Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am. Murray
Speaker 1: Watt has a big job as federal Environment Minister. He
Speaker 1: has been handpicked by Albanezi to fix Australia's old and
Speaker 1: broken environment laws. It was a brief his predecessor, Tanya
Speaker 1: plebasec failed to achieve with mining interest in Western Australia,
Speaker 1: claiming success when a deal with the Greens was dashed
Speaker 1: by the PM at the last minute. So what will
Speaker 1: be different this time and how does the minister square
Speaker 1: greenlighting new fossil fuel projects? Was his government being elected
Speaker 1: to combat climate change? Today? Environment Minister Murray Watt on
Speaker 1: Australia's broken laws and why he said yes to Woodside.
Speaker 1: It's Monday, September one. Minister, thanks for speaking with me.
Speaker 1: One of your first acts as Environment Minister was to
Speaker 1: approve the extension of Woodside' Store West Shelf project out
Speaker 1: to twenty seventy, effectively adding four billion tons of climate
Speaker 1: pollution or a decade of emissions. Do you think that
Speaker 1: decision was in line with what people of Australia elected
Speaker 1: your government to do.
Speaker 2: Look, I really welcome the opportunity to say about this decision.
Speaker 2: It's a really good opportunity to explain what the basis
Speaker 2: of that decision was and what it wasn't. I understand
Speaker 2: that when that decision was made, there were many people
Speaker 2: who looked at it and questioned how we could be
Speaker 2: approving a project like that when you're thinking about greenhouse
Speaker 2: emissions and climate change. But the decision I was required
Speaker 2: to make under Australia's environmental law was what would the
Speaker 2: impact of extending that gas plant be on the rock Art.
Speaker 2: I've been at a little bit of a disadvantage, I guess,
Speaker 2: in that what I've done so far is issue a
Speaker 2: proposed decision, but I haven't been in a position to
Speaker 2: talk publicly about the conditions that I attached to that decision.
Speaker 2: But what I did say at the time was that
Speaker 2: I had imposed a number of strong conditions, particularly in
Speaker 2: relation to air emission levels and what impact they would
Speaker 2: have on the rock Art. I can understand why people
Speaker 2: looked at that decision and wondered why wasn't I taking
Speaker 2: into account climate change or greenhouse emissions or other things.
Speaker 2: But under the Act, the decision I had to make
Speaker 2: was about the impact of the Rock Art. The only
Speaker 2: other thing I'd say, though, and again this probably hasn't
Speaker 2: been ventilated as much as it should be, is that
Speaker 2: people shouldn't fear that we are making decisions about those
Speaker 2: kinds of projects without something being done regarding their emissions levels.
Speaker 2: And you might remember in our first term, our government
Speaker 2: strengthened what was what's known as the Safeguard's Mechanism, and
Speaker 2: that's a policy which requires the heaviest emitting projects in
Speaker 2: the country, whether it be coal mines, smelters, other industrial development,
Speaker 2: they're required to reduce their emissions every single year, their
Speaker 2: greenhouse emissions, and this project is already subject to that requirement.
Speaker 2: So leaving aside what I've made a decision about regarding
Speaker 2: the Rocker, this project is already required to reduce its
Speaker 2: greenhouse emissions by five percent a year and to reach
Speaker 2: net zero by twenty fifty. So I guess the way
Speaker 2: we're trying to come up these things is make the
Speaker 2: decisions under environmental law that need to be made applying
Speaker 2: the law, and at the same time, in parallel, deal
Speaker 2: with the greenhouse missions emissions through the Safeguard's Mechanism and
Speaker 2: other policies that we've got in place.
Speaker 1: You've talked about the safeguard mechanism, but those rules only
Speaker 1: apply to emissions from drilling, floor and processing gas at
Speaker 1: the time, not emissions from when the fuel is actually burned,
Speaker 1: whether that's here overseas. Numerous climate bodies have pointed out
Speaker 1: the inadequacy of the safeguard mechanism in curbing emissions. Is
Speaker 1: it a way for the government to look like it's
Speaker 1: acting while allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess this gets us into that debate about
Speaker 2: scope one, scope too, Scope three emissions, which risks getting
Speaker 2: into a bit too much jargon at this time of
Speaker 2: the morning. But I guess the way the world has
Speaker 2: approached dealing with climate change and greenhouse emissions, particularly through
Speaker 2: the Paris Agreement, is to say that every country who's
Speaker 2: a signatory to that agreement needs to reduce the emissions
Speaker 2: that it emits in their own country. And what that
Speaker 2: means is that we're responsible as a country for the
Speaker 2: emissions emitted in Australia. And that picks up things like,
Speaker 2: you know, the direct emissions from a plant like this,
Speaker 2: or from a coal mine in its operation, or from
Speaker 2: the cars that we drive, all of those kinds of things.
