Press conference, Parliament House

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Thanks everyone for being here this morning. Today is a landmark day for Australia's natural environment. We know that Australia's environment is under pressure from a range of different sources, and it's very pleasing to see the House of Representatives now pass the government's historic changes to Australia's national environmental laws.

As you know, what I've always said is that we would deliver a balanced package of reforms that would deliver very real wins for the environment and very real wins for the business community, and that's exactly what we've achieved. As a result of these laws being passed, Australia's natural environment will be better protected for generations to come. We're going to be delivering the historic shift that Professor Graeme Samuel recommended, that rather than just continuing to manage the ongoing decline of nature, we can shift the dial and make sure that we are restoring nature and bringing it back to what it used to be. In addition, these reforms will deliver much quicker processes and decision-making processes to ensure that we can deliver the housing, the renewables, the critical minerals that our country desperately needs. So, now the job of course is to get on and implement these reforms. No easy task, but an important task made easier by the fact that the House of Representatives has now passed these laws.

I want to thank the very many people who have been involved in this process, not just over the last few months since I've been in the job as Minister for Environment, but my predecessor and friend, Tanya Plibersek, for her terrific work laying the foundations for these reforms that I've now been able to build on, and also the very many stakeholders from the environment movement, from the business community, from the general community, who have shared their views about the kind of laws that Australia needs going forward and have now been secured.

You will have seen that there have been a very wide range of groups that have supported the laws as they have been passed, beginning with Professor Samuel, who again, I pay tribute to for his excellent work in providing the blueprint for reform. But these laws have now also been supported by a range of environment groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Dr Ken Henry and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, WWF, the Climate Council, Humane World for Animals, and the Australian Land Conservation Association.

The reforms and the laws that have been passed have also been welcomed by a broad range of industry groups, including the Housing Industry Association, the Property Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Association of Mining Exploration Companies, the Clean Energy Council, the Low Emission Technology Australia group and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. Now I think when this process first began, many would have said it wouldn't have been possible to deliver a balanced package that would be supported by such a wide group of organisations crossing both the industry perspective and the environment perspective. That's what we've done. This is a great day for Australia's environment. This is a great day for getting the housing, renewables and critical minerals we need and I'm really looking forward to getting on and implementing them now. Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Are you worried about any blowback from seats in Tasmania or your native Queensland in regard to forestry protections?

MURRAY WATT: No, I'm not, because what we're doing here is simply requiring the forestry sector that is covered by regional forest agreements to meet the same standards and the same laws and same rules as every other industry, and that's the case for agricultural land clearing as well. The situation we had was that those two industries had been exempted under the original laws from the same rules that apply to the mining industry, to the renewable energy industry, to property development. And what we've done is say that those industries also need to meet the same rules and standards of other industries. So it's really about levelling the playing field.

Just a couple of points of clarification. The changes that we've made to forestry only relate to forestry that occurs under regional forest agreements. And those agreements only apply in Tasmania and New South Wales. They are the only two states affected by these reforms. And for all of those who are out there peddling lies about what this means for the native forestry industry, also regional forest agreements don't just relate to native forestry, they relate to plantation timber as well. So it's time for the scare campaigns from some elements of the Coalition in particular about what this means for Tasmania to stop. It is not in the interests of Tasmanian workers for Coalition politicians to be lying to them about what these laws do and what they don't do.

JOURNALIST: The agriculture sector has been shocked by the strength of your reforms around land clearing, native vegetation clearing in particular. I'm just wondering if you're conscious of the potential for a spate of activity in, you know, especially in northern Australia to get in ahead of the implementation of these laws. Do you have any advice for agencies that are monitoring that activity now? How do you see that playing out, Minister?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, thanks, Mike. Just really briefly, because it hasn't had a lot of coverage yet. The changes that we've made in relation to agricultural land clearing are again to remove the exemption that currently applies under the Act for particular types of high risk land clearing, and now that will stop because we are removing the exemption that applies to land clearing of regrowth of trees that have regrown and have been in the ground for more than 15 years, and we're also removing the exemption for the clearing of land within 50 metres of the rivers and creeks that are in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. And that's to deal with the issue of sediment runoff into the reef, which is a major threat for the reef.

