy for their survival. So I think people recognise that if we were to drop net zero by 2050, that would also be a hammer blow to the Australian economy, quite apart from the environmental impacts it would have as well. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Do you think realistically that it is attainable?

MURRAY WATT: Yes, I do. I think it'll be hard, but I do think it's attainable. We're already making good progress towards our initial target of 43% reductions by 2030. There's more work to be done there, but we are on track to achieve those targets. We've seen the most recent figures showing that our greenhouse emissions have fallen. I think it will be difficult to meet our 2035 targets of 62 to 70%, but where we landed there was to make sure that they were ambitious but achievable. It will require policy change. It will require new technology, but I do think that those targets are achievable, just as I think it's achievable to get to net zero by 2050. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: The Bureau of Meteorology comes within your ministerial remit, and we saw the launch of their new website recently run into some really serious issues. And indeed, you called in officials and put some please explain questions to them. The Bureau has now fixed up the website, but are you satisfied with the changes and why did it run into such a serious problem? 

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, I think all Australians were disappointed and concerned about some of the changes that were made to the BOM website. As you say, I did have a meeting with the acting CEO and some of his senior team about the concerns, and I'm pleased that the BOM responded to that community feedback by starting to make some changes to the website. I think this has been a long-running project to upgrade the BOM's website, partly to make it more usable by the public, but also to really strengthen it from cyber security risks that the old website faced. The BOM has also said that the changes they've made to the website aren't over. They will continue to refine the website and respond to community feedback as that comes in. But I think they've had a pretty clear message, not just from me, but from the Australian public that it's important that we have a website that is usable. People all around the country rely on the BOM's forecasts. And I should say, I've got a huge amount of respect for the work of the BOM and its team do in providing that important information to Australians. But equally, they do need to be an agency that listens to community feedback, and I'm pleased they're starting to make those changes. In terms of where we go from here, a new CEO of the BOM actually started this week. Dr Stuart Minchin, he's a highly qualified expert when it comes to science, technology, communicating information to the public. And I've met with him this week, in fact I met with him on his first day, and you won't be surprised to hear that addressing the remaining issues with the website was the very first issue that we talked about. So I'm confident that his new leadership will show that changes can be made and that the BOM will respond to community feedback. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Was that changeover in response to the problems or coming anyway? 

MURRAY WATT: The new CEO? 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Yes. 

MURRAY WATT: No, he was always going to be starting. The former CEO retired from that position. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Just finally, you're a Senate Minister and there's been a big fuss in the Senate recently over the production of documents, with a report a few months ago showing that Labor’s compliance with orders to produce documents was only about 32.8% in the 47th Parliament, while the Morrison Government had indeed performed considerably better. Why is there such a reluctance to produce documents? 

MURRAY WATT: Well, I don't agree that there has been a reluctance to produce documents. What we have seen, though, is an explosion in requests for documents from non-government Senators over the last couple of years. And it's simply a matter of the government being able to respond to the explosion of those requests. I mean, there's one Coalition Senator who I won't name who's made more orders for production of documents than a series of governments. There's been more in the last year or so from that one Senator than we saw over many years across different governments. So realistically, there's a limit to how much government can spend its time and resources responding to those requests while also getting on with the business of government, delivering the funding for health care, delivering the NDIS, delivering all the things that we need to do to service the Australian public. So, I think if you looked at it in numerical terms, what you’d find is that our government is responding to orders for production of documents either at a similar rate or even better than what we've seen from previous governments. But the sheer number of those requests has gone through the roof and that is proving difficult to manage. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Well, even if the government can plead over work, what's the reason that, for example, it has refused now for years to produce one report, that is the report on jobs for mates, which it commissioned itself and now has just stubbornly not put out? 

MURRAY WATT: Well, I think it's long accepted that documents that are the subject of Cabinet consideration don't need to be released while they are subject to Cabinet consideration. And that gets back to the fact that it's to have all of the advice available to make good decisions. That document is still the subject of Cabinet consideration as we formulate a response to it. But Katy Gallagher as the Finance Minister, has already made clear that we will be releasing that document once it has been finalised through the Cabinet process. And I know that she has also briefed privately the relevant Senate committee on the nature of that report. So we've done what we can to be transparent around the nature of that report while allowing cabinet to reach its decisions. But as I say, we have committed that we will release that report. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: It must be a bit red hot though, because it has taken literally years. 

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, but also I think it's important that we do take the time to respond to these kind of reports properly and take their recommendations seriously, undertake the kind of policy work that's required to deliver their recommendations, consider which recommendations we think are appropriate and which ones are not. So it's not even so much necessarily a matter of the content being read hot, but just about good government process and cabinet being able to make good decisions and not release those documents until those decisions have been made. 

MICHELLE GRATTAN: Murray Watt, thank you very much for joining us today and talking us through your legislation. You've obviously got your foot on the accelerator there.