Speaker 2: And then when it comes to the emissions generated from
Speaker 2: products that we produce and sell overseas, those emissions need
Speaker 2: to be managed by the country that buys those products
Speaker 2: and burns that fuel. And one way of thinking about
Speaker 2: it is that for all of those cars that Australians
Speaker 2: buy and use that are made in Japan or South Korea,
Speaker 2: the emissions that come from those cars get counted towards
Speaker 2: our emissions budget here in Australia, not Japan's and careers.
Speaker 2: And similarly, the emissions that are generated from gas or
Speaker 2: coal that we export are counted against the budgets for
Speaker 2: emissions of those countries, not against ours. I guess that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why as a government we've taken
Speaker 2: so many steps to try to reduce the emissions we
Speaker 2: are producing through our own burning of fossil fuels here
Speaker 2: in Australia, and we're working with other countries and welcome
Speaker 2: them and doing the same in their own countries as well.
Speaker 1: If we just stick with woodside for one moment, in particular,
Speaker 1: the Marajugo Cultural landscape, this is an area that was
Speaker 1: recently granted World Heritage status by UNESCO. Is it possible
Speaker 1: to protect these PETROC lists from woodside emissions.
Speaker 2: We think it is, and more importantly, that's what the
Speaker 2: scientific evidence tells us. You may have seen that I
Speaker 2: participated in securing that nomination of the Murjub Cultural Landscape
Speaker 2: to get it World Heritage listing, which is a fantastic thing,
Speaker 2: not just for Western Australia, but of course the traditional
Speaker 2: owners of that land who led that nomination. And what
Speaker 2: the scientific evidence told us was that the emissions being
Speaker 2: created by projects there now are unlikely to be having
Speaker 2: an impact on that rock rt there certainly has been,
Speaker 2: it would seem an impact from previous industrial activity. There
Speaker 2: was a pretty dirty power station operating there at one
Speaker 2: point in time, and it's quite likely that the emissions
Speaker 2: from that power station were having an impact. Thankfully that's
Speaker 2: not happening anymore, and companies that are operating other facilities
Speaker 2: in that area I know have been forced and have
Speaker 2: decided to reduce their emissions themselves. So the emissions that
Speaker 2: we're seeing at the moment do not appear to be
Speaker 2: causing an impact on the rock cart.
Speaker 3: But yeah, we're.
Speaker 2: Confident that the measures that are being put in place
Speaker 2: and any conditions that I attached to these sorts of
Speaker 2: approvals will be able to do that.
Speaker 1: But isn't there a significant disagreement in the scientific and
Speaker 1: expert evidence around the protection of the petroglypse.
Speaker 3: There are different views about this.
Speaker 2: I'll acknowledge that, and you may have seen that at
Speaker 2: the time of the proposed decision on the Northwest Shelf project,
Speaker 2: there were some experts and academics who suggested that there
Speaker 2: would be an impact. I don't want to get into
Speaker 2: sort of insulting different people's qualifications, but the reality is
Speaker 2: that the geological and engineering experts who are best qualified
Speaker 2: to measure these sorts of impacts were clear.
Speaker 1: Coming up how the government justifies greenlighting new fossil fuel projects.
Speaker 1: Right now, you're working on new federal environmental laws. This
Speaker 1: has been a long time coming. Can you just explain
Speaker 1: why they need fixing?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is probably my biggest priority in this portfolio,
Speaker 2: and as you say, there's been a lot of talk
Speaker 2: for a long time about fixing these laws if you like.
Speaker 2: The blueprint that we're working towards for these reforms is
Speaker 2: the review and recommendations that were provided by Professor Graham
Speaker 2: Samuel for the former government nearly five years ago. And
Speaker 2: what Graham found in his report was that our current
Speaker 2: national environmental laws are fundamentally broken. They're not working for
Speaker 2: the environment and they're not working for business either, in
Speaker 2: the sense that we've got a very cumbersome process in
Speaker 2: place to get projects assessed and approved. So it's sort
Speaker 2: of failing in both ways. And so what we want
Speaker 2: to do is put in place environmental laws that are
Speaker 2: contend You know, this Act is nearly twenty years I
Speaker 2: think probably over twenty years old and doesn't meet the
Speaker 2: moment in terms of what we need. And what we
Speaker 2: want to do is put in place some laws that
Speaker 2: do work for the environment and do work for business,
Speaker 2: and we think you can achieve both of those things.