So that's the kind of clearing that we've lifted the exemption for. It does not mean that farmers cannot clear their land anymore and I expect that we'll have Coalition politicians claiming that. It does not mean that farmers cannot clear their land. What it means is that in either of those two situations, regrowth of more than 15 years or clearing near rivers and creeks in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, what it means is that if that clearing is going to have impact on nationally protected environment matters, then those who want to do the clearing will need to seek an EPBC assessment and an EPBC approval. Exactly the same as what happens with miners, wind farm developers, housing developers, who if they want to clear land or do something that is going to have that significant impact on the environment, they need to seek an EPBC assessment and an approval. So again, it's that point about levelling the playing field across all industries.

On your specific question, Mike, I am conscious that we can't allow too much of a gap between us having announced that there will be these changes to land clearing and implementing them. And that's why we are going to be commencing those provisions about land clearing on the date of royal assent to this bill, so in the next few days. I've spoken this morning with the secretary of my department about the need to make sure that our compliance and enforcement teams are ready to enforce these new laws. We don't want to see a rush to destroying the kind of vegetation that will now be protected under the law. And people need to know that if they break the law, we will be cracking down on that.

JOURNALIST: On native forestry, the Tasmanian Government has come out saying they’re deeply concerned about this deal with the Greens. Are you concerned that you've won the battle by passing these laws, but you may have a war on your hands with New South Wales and Tasmania?

MURRAY WATT: I'm not at all surprised that we see a Coalition government in Tasmania that has spent the last 20 or 30 years running culture wars around forestry, getting back to their old tricks. It's exactly what I expected. It's disappointing, but not surprising that that's what they've done. Now again, we are not ending native forestry in this bill despite the fact that some in the Coalition are saying so. We are not removing the regional forestry agreements under these changes, despite the fact the Coalition are saying so. And I challenge the Tasmanian Government or any other Coalition member to point me where in the legislation it says that we're shutting down native forestry or RFAs. And they can't do that because the legislation doesn't say that, they are lying when they say that to the Tasmanian people. What this is about is applying the same environmental standards that apply to every other industry to regional forest agreements.

Now, you might remember, I used to be the forestry minister. I know the forestry sector in Tasmania pretty well. I know many people who work in it and own companies in that industry. And they are always telling me that their activities meet high environmental standards. So if that is the case, they have nothing to fear from the fact that they will now be subject to national environmental standards.

The other thing I would say about the Tasmanian Government is that as they run around telling people myths and lies about what this means for native forestry, the biggest issue facing native forestry in Tasmania is the fact that over the next couple of years, the Tasmanian Government will not have enough native forest timber to supply to sawmills. That's the risk to jobs in native forestry is the Tasmanian Government's failure to manage its own contracts to supply wood to saw millers. So I'd like to hear from the Tasmanian Government what their plan is to protect jobs in the forestry sector as those changes come in, and where's their money that they're investing in the forestry industry in the way that we've announced $300 million to support the industry grow, not shrink.

JOURNALIST: Minister, we heard the Prime Minister in the chamber before praising the way that the Greens had dealt with the negotiations. He even used the phrase the Yes-alition in the way that the two parties had worked together. Do you see the way that these negotiations have been conducted with the Greens and the way that both sides have handled it as the opportunity for a kind of a template for a new era in the way that the two can work together, and what could that mean for progressive reform moving forward?

MURRAY WATT: Look, I wouldn't want to say that this is going to necessarily be the approach to every piece of legislation. Obviously every piece of legislation is different, and there will be different views across the chamber depending on the topic that we're talking about. But what I will say is that, particularly Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and as time went on, Senator Larissa Waters as the leader of the party, did play a very constructive role. And they knew how to negotiate, and that was the contrast with the Coalition who, as you know, had multiple negotiators trying to talk with me with different asks and different requests, and it made it impossible to do a deal with the Coalition. We were still open to doing a deal with the Coalition on Wednesday, but we were still getting different requests from different people and just when we thought we had the final list, there'd be new amendments tossed in as well. So I think there’s some questions for them about how they handle negotiations like this in the future. But certainly, I think what we can see from that is when Labor and the Greens party are prepared to work constructively together, then good outcomes are possible. And that's as much on the Greens in terms of how they handle negotiations in the future as it is on us.

JOURNALIST: Minister, the Queensland Government said that in doing a deal with the Greens, you've undermined future investment in the Queensland mining industry and put jobs at risk. Do you agree that that's potentially a reality of these reforms?

