Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven am. Environmental
Speaker 1: law reform has been sitting in the two hard basket
Speaker 1: for years under successive government's assistem stayed broken. Now at
Speaker 1: the end of the parliamentary year, Labour has passed the
Speaker 1: first major changes in a generation. The government chose to
Speaker 1: work with the Greens, agreeing to scrape logging exemptions, closed
Speaker 1: colon gas loopholes and hand reinforcement powers to a new EPA. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the coalition fractured over the details, dealing themselves, added negotiations
Speaker 1: and add of relevance. Today Press Gallery veterrian Paul bon
Speaker 1: Jorno on how Labour landed a landmark deal and what
Speaker 1: it means for the future of environmental policy. It's Saturday,
Speaker 1: November twenty nine.
Speaker 2: I've been working pretty hard to convince the government that
Speaker 2: we need to have more protections in this bill because
Speaker 2: as it is, it actually is a step backwards and
Speaker 2: rather than protecting our native forests protecting our climate, it's
Speaker 2: all about fast tracking projects.
Speaker 3: Paul.
Speaker 1: At the start of the week, Green's environment spokesperson Sarah
Speaker 1: Hansey Young was saying that Labour's new environment laws were
Speaker 1: actually a step backwards from what we already have. So
Speaker 1: what's changed since then.
Speaker 3: What's changed since then is an enormous amount of twisting
Speaker 3: Rgi Bajie and negotiation, which was informed in a very
Speaker 3: big way by the realization from Alberonizi that it was
Speaker 3: now or never in the sense that labor couldn't afford
Speaker 3: another failure at trying to sort out a way forward
Speaker 3: with environmental reform, which was long adue, and there was
Speaker 3: a realization that all sides in this debate had pretty
Speaker 3: well fixed positions, but surely they could come to some
Speaker 3: sort of accommodation, and the only way to get that
Speaker 3: accommodation was to have a deadline that had to be met.
Speaker 4: It's been five years now since Professor Graham Samuel delivered
Speaker 4: his blueprint for reform of these laws to Susan Lee
Speaker 4: when she was the Environment Minister. It's how long this
Speaker 4: has been going on. What he found was that our
Speaker 4: environment laws are failing the environment, they're failing business, they're
Speaker 4: failing the community, and it's time we got this done.
Speaker 4: It's really a question about whether it's with the Coalition
Speaker 4: or the Greens and Paul.
Speaker 1: So the government didn't deal with the Greens. What was
Speaker 1: it that the Greens got out of that deal.
Speaker 3: Well, the Greens say that, and they put this at
Speaker 3: the top of their list of what they got out
Speaker 3: of it, and that was ending decades long exemptions for
Speaker 3: forestry destruction. Now the government wanted to phase out the
Speaker 3: unrestricted logging in native forests over three years now a
Speaker 3: more realistic timetable according to what was eighteen months, in
Speaker 3: other words, halving the time. And the Greens agreed that
Speaker 3: this was a hell of a lot better, so they
Speaker 3: put that top of their list. Then removing the ability
Speaker 3: for coal and gas projects to use fast track approvals.
Speaker 3: There can still be new coalon gas projects, I mean
Speaker 3: this is part of the compromise. But under the old system,
Speaker 3: colon gas projects could be carved out they were so
Speaker 3: in the national interest that they didn't have to face
Speaker 3: the same scrutiny as other projects. Well, that fast track
Speaker 3: has now gone. And then the powers to stop illegal
Speaker 3: land clearing, that is, giving this new independent EPA the
Speaker 3: ability to issue stop orders and to have heavy multimillion
Speaker 3: dollar fines if these orders are ignored, and very importantly
Speaker 3: saving the water Trigger. Now, the water trigger is a
Speaker 3: federal law that evaluates new gas or coal projects for
Speaker 3: the impact they have on the water table. Well, that
Speaker 3: water trigger has been saved, and it's federal law, overriding
Speaker 3: anything states might agree to and ensuring that the federal
Speaker 3: minister can always step in in other words, to save
Speaker 3: the environment, giving the federal minister a specific role. So
Speaker 3: these are very significant concessions that the Greens won and
Speaker 3: explain why they copped some of the other things that
Speaker 3: they weren't so happy about.
Speaker 1: And the government keeps saying that this is good for
Speaker 1: business and good for the environment. What are the changes
Speaker 1: that are meant to reassure business, especially around how quickly
Speaker 1: decisions can now be made around the environment.
Speaker 3: Well, two things to say about that. The first thing
Speaker 3: is that business is disappointed that the coalition was unable
Speaker 3: to push for more in its regard. However, business was
Speaker 3: able to get access to Albernisi naturally and it had
Speaker 3: what Alberanzi says was two key claims, and those claims
Speaker 3: went to a streamlining of the assessment pathway so that
Speaker 3: new projects, whether they be you know, mining as I
Speaker 3: was saying before, or other things including things like for example,
Speaker 3: housing developments wouldn't spend literally years being assessed at the
Speaker 3: state and federal level, So Alberanizi said, we've met that
Speaker 3: concern from business. The other thing too was the overlap
Speaker 3: between the states and the federal government in assessing projects.
