Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. Labor
Speaker 1: is trying to land one of its toughest reforms, an
Speaker 1: overhaul of Australia's environmental laws. The Minister Murray Watt says
Speaker 1: he wants to speed up housing and energy project developments,
Speaker 1: make it clear where construction can and can't go ahead,
Speaker 1: and create a federal environment watchdog. After a failed deal
Speaker 1: with the Greens in the last Parliament, Labour is now
Speaker 1: dealing with the coalition. So what will that mean for
Speaker 1: the environment Today Contributing editor at The New Daily, Amy
Speaker 1: Remikus on Labour's wheeling and dealing and the coalition's continued
Speaker 1: identity crisis. It's Saturday, October eleven, Amy, thanks for being here.
Speaker 1: The Environment Minister Murray wa has been trying to rewrite
Speaker 1: Australia's environment laws. So how's he going with that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a really interesting one because the Labor government
Speaker 2: came to power back in twenty twenty two saying that
Speaker 2: it would protect the environment, that it would get this done,
Speaker 2: that we would have an EPA that would be able
Speaker 2: to make decisions for the government. They haven't managed to
Speaker 2: get these laws through, mostly because industry does not like them,
Speaker 2: and so what we have now is a government that
Speaker 2: had almost come to an agreement with the Greens, had
Speaker 2: almost managed in the last parliament to get this signed
Speaker 2: off on. Industry really didn't like this, particularly in Western Australia.
Speaker 2: WA Premier Roger Cook said that he spoke to alban
Speaker 2: Ezi on Tuesday and received an assurance that these laws
Speaker 2: would be on ice. Anthony Albanesi swooped in and said, Nope,
Speaker 2: We're not doing a deal with the Greens. This is
Speaker 2: not what we want. We cannot get this bill through
Speaker 2: the parliament, even though they could.
Speaker 3: We were concerned in relation to some of the elements
Speaker 3: of the nature positive laws and that position very clear.
Speaker 3: Are very pleased to have received assurances from the highest
Speaker 3: levels of government that those laws will not be going
Speaker 3: ahead in their current form this week.
Speaker 2: And so we're back in the new parliament with Labor
Speaker 2: negotiating with the coalition who this time have come to
Speaker 2: the table, something that they didn't do in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two's parliament under Peter Dutton. Because the mining industry has
Speaker 2: just basically said to them, what are you doing If
Speaker 2: you don't negotiate, Labor will have to negotiate with the
Speaker 2: Greens to get this through, and we would much rather
Speaker 2: have you negotiate with Labor than the Greens, which essentially
Speaker 2: means that Labor is going to be on board with
Speaker 2: the coalition, with the Matt Canavans and the Barnaby Joyces
Speaker 2: when it comes to environmental laws, rather than come up
Speaker 2: with a package that will actually do something and go
Speaker 2: through the Greens.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what did the coalition want from the bill
Speaker 1: and what was it about what the Greens wanted them
Speaker 1: made walk away?
Speaker 2: The coalition pretty much wants to ensure that the mining
Speaker 2: industry is protected, so they're essentially making sure that this
Speaker 2: bill does not go any further than it absolutely has
Speaker 2: to to give the sheen that we're doing something to
Speaker 2: protect the environment, but they don't want it to actually
Speaker 2: have anything in there that would stop development that the
Speaker 2: mining industry might want. And one of the key things
Speaker 2: in there is the climate trigger, which is what the
Speaker 2: Greens have wanted for some time. And what the climate
Speaker 2: trigger is is essentially if a project's emissions would have
Speaker 2: damage to Australia's emissions target or would be seen to
Speaker 2: be adding to Australia's emissions then that would automatically mean
Speaker 2: that the project could not go ahead. So the Greens
Speaker 2: wanted to set a climate target that would be incorporated
Speaker 2: into all of these laws that every mine and every
Speaker 2: fossil fuel project would be subject to. The industry doesn't
Speaker 2: want anything that will touch this rather kind of cushy
Speaker 2: arrangement that it has with sort of i would say,
Speaker 2: greenwashing of how they're actually getting rid of these omissions,
Speaker 2: and the Liberals do not want the industry to have
Speaker 2: to face a climate trigger, and so essentially they're coming
Speaker 2: up with the bare minimum. The only issue that seems
Speaker 2: to still be a bit contentious is whether the Minister
Speaker 2: will have the final say on a project or whether
Speaker 2: a statutory body like the EPA would have the final say.