MURRAY WATT: Well, again, I'm not surprised that we see a Coalition state government in Queensland bagging something that a Labor government in Canberra has been able to achieve. I mean, and I'm not surprised that the Coalition government in Queensland is deeply disappointed in their federal colleagues being unable to reach a deal with us. But again, I think that the sorts of statements that are coming out of the Queensland Government are wildly exaggerated. The reforms that we have put in place will actually speed up the approval processes for all industries, regardless of what the industry is. They will deliver quicker yeses and quicker nos for all industries, not just in Queensland but right across the country. Now, of course, there are some individual streamlined pathways that will now apply to industries like housing and renewables, but all projects, regardless of what they are, will benefit from these reforms. So I'd encourage the Queensland Government to actually understand what the legislation says rather than what their federal Coalition are telling them it says.

JOURNALIST: Minister, you just said all projects, regardless of what they are, will benefit. I mean, the gas industry thinks that it's not getting any benefit whatsoever, and we've heard the Coalition pick up on those points this morning. Is it correct that there's no possible way to speed up approvals for the gas sector?

MURRAY WATT: No, that's not correct. Obviously, there are some individual new streamlined pathways that we've created under these reforms that we have agreed to not apply to coal and gas projects. There's a serious question about whether those processes could have ever been used for coal and gas projects because of the complexity of those projects. And in the negotiations in the lead up to it, we had a number of different representatives of the gas industry say to us that they didn't realistically think that they'd be able to access those pathways anyway. So I'd encourage people to take it with a grain of salt when they're hearing from the gas industry now that these reforms have been passed.

But as I say, the reforms overall will deliver faster yeses and faster nos for all projects. And one of the main ways that will occur is we will now be more easily able to enter bilateral agreements with a state or a territory which will remove the duplication in the system that applies to assessment and approval of projects. You've heard me say before that one of the challenges we have is a project that is not only going to trigger state environmental law but federal environmental law, first of all, it has to get an assessment and approval under state legislation and then a federal assessment and a federal approval. And that combination of processes can add years to a project. If we can be entering an agreement with state and territory governments, and they all want to do it, where we can accredit them to do the assessment and potentially over time the approval as well, that will remove the need to do two sets of processes – and that will apply to all the projects, not just housing, not just renewables.

JOURNALIST: And how quickly can you get those up?

MURRAY WATT: Those agreements? Well, we've actually already begun speaking with a number of state governments, including in your home state of WA about that, and there's great enthusiasm to do so. But you may have seen that when we had a meeting of the federal, state and territory environment ministers a few weeks ago, one of the resolutions in the communique there was that all states and territories wanted to work with us on reaching those quicker approvals through those sorts of agreements. So there's a couple of them already beating down our door to do so, and we've begun those discussions already.

JOURNALIST: But are you concerned that not having gas on that fast track pathway, we undermine the goal of the future gas strategy and also that potential for a lot of renewables?

MURRAY WATT: No, I’m not. I mean, you know that our government has repeatedly said that we do need new gas being brought online, including to back up renewables along with batteries and hydropower. So I know not everyone agrees with that policy, but that is our government’s policy. And as I say, the reforms that we’ve made to these laws will speed up approvals for all projects, no matter what they are.

JOURNALIST: Minister, do you think that the changes you've regarding the Great Barrier Reef, will that help the reef escape being classified as in danger for the foreseeable future?

MURRAY WATT: I think it's very likely that it will. Obviously that will ultimately be a decision for UNESCO. But as you'd be aware, next year, the Great Barrier Reef is being considered by UNESCO as to whether it should be listed as in danger. Now, that is something that we have resisted very strongly, as has the Queensland Government, to give them their due. We know from previous discussions that one of the major concerns UNESCO has about the health of the Great Barrier Reef is the sediment runoff that is impacting on the water quality around the reef. And we know from the science that one of the best things that we can do to reduce that sediment runoff is to take the steps that we've taken around regulating some forms of high-risk land clearing. So I would expect that it is a positive development in terms of making sure that the Great Barrier Reef doesn't get that  in danger listing, and that's why the Queensland Government should support what we've done. I mean, I know the Queensland Government will feel tempted to try to satisfy those farmers who don't like these rules. Well, they should think about the 60,000 jobs right up and down Queensland that rely on the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the tourism sector. So if you get into places like Cairns, Townsville, the Whitsundays, Mackay, Bundaberg, all of those provincial towns all the way through Queensland rely so heavily on the Great Barrier Reef, and I think you'll find that many of those communities support this action that we've taken because it helps protect the reef for the future.