Speaker 3: That with the agreement of the states, new projects will
Speaker 3: only have to face one scrutiny, but the scrutinis will
Speaker 3: be in harmony. In other words, state and federal laws
Speaker 3: and regulations will be in harmony. And the other point
Speaker 3: too was what they call regional planning or no go zones.
Speaker 3: It'll be pretty clear. For example, say someone wants a
Speaker 3: project to mine on the barrier if I mean, this
Speaker 3: is a silly example, but it just makes the point. Well,
Speaker 3: already the regulations will say sorry, don't even bother to
Speaker 3: put in an application, So that would save years to
Speaker 3: come up with the same rejection. So business did get
Speaker 3: these what Alberanzi described as core concessions. They maybe wanted more,
Speaker 3: but the Greens insisted and the government agreed in the
Speaker 3: end that anyone who breaks these new environmental laws should
Speaker 3: suffer substantial fines, and those substantial finds are now in
Speaker 3: the law.
Speaker 1: We know the Greens got very close to a deal
Speaker 1: with Dania Plitisek last term. They've now reached one with
Speaker 1: Murray Watt. So how different are the deals.
Speaker 3: That's a very good question and I look pretty closely
Speaker 3: at it and there are what you'd say minor differences
Speaker 3: and tweaking the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Speaker 3: role it would play under the Plibusec Greens agreement. Well,
Speaker 3: it put the wind up the miners, particularly in WA,
Speaker 3: and I would say the critical difference was timing that
Speaker 3: agreement was ahead of the West Australian state election and
Speaker 3: not all that far ahead of the looming federal election,
Speaker 3: and Albanesi, true to form, didn't want to scare the
Speaker 3: horses if he could avoid it. The other difference, I
Speaker 3: think was that Albanesi, with what was able to set
Speaker 3: up a better way of approaching negotiations and consultation. And
Speaker 3: it's to be noted that what he actually set up
Speaker 3: a core group of advisors which encompassed business conservation groups,
Speaker 3: environment groups and state leaders and he beat a path
Speaker 3: to Western Australia in many ways what ran what he
Speaker 3: was doing past the West Australian Premier Cook on about
Speaker 3: six occasions. So this was keeping as many people in
Speaker 3: the tent as possible, even against a tight deadline, to
Speaker 3: make sure that while people might have had quibbles, they
Speaker 3: might have had concerns, none of these concerns would be
Speaker 3: big enough to sink the whole project.
Speaker 1: Coming up. While the Greens copped the deal, they say
Speaker 1: is still short of what the climate needs. Paul, the
Speaker 1: government had been talking to both the Coalition and the
Speaker 1: Greens to get the numbers to pass this through the Senate.
Speaker 1: Ultimately they went with the Greens in the end, but
Speaker 1: there was a point where things could have gone either way.
Speaker 1: How would you describe the coalition's negotiating position, what was
Speaker 1: going on inside the opposite during talks around this legislation.
Speaker 3: They simply have no way of resolving conflicts in a
Speaker 3: way that accommodates more moderate positions, more accommodating positions, if
Speaker 3: you like, than hard line positions. So it was clear
Speaker 3: that even though Susan Lee was the Environment Minister at
Speaker 3: the time that asked Graham Samuel to review what she
Speaker 3: saw clearly were broken laws, this time, to keep not
Speaker 3: only her leadership but to keep the coalition together, she
Speaker 3: had to cave all the time to the Nationals and
Speaker 3: to the hard line right wingers in the Liberal Party.
Speaker 4: Susan Lee says, you have not done a good job negotiating. Sorry,
Speaker 4: that's the second time I've been asked that on air today,
Speaker 4: and both times I've laughed. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 4: anyone takes criticism from Susan Lee seriously about how she
Speaker 4: conducts or how people should conduct their affairs.
Speaker 3: Murray, what out of stration earlier in the week, pointed
Speaker 3: out that he didn't know who he was dealing with
Speaker 3: half the time. Shambles is probably too kind a word
Speaker 3: to use.
Speaker 4: You know, each time I have a meeting with each
Speaker 4: of these people, they say they've got their final list
Speaker 4: of demands and meet with someone else and they've got
Speaker 4: other demands. So but you know, we worked through that
Speaker 4: and as I say, we've engaged in good faith with
Speaker 4: both the coalition and the Greens.
Speaker 3: Now, Anthony Alberanizi even said after the deal with the
Speaker 3: Greens came through that they were still trying to negotiate
Speaker 3: with the opposition. As late as Wednesday, Albernizi said he
Speaker 3: put out an invitation to meet with Lee and she
Speaker 3: didn't take it up. Now, she denies that she got
Speaker 3: any any such invitation but the point was, I think
Speaker 3: that there was a lot of nervousness on all sides here,
Speaker 3: and the government maintains that it wanted to keep negotiating
Speaker 3: if it could with the opposition in case the deal
Speaker 3: with the Greens fell over.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the government decided to go with the Greens,
Speaker 1: and the Greens actually managed to forget some winds on
Speaker 1: forestry and on ensuring that the Environment Minister can always
Speaker 1: step in on decisions. But it's much less than they
Speaker 1: wanted and what they were asking for. So why do
Speaker 1: you think the Green said yes, Paul.