Speaker 2: That is still up for debate, and even the environmental
Speaker 2: movement is split on that as well. A lot of
Speaker 2: strong environmentalists want the Minister to maintain the power to
Speaker 2: be able to stop a project because they think that
Speaker 2: community expectations and public opinion does matter, which is something
Speaker 2: that an environmental protection agency that is just looking at
Speaker 2: the data may not take into account. And we're yet
Speaker 2: to see which way the negotiations on that will go.
Speaker 1: When it comes to stopping projects or all these pausing
Speaker 1: projects senate estimates This week exposed a pretty big coal
Speaker 1: in Australia's current laws when it was revealed that the
Speaker 1: Environment Department couldn't legally hit pause and suspected illegal land clearing.
Speaker 1: Can he gets explain what happened?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So this is an exact example of why we
Speaker 2: do need stronger laws and what we're not necessarily looking
Speaker 2: at when it comes to these laws. This is an
Speaker 2: area in central Queensland, a coal mine, the Gemini coal Mine,
Speaker 2: that has been suspected of doing illegal land clearing, where
Speaker 2: conservationalists have said that there is urgent need for protections
Speaker 2: for the environment and for native species.
Speaker 4: If they've been clearing koala habitat without approval already, like how.
Speaker 1: Much is left? So it's an allegation.
Speaker 2: Well no, no, no.
Speaker 1: No true.
Speaker 2: Either the trees still exist that the koalas are living
Speaker 2: in or they don't. They've either been knocked down or
Speaker 2: they still are.
Speaker 1: It's currently an allegation, mister mcquin.
Speaker 2: There are examples of it from the air where the
Speaker 2: Council has been able to take photographs and basically say
Speaker 2: that an area has been cleared that there doesn't look
Speaker 2: like there has been permissioned for but nobody can tell
Speaker 2: them to stop because there's nothing in the legislation that
Speaker 2: says that they can legally tell them to stop. And Queensland,
Speaker 2: which has land clearing laws, has a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: loopholes in those laws. It's still considered by conservationalists to
Speaker 2: be the deforestation capital of Australia. And one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why is that there is no sort of federal
Speaker 2: oversight to say, bang, you have to stop this project.
Speaker 1: So as it stands, is the reform that the coalition
Speaker 1: and the government are now negotiating, is that going to
Speaker 1: create those kind of stop work powers and is that
Speaker 1: something that the Coalition would support in particular.
Speaker 2: Not at the moment, it is something that the Greens want,
Speaker 2: and the Greens are pushing very hard to try and
Speaker 2: ensure that all of these loopholes become public and so
Speaker 2: that people can see what is not in the legislation
Speaker 2: that needs to be So if they can't get the
Speaker 2: climate trigger, if they can't have the government negotiate with them,
Speaker 2: the hope is that by exposing these cases more widely
Speaker 2: that people will actually put pressure on labor to include it.
Speaker 2: But if the Coalition want to make industry happy, then
Speaker 2: the Coalition have to vote for these laws if labor
Speaker 2: include it. So there is some power for movement there,
Speaker 2: which is only going to force a bit more of
Speaker 2: a split in the Nationals and the Liberal Party because
Speaker 2: the Nationals really do not want this stop work trigger
Speaker 2: going on. So it's one of those really weird four
Speaker 2: D chess dances that go on with legislation at time,
Speaker 2: and I think that it's one that's going to be
Speaker 2: very interesting to keep an eye on.
Speaker 1: So despite all of that, there is broad consensus amongst
Speaker 1: the parties that Australia's environmental protection laws need to be
Speaker 1: over the way that it's going at the moment. Are
Speaker 1: you confident the government is going to deliver new laws
Speaker 1: that will work for the environment.