Speaker 1: You've taken over the portfolio from Tenure Plebisek, who got
Speaker 1: very close to a deal with the Greens regarding Australia's
Speaker 1: environmental laws before Anthony Alberezi stopped them from going ahead.
Speaker 1: It's been wildly reported that that was to help labor
Speaker 1: electorally in wr way. So how have you reshaped the
Speaker 1: laws to finally be able to get them through?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I've obviously seen that suggesting reported I
Speaker 2: wouldn't necessarily agree that that's what happened, but let's leave
Speaker 2: that to the side.
Speaker 3: That's age in history. Look, I think I really respect.
Speaker 2: The effort that Tanya put into these reforms, along with
Speaker 2: the incredible other achievements she had as the Environment Minister.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I think everyone was disappointed that we weren't
Speaker 2: able to secure agreement to those changes.
Speaker 3: Before the election.
Speaker 2: The question was how am I going about it differently
Speaker 2: and sort of what makes me feel that things will
Speaker 2: be different. I guess in the early discussions I was
Speaker 2: having with stakeholders after becoming the minister, it was clear
Speaker 2: to me that our best chance of getting a bill
Speaker 2: through the Senate with the broadest possible coalition of support
Speaker 2: for it outside the Parliament would be to try to
Speaker 2: deal with a broad range of issues rather than break
Speaker 2: it up as we had attempted to do before. And
Speaker 2: so what that means in practical terms is that the
Speaker 2: way I see these reforms is that they're built on
Speaker 2: three pillars. Firstly, stronger environmental protections, secondly, quicker and more
Speaker 2: efficient approvals processes, and thirdly more transparency when it comes
Speaker 2: to environmental decisions. And what I'm finding talking to stakeholders
Speaker 2: is that people do support that broader approach where we
Speaker 2: try to deal with a full range of issues rather
Speaker 2: than dealing with some and with people having reservations about
Speaker 2: what might yet be coming. The other thing I think
Speaker 2: that's really changed, of course, is the political climate in
Speaker 2: it Australia, where now through the election we've obviously got
Speaker 2: a large majority in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 3: I think that there's a level of good will.
Speaker 2: Across the community towards working with the government to get
Speaker 2: this done. So, you know, I wouldn't want to pretend
Speaker 2: that everything is resolved. This will be one of those
Speaker 2: bills that continues being negotiated until the minute it's passed.
Speaker 3: But I find that there is.
Speaker 2: A lot of good will there, whether you're an environmental
Speaker 2: group or a mining company to making change, because you know,
Speaker 2: the alternative we have is to stick with the laws
Speaker 2: that we've got at the moment, and they're not working
Speaker 2: for anyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if we talk about the evolution of this change,
Speaker 1: Minister Tenure PLEBI six original plan was to include mandatory
Speaker 1: consideration of climate change and environmental planning. As the new
Speaker 1: law is going to be a watered down version of
Speaker 1: what your government had originally a plan.
Speaker 2: Well, the issue of what we do around climate change
Speaker 2: in this legislation is something that we're still consulting on
Speaker 2: and we haven't reached a final decision on that. There's
Speaker 2: probably half a dozen issues, I would say this being
Speaker 2: one of them where there's still strong feelings on both
Speaker 2: side of it, and we've got to try and hammer
Speaker 2: out some sort of an arrangement. Really, what I said
Speaker 2: to you before, I think, was that we do see
Speaker 2: Graham Samuel's report as a bit of a blueprint for
Speaker 2: these reforms. And if you have a look at what
Speaker 2: he said on this point, he explicitly ruled out and
Speaker 2: didn't recommend what's become known as a climate trigger. And
Speaker 2: what he recommended was that project proponents, whether they be
Speaker 2: mining companies or property developers, whoever they might be, should
Speaker 2: be required to disclose the emissions that their project will
Speaker 2: create and provide what's known as an abatement plan, so
Speaker 2: a plan to reduce their emissions as a condition of
Speaker 2: their application and a condition of approval. And I would say,
Speaker 2: at this point in time, the government is leaning more
Speaker 2: towards that than a climate trigger. And this sort of
Speaker 2: comes back to the earlier discussion we were having about
Speaker 2: the Northwest Shelf, which is what Graham said was of course,
Speaker 2: reducing emissions matters a lot, and it matters for the environment,
Speaker 2: but the government has chosen to pursue that through a
Speaker 2: range of climate related measures like the Safeguard's mechanism, like
Speaker 2: our legislative targets to reduce emissions, like our new standards
Speaker 2: to reduce emissions from cars, a whole range of measures
Speaker 2: that we've done in the climate side of things, And
Speaker 2: his view was that it didn't really make a lot
Speaker 2: of sense to duplicate those kind of requirements in our
Speaker 2: environmental legislation.
Speaker 3: One of the aims of this legislation, from.
Speaker 2: The point of view of quicker Approvals, is to reduce
Speaker 2: the level of duplication we have in the system between
Speaker 2: states and the federal government. And if one of the
Speaker 2: objectives of this legislation is to reduce duplication, it probably
Speaker 2: doesn't make a lot of sense to duplicate things that
Speaker 2: we're doing in the climate space in this act as well.
Speaker 1: Mister South Australia is currently experiencing a huge a bloom
Speaker 1: which has caused significant and devastating loss of some of
Speaker 1: Australia's rarest marine life and that was caused, of course,
Speaker 1: by the fact that the ocean's temperature is rising, which
Speaker 1: is caused by climate change, which is caused by the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel industry. Your government continues to approve fossil fuel projects.
Speaker 1: So is that going to change in the future. Are
Speaker 1: we going to see the government continue to green light
Speaker 1: fossil fuel projects?
Speaker 2: Well, first, can I say, you know, I absolutely acknowledge
Speaker 2: the total devastation of the marine environment in a large
Speaker 2: part of South Australia from this our will bloom and
Speaker 2: you would have seen. I've been down there twice myself,
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister has been down to inspect it, and
Speaker 2: we're jointly funding a package of support with the South
Speaker 2: Australian government. But unfortunately no one knows for sure how
Speaker 2: long this is going to go for, and that's why
Speaker 2: we need to keep.
Speaker 3: Working on the impacts of it.
Speaker 2: You know, you would be aware that our government doesn't
Speaker 2: have a policy of stopping colon gas projects from happening.
Speaker 2: What we've chosen to do was to participate through that
Speaker 2: Paris Agreement process with a range of other countries around
Speaker 2: the world to agree to reduce our own missions, particularly
Speaker 2: here at home. You be aware that before too long
Speaker 2: we'll see Chris Bowen as the Climate Change Minister, come
Speaker 2: forward with new emissions reduction targets which will be more
Speaker 2: ambitious than what we've got at the moment. So you know,
Speaker 2: I think in the end, what we've committed to is
Speaker 2: a policy of reaching net zero by twenty fifty.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I respect the fact that there are people listening to
Speaker 2: this program who would like to see us stop fossil
Speaker 2: fuel production, not approve any more of those sorts of projects.
Speaker 2: The position we've taken is to reach net zero and
Speaker 2: what that means is increasing our effort to reduce the
Speaker 2: emissions that we're causing here where we are plowing as
Speaker 2: much effort as we can into expanding our renewable energy
Speaker 2: sources here. So you know, I can assure you listeners
Speaker 2: that we do not only take climate change seriously, but
Speaker 2: want to do our bit as part of the world
Speaker 2: to reduce our emissions undertaking all those kinds of things
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: Minister, thank you so much for coming on seven am.
Speaker 3: No worries Daniel Good to talk.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, violent clashes broke out in Melbourne
Speaker 1: on Sunday as the March for Australia. A rally led
Speaker 1: by neo Nazis and far right groups moved through the CBD.
Speaker 1: A prominent neo Nazi was applauded after delivering a speech
Speaker 1: in the steps of Parliament, while police used pepper spray
Speaker 1: to separate opposing groups, including pro Palestinian and anti fascist demonstrators.
Speaker 1: The rallies, held in cities across the country were attended
Speaker 1: by politicians including Pauline Hansen and Bob Cattera, and have
Speaker 1: been condemned by government ministers. Victoria's Premier j Justina Allen
Speaker 1: said no one who has ever tried to divide this
Speaker 1: country has succeeded because the promise of multiculturalism is so
Speaker 1: much stronger. And the search for accused government Desi Freeman
Speaker 1: has entered its sixth day, with police charging a sixty
Speaker 1: one year old man in Bright was possessing an imitation
Speaker 1: firearm and cannabis. Officers are investigating whether the man has
Speaker 1: links to Freeman, who's wanted over the fatal shootings, or
Speaker 1: two police officers last week. Freeman's wife has urged him
Speaker 1: to surrender, expressing deep sorrow over the killings and pledging
Speaker 1: to assist police more than four hundred and fifty officers
Speaker 1: remained deployed in the alpine region, with Mount Buffalo National
Speaker 1: Park still closed. That's all from seven am. We'll be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.