Speaker 3: I think the realization was there, and this is part
Speaker 3: of the genius of Albanese was that before this term
Speaker 3: of parliament was up, there would be reforms, much needed
Speaker 3: reforms to the EPBC Act, and that this was their
Speaker 3: best chance to influence the Act in a way that
Speaker 3: would be more satisfactory to the environment and to their constituency, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, the Greens constituency isn't only if you
Speaker 3: like Green voters, but it's teal voters and it's a
Speaker 3: substantial number of new labor MPs from the left.
Speaker 1: And so in the wake of all this, and on Thursday,
Speaker 1: the Climate change Minster. Chris Bowen revealed that Australia is
Speaker 1: projected to badly miss his twenty thirty five admissions targets.
Speaker 1: So how has the government defended that sage news.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well the government itself announced it, which it actually
Speaker 3: has to come clean under legislation, and it was Bowen's
Speaker 3: own department that made this assessment.
Speaker 5: The emissions projection show that additional work will be needed
Speaker 5: to get to the twenty thirty five target. The twenty
Speaker 5: thirty five target is ambitious and achievable, but it is
Speaker 5: not yet being achieved.
Speaker 3: So they'll come within a cat's whisker of making the
Speaker 3: target for twenty thirty and miss it by a country
Speaker 3: mile for twenty thirty five. The Coalition jumped on this
Speaker 3: and said, well, this just shows we've got targets that
Speaker 3: we're never going to reach and in trying to do so,
Speaker 3: we're just going to push up the price of energy.
Speaker 3: Whereas what Bowen says is it shows that we need
Speaker 3: to try harder and to do more, and he counters
Speaker 3: the energy cost argument saying we do know that if
Speaker 3: we get the transition to renewables faster, even though the
Speaker 3: short term cost may be higher, the end result will
Speaker 3: be much more affordable and indeed dependable energy.
Speaker 5: So whether it's harnessing free solo or encouraging more people
Speaker 5: to be part of the energy market with their batteries,
Speaker 5: bill stay lower for everyone and our gried becomes fairer,
Speaker 5: all while doing our bit for the planet.
Speaker 3: That's an argument that's going to play out right up
Speaker 3: until the next election and beyond. There is no doubt
Speaker 3: and this is the view of the CSI or and
Speaker 3: others that these targets can be met technically. It's the
Speaker 3: political will and the ability to do the sorts of
Speaker 3: things that will achieve them. And one little point I
Speaker 3: note that the Shadow treasure a Ted O'Brien was at
Speaker 3: the National Press Club this week and he was getting
Speaker 3: stuck into the government over spend and he was asked
Speaker 3: in an interview, will give us an example of the
Speaker 3: sort of spending cuts you'd bring in and he said, oh,
Speaker 3: tax concessions for electric vehicles would be wiped.
Speaker 6: Let me give you one example of what I think
Speaker 6: is a really poor budget measure, and that is a
Speaker 6: fringe benefits tax carve out for electric vehicles under they
Speaker 6: planned today, which is costing them thirteen times more than
Speaker 6: what they had done.
Speaker 3: So that gives you a bit of an inkling into
Speaker 3: the attitude of the coalition that any serious attempt to
Speaker 3: bring emissions down by using tax concessions and other incentives
Speaker 3: would be ditched. So any hope if there's a change
Speaker 3: of government of getting anywhere near the sort of targets
Speaker 3: that the science demands would literally go up in smoke.
Speaker 1: Now, a lot of pundits ruled out this reform getting
Speaker 1: through by the end of the year, but Murray Watt
Speaker 1: has ultimately defied the odds and made it happen just
Speaker 1: at the end of the parliamentary sitting year. How big
Speaker 1: a win is this for the government?
Speaker 3: Well, look, I've got to say it's a very big
Speaker 3: win for the government, but I also have to say
Speaker 3: it's a very big win for the environment. The fact
Speaker 3: that this message was able to drive the politics is
Speaker 3: well heartening. Frankly, I think it shows that those critics
Speaker 3: of Albanesi for not being ambitious enough maybe will be
Speaker 3: given pause for thought that you don't have to be
Speaker 3: as flamboyant and as brilliant as a Gough Whitlam to
Speaker 3: achieve significant reform, because make no mistake Daniel, this is
Speaker 3: the most significant environment reform we've seen in more than
Speaker 3: thirty years.
Speaker 1: Paul, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you for
Speaker 1: your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Daniel. Bie.
Speaker 1: Seven AM as a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
Speaker 1: made by Addik Basto, Ariel Richards, Chris Dgate, Ruby Jones,
Speaker 1: Sarah McPhee, Travis Evans, Zultanfacho and me Daniel James. Our
Speaker 1: theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of
Speaker 1: Envelope Bordio. Thanks for listening, Have a great weekend.