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm not confident that these laws will work
Speaker 2: for the environment. And Murray what said in Senate estimates
Speaker 2: that Labour's job was to balance the needs of business
Speaker 2: with the environment, which pretty much says everything you need
Speaker 2: to know about the direction that these laws are going in.
Speaker 2: We know from history that if you're trying to balance
Speaker 2: business and industry with protecting the environment. The environment tends
Speaker 2: to lose every.
Speaker 1: Time coming up. Andrew Hasty has gone from the front bench,
Speaker 1: but his supporters are still shaping the coalition's tactics. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was the first week that the Liberals haven't had
Speaker 1: Andrew Hasty on the front bench changed things for the party.
Speaker 2: Susan Lee has been working very hard to try and
Speaker 2: stop people talking about Andrew Hasty and the leadership woes,
Speaker 2: and she's tried to switch focus to what Labor is doing.
Speaker 2: So she wanted to focus on the TRIPLEO optus failure
Speaker 2: in parliament this week and that was her main focus
Speaker 2: for most of the parliament.
Speaker 5: Thank you, missus speaking. My question is to the Minister
Speaker 5: for Communications. One hundred and forty seven days ago the
Speaker 5: minister was sworn into her portfolio and yet she still
Speaker 5: self identifies as a new minister being you is no
Speaker 5: excuse Australian's dialing triple zero in an emergency cannot wait
Speaker 5: for you to learn the minister isn't a crossover.
Speaker 2: However, on the other side of that equation you had
Speaker 2: Andrew Hasty, who was largely silent this week, but he
Speaker 2: had his own pratorian guard out there basically advancing his cause.
Speaker 2: So you had senators like Jacinta Price, who was going
Speaker 2: out there talking about these terrible leaks that have come
Speaker 2: out about Andrew Hasty and how that needs stop.
Speaker 5: Look, I have a lot of respect for Andrew. I
Speaker 5: think that he has certainly shown his man of principle
Speaker 5: and of conviction.
Speaker 2: You had other people coming out and talking about how
Speaker 2: he was a man of integrity and how these issues
Speaker 2: that were being raised in the party room came from,
Speaker 2: you know, a place of him supporting the base and
Speaker 2: him wanting to broaden what the coalition was actually standing for.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's done great work for our party. But you know,
Speaker 6: he's made his decision. I don't think, and he's not
Speaker 6: indicated that there's any any other intent behind it except
Speaker 6: for not being able to voice his opinions on immigration.
Speaker 6: I can feel that for him.
Speaker 2: And then you had people who are on I would
Speaker 2: say Andrew Hasty's side of the political coin, like Michaulia
Speaker 2: Cash pushing this Isis bride scandal.
Speaker 4: The last time I checked, I would have thought the
Speaker 4: Prime Minister would actually be all over this issue in
Speaker 4: terms of the return of Isis brides and their children
Speaker 4: to Australia and would want to be upfront with the
Speaker 4: Australian people in relation to the measures that the government
Speaker 4: is taking to keep Australian safe. So again I'm asking
Speaker 4: you about it.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just Michaulia Cash talking about these women
Speaker 1: and children who have returned to Australia from Syria. James Patterson,
Speaker 1: who's feeling and your Hasty's Portfolio of Home Affairs for
Speaker 1: the time being was talking about it too. So what
Speaker 1: is the coalition's line here?
Speaker 2: The actual attack line from James Patterson and Michalia Cash.
Speaker 2: And for people who haven't followed James Patterson's career, he's
Speaker 2: a new South Wales Liberal senator who is a security
Speaker 2: hawk and while he hasn't been actively involved in the
Speaker 2: front lines in pushing the coalition's security and border's message,
Speaker 2: he's been heavily involved in the background in crafting these
Speaker 2: sorts of lines and strategies. His line is that Australia
Speaker 2: should have put temporary stops on these women and children's
Speaker 2: return to Australia.