JOURNALIST: How do you rank this government's environmental record now compared to Bob Hawke's legacy?

MURRAY WATT: Well I saw that you made some very generous remarks, and a couple of others of you have in your articles today.

JOURNALIST: Always critical.

[Laughter]

MURRAY WATT: I'll leave it for others to judge the significance of this, but this is a massive reform and it's a massive positive for the Australian natural environment. Labor is very proud of the fact that we are the party of the environment. The only time that positive steps have ever been taken to protect our natural environment have been under Labor governments. Whether we're talking about Gough Whitlam signing up to World Heritage treaties, whether we're talking about Bob Hawke saving the Franklin or listing Kakadu - World Heritage listing for Kakadu, whether we're talking about the Gillard and Rudd governments around carbon measures and other activities they've taken. And now, the Albanese Government has undertaken the most significant reform to our environment laws in 25 years, so I reckon that's not bad.

JOURNALIST: Just on climate -

MURRAY WATT: I might go to Evelyn first, and then Jason and then back to you.

JOURNALIST: Are you a fixer?

MURRAY WATT: I might not have offered you a question if I'd known you were going to ask that. Again, I'll leave it for other people to make their judgments. I think, I like a challenge. I like getting stuck into big, meaty, hard things, and I like working with stakeholders to make it happen. So I'll leave it to other people to work out what happens.

JOURNALIST: What’ll you fix next?

MURRAY WATT: There's plenty on my plate.

JOURNALIST: Can I ask you about salmon? Salmon jobs and protecting those in Tasmania was a big issue at the election as well. Do you think there’s any risk that there’s a similarity with protecting forestry jobs in Tasmania for Labor at the next election?

MURRAY WATT: I think that once people in Tasmania see and hear what we have actually done in the law. I’m very confident that they’ll see that we actually believe in the forestry industry in Tasmania and that we want to see it grow, not shut down. And so, as I say, there’s a lot of Coalition politicians in particular peddling lies about what we've done. I've done media in Tasmania today. My colleagues from Tasmania have done so yesterday to explain what we are doing and what we are not doing. And on that, I might just acknowledge the incredible advocacy of people like Julie Collins as the Forestry Minister from Tasmania and our entire Tasmanian Labor caucus who made very clear to me that we should not be agreeing to shut down native forestry. And we didn't, and we stared the Greens down on that. Our Tasmanian colleagues said that we should not get rid of RFAs, and we haven't. What we've done is say that the industry needs to meet the same standards and the same rules as every other industry.

JOURNALIST: Through this whole process, was the Coalition in your view ever serious about wanting to do a deal with you?

MURRAY WATT: Look, I think some elements of the Coalition were, and some weren't. I think some saw this as an opportunity to poke Sussan Ley in the eye, given her history as the former environment minister who commissioned the Samuel review. So I think some were serious about wanting to do a deal. Some were serious about not doing a deal. But the overwhelming problem from the Coalition is that they just didn't know what they wanted, and I guess the split on that is why they weren't able to come to a position. We've been told by business sources that there were senior members of the Coalition frontbench who just thought we should sit on this and wait until the new year. And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that we were going to get this done this year, so they have completely failed to organise themselves in a way that made it possible to do a deal with them.

And on the other hand, we have the Greens Party who agreed to compromise on things, who accepted some amendments that we insisted on that were important to the business community, and that's why these laws have now been passed.

JOURNALIST: You were very insistent from the start that there wouldn't be a climate trigger, there wouldn't be climate considerations in the legislation, and there isn't. But do you think that there is or will ever be an opportunity to consider the climate impacts in the EPBC laws, possibly as part of a national environment standard specifically for climate?

MURRAY WATT: I can say we will not be producing a national environmental standard along those lines. We've been very clear that we don't support the idea of a climate trigger in this legislation. That's a widely held view within our government that we do need to take serious action on climate change, but that we should do that through the range of climate legislation, climate policies that my colleague Chris Bowen is doing such a good job of implementing. That's why we've lifted our emission reduction standards. It's why we're rolling out renewables, and these reforms will help do that. It's why we're bringing in emission standards for cars. So we will keep acting on climate change and reduce our emissions, but we don't see a case for duplicating those kind of rules in environment legislation as well. Okay, thanks everyone.