Speaker 7: The Parliament has given the Executive Government of Australia the
Speaker 7: power to apply for a temporary exclusion order to prevent
Speaker 7: an Australian citizen who's travel overseas to associate with the
Speaker 7: terrorist organization from returning to our country. Very clearly, the
Speaker 7: government did not use these powers in this instance, and
Speaker 7: they should explain why.
Speaker 2: He is saying that that is something a trigger the
Speaker 2: government could have pulled and didn't pull and therefore Australians
Speaker 2: may be at risk. There is no suggestion Australians are
Speaker 2: at risk, as we know from what has been said
Speaker 2: in Parliament that the authorities were aware that the women
Speaker 2: and children managed to make their own way out of
Speaker 2: their camp to a third party country where they have
Speaker 2: received the documents to return to Australia as citizens, as
Speaker 2: is their right. They have returned to Australia. They are
Speaker 2: being monitored. We are told they are under investigation as
Speaker 2: to whether or not they have broken any Australian laws
Speaker 2: while they have been in Syria, and there is no
Speaker 2: suggestion that if that's proven, that they will not face
Speaker 2: consquences in the Australian judicial system. It's essentially people like
Speaker 2: James Pattison and Michaalia Cash and Andrew Hasty trying to
Speaker 2: return the Coalition to its natural safe place in Australian
Speaker 2: policy of being stronger on borders, stronger on national security,
Speaker 2: and they're trying really hard to try to say Labor
Speaker 2: is weak on this. But I think that for the
Speaker 2: most part this hasn't really taken off, except for in
Speaker 2: Conservative media and for what has happened in Parliament, because
Speaker 2: I think that most people have sort of moved on
Speaker 2: from where we were under the Tony Abbot years, and
Speaker 2: in fact even under Scott Morrison. People are a little
Speaker 2: bit more aware of what citizens' rights are and I
Speaker 2: think they have more trust in the security agencies than
Speaker 2: maybe people like James Patterson give them credit for.
Speaker 1: What does it say to you, Amy that Susan Lee
Speaker 1: was trying to focus on OPTUS, Well, a lot of
Speaker 1: a party wanted to talk about women coming home from
Speaker 1: Syria instead.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the fact that Susan Lee did not
Speaker 2: want to until she absolutely had to speaks volumes about
Speaker 2: the split in the coalition party room that is continuing.
Speaker 2: She really, really really wants the party to focus on
Speaker 2: what she says is making life better for every day Australian.
Speaker 2: She wants the party to go back to cost of living,
Speaker 2: to small government, to tax reform, to ensuring that small
Speaker 2: businesses are protected. She wants them to focus on those
Speaker 2: everyday issues. There is a very large portion of the
Speaker 2: Coalition party room, and you can include the Nationals in
Speaker 2: this who want more of the culture wars rather than
Speaker 2: actually talking about individual domestic lives. That is the fight
Speaker 2: that is going on in the Coalition at the moment,
Speaker 2: and I think that this week, where you saw Susan
Speaker 2: Lee really try to hold the line and keep it
Speaker 2: on domestic issues, she lost that battle. So you can
Speaker 2: tell how much authority Susan Lee actually has over the
Speaker 2: coalition by what happened this week. But you can also
Speaker 2: tell that those who are agitating for a return to
Speaker 2: the right wing led coalition that we saw under Scott Morrison,
Speaker 2: that we saw under Peter Dutton, and we saw the
Speaker 2: beginnings of under Howard, that they may not have as
Speaker 2: much power as they used to, but they certainly know
Speaker 2: how to use the media space to get whatever it
Speaker 2: is they feel they're missing out on.
Speaker 1: Amy, thank you so much for your time. Thank you,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to seven AM this week. Before we go,
Speaker 1: I wanted to tell you about our newsletter. Every Saturday,
Speaker 1: Ruby or I send an email where we talk about
Speaker 1: one of the biggest moments from the week, what happened,
Speaker 1: and why it matters. It's a place to keep up
Speaker 1: with any show news, and coming up, we'll be running
Speaker 1: a survey there to learn more about you and what
Speaker 1: you want to hear and see from ours. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe at seven am podcast dot com dou slash subscribe,
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend,