Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am. Murray.
Speaker 1: Watt has talked a big game about fixing our environment
Speaker 1: laws by the end of the year, but this week
Speaker 1: the government's attempt to do that fell apart, with Greens
Speaker 1: and Coalition senators refusing the back to changes. At the
Speaker 1: same time, Labour faced a dramatic revolt in the Senate
Speaker 1: over its refusal to release a secret report meant to
Speaker 1: fix the culture of cronyism and Jobs for Mats have
Speaker 1: a campaign on restoring integrity to government. Labor is now
Speaker 1: facing a Senate demanding that I live up to that promise.
Speaker 1: Today Press Gallery journalist Karen Middleton on why it's so
Speaker 1: hard to fix our environment laws and whether the government's
Speaker 1: hubris is getting in the way of its promise for
Speaker 1: greater transparency. It's Saturday, November one, Karen. The government was
Speaker 1: hoping to get its environmental reforms passed by the end
Speaker 1: of this year, with the Environment Minister saying it's now
Speaker 1: or never.
Speaker 2: Now is the best opportunity to pass a balanced set
Speaker 2: of laws in the spirit of the Samuel Review that
Speaker 2: are firmly in the national interest. Put simply, it's now
Speaker 2: or never.
Speaker 1: So is it never?
Speaker 3: What's an excellent question.
Speaker 4: It's not looking great simply because the other parties have
Speaker 4: now gained up on the government to send this off
Speaker 4: to a Senate inquiry. It's been extended to March of
Speaker 4: next year, so it makes it very difficult to get
Speaker 4: the legislation through the Parliament before then unless the Minister
Speaker 4: Murray what can negotiate an outcome with one or other
Speaker 4: parties that then withdraws the support for the Senate inquiry somehow.
Speaker 4: But that's a lot to get done with only like
Speaker 4: sitting week left between now and the end of the year.
Speaker 4: So you have to say the chances of it getting
Speaker 4: through by a year's end are pretty slim.
Speaker 1: We hear a lot about the environmental laws, but can
Speaker 1: you just briefly explain what it is that the government's
Speaker 1: trying to reform.
Speaker 4: Well, the government has made the point and I think
Speaker 4: the one thing everyone agrees on is that the laws
Speaker 4: as they stand are not working for anyone much.
Speaker 2: The current laws are broken. We know our current environment
Speaker 2: laws aren't working for the environment, they're not working for business,
Speaker 2: they're not working for the community, and it's high time
Speaker 2: that we got them changed.
Speaker 4: The laws are trying to navigate that problem, make it
Speaker 4: less complicated for approving projects for industry that are important
Speaker 4: for the economy, but making sure that those projects don't
Speaker 4: cause serious.
Speaker 3: Harm to the environment, and of course where the balance
Speaker 3: should be is the great big question.
Speaker 1: So as it stands at the moment, neither the Coalition
Speaker 1: or the Greens want to support the bill in its
Speaker 1: current form. Do we know any details as to what
Speaker 1: each of them want to change.
Speaker 4: Well, I guess it extends from those separate arguments. For example,
Speaker 4: the Greens wanted the inclusion of what's called a climate trigger,
Speaker 4: which is a provision that every proposed development has to
Speaker 4: be assessed for its impact on climate change and emissions.
Speaker 4: Now the government is not going forward with that proposal,
Speaker 4: and that is something that industry is very strongly opposed.
Speaker 4: But what they currently have proposed is at least requiring
Speaker 4: these development projects to indicate their impact on emissions, so
Speaker 4: not have a trigger per se, but do have a
Speaker 4: reporting requirement. So that's the sort of proposed compromise thus far.
Speaker 4: And of course on the industry side, they're very concerned
Speaker 4: that there will be too much ground seeded to protecting
Speaker 4: the environment that will make their operations in a range
Speaker 4: of different sectors unworkable, and their big concern at the
Speaker 4: moment is that there's too much red tape, that too
Speaker 4: much too much regulation, and that it makes it too
Speaker 4: difficult to operate as large scale businesses in Australia unless
Speaker 4: some kind of different balance is struck. So will the
Speaker 4: government be more inclined to go for a deal with
Speaker 4: the Greens or with the coalition?
Speaker 3: Well, that's a big question.
Speaker 4: I think they probably prefer to have a deal with
Speaker 4: the Coalition simply because they've enjoyed holding the Greens at
Speaker 4: bay and not giving the Greens a victory. The Greens
Speaker 4: being in their same general center left space in the
Speaker 4: political landscape. But at the moment the Greens are probably
Speaker 4: closer to where the government wants to be than the Coalition.
Speaker 1: What have you made of the way Susan Lee has
Speaker 1: handled negotiations on this, Well, this is.
Speaker 4: A tricky one for her because she was the Environment
Speaker 4: Minister in government when Graham Samuel hand it down his report,
Speaker 4: and now of course she's leading the opposition, and she's
Speaker 4: leading an opposition that is split on matters relating to
Speaker 4: the environment in the broad sense and particularly in relation
Speaker 4: to climate change and energy and all of these things
Speaker 4: are interlocked. The oppositions initially suggested the government should split
Speaker 4: the bill and kind of deal with the development part
Speaker 4: of it and then the environment part of it separately.
Speaker 4: So we want to see the bill split so we
Speaker 4: can streamline approvals and we can improve environmental protections separately.
Speaker 4: And but even big business is saying via organizations like
Speaker 4: the Business Council of Australia that they're not keen on that,
Speaker 4: but they just want this dealt with this distract on
Speaker 4: and on. It's a problem, as we've said, if it
Speaker 4: stays as it is needs fixing, so they don't want
Speaker 4: that to happen. So Susan Lee's got to manage her
Speaker 4: traditional constituency both within our own coalition in Parliament and
Speaker 4: more broadly in the business community. But also it doesn't
Speaker 4: want to give too much away, so she is in
Speaker 4: a tricky spot and that I think is motivating some
Speaker 4: of their hesitations in their negotiating.
Speaker 1: Karen Murray Well has really talked up his ability to
Speaker 1: get these laws through and to get them through this
Speaker 1: So is this a failure for him as Environment Minister?
Speaker 4: Well, I guess some will say that I think it
Speaker 4: was ambitious to seek you had get it up this
Speaker 4: year and the government set the parliamentary timetable with not
Speaker 4: very many sitting weeks. It means that that does hamper
Speaker 4: the government's ability to get complicated legislation through where negotiation
Speaker 4: is required. So it's probably a little bit ambitious to
Speaker 4: suggest it was all definitely going to get through this year.
Speaker 4: But Murray Watt has been given the job because he's
Speaker 4: become the sort of fix it person in the government
Speaker 4: for political problems and he's a tough negotiator, so we'll
Speaker 4: see where he gets to. And the Prime Minister's got
Speaker 4: an eye to Western Australia and Queensland and certainly the
Speaker 4: business and industry concerns and the basis of those economies there.
Speaker 3: He's thinking very much about those.
Speaker 4: He won a lot of seats in Western Australia three
Speaker 4: years ago, he hung on to them at the last election.
Speaker 3: He made some more ground politically in Queensland.
Speaker 4: So that's what he's got an eye on it, as
Speaker 4: well as the substance of the policy coming up.
Speaker 5: And when we release it and when we release it
Speaker 5: and we make the responses.
Speaker 1: And when we're releasing it the secret report the government
Speaker 1: is refusing to release. Karen. This week the government faced
Speaker 1: pressure over report they are refusing to release about the
Speaker 1: Jobs for Mates culture in Canberra. It all sounds very
Speaker 1: secret and hush hush. Why is that?
Speaker 4: Well, this goes back a couple of years to a
Speaker 4: private member's bill that one of the independents in the
Speaker 4: House of Representatives, Sophie Scomps, had put forward. It was
Speaker 4: legislation that was targeting the practice of appointing friendly people,
Speaker 4: people either who come from their own political party or
Speaker 4: who are a j sent to important jobs into bureaucracy
Speaker 4: or overseas posts and the like. And Sophie Scomps's bill
Speaker 4: was the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill, which in
Speaker 4: short form was also known as the Ending Jobs for
Speaker 4: Mates Bill. Now, the Government wasn't keen on that and
Speaker 4: doesn't like private members bills as a rule, governments generally
Speaker 4: don't and they pick and choose when they let them
Speaker 4: go forward. The sort of trade off for that was
Speaker 4: that they undertook to have a review of their own
Speaker 4: appointments and that was conducted by Lanelle Briggs. We understand
Speaker 4: that review finding went back to the government, not that
Speaker 4: long after, so sort of coming on for two years
Speaker 4: ago and we haven't seen it.
Speaker 1: So, as you just said, there's clearly a lot of
Speaker 1: people who want to know what's in the report, But
Speaker 1: can you take me back to why we needed the
Speaker 1: report in the first place. I mean, what was the
Speaker 1: cronyism It was looking to stamp out what kind of
Speaker 1: mates and what kind of jobs are we talking about here?
Speaker 4: Well often seeing bureaucratic jobs otherwise. Recent one you might
Speaker 4: note was the appointment of Stephen Jones too. I think
Speaker 4: it's the OECD job overseas as Australia's ambassador. Now Stephen
Speaker 4: Jones was Assistant Treasurer. He's a long time labor MP,
Speaker 4: he retired from politics and now he's got that job.
Speaker 4: So that's the kind of thing as an example that
Speaker 4: gets the cross bench upset and suggests that there are
Speaker 4: other people that might be worthy of such jobs.
Speaker 5: All those appointments may well have been based on merit,
Speaker 5: but it does make you suspicious when they've been sitting
Speaker 5: on this report for two years and won't release it.
Speaker 4: People like Senator David Pocock, the Independent from the Act
Speaker 4: makes the point that these people, people like Stephen Jones
Speaker 4: and others may well be the best person for the job.
Speaker 3: They may have all the qualifications.
Speaker 4: It may well be a merit based process, but the
Speaker 4: process isn't transparent and so that's not good for public trust.
Speaker 4: Australians deserved to know how decisions are being made and
Speaker 4: how we can fix a system that too often rewards
Speaker 4: connections over competence. We don't know, you know why it
Speaker 4: is officially that the Government hasn't released that report, but
Speaker 4: you've got to assume there might be some things in
Speaker 4: it that are not good in terms of maybe suggesting
Speaker 4: there is a little bit much of this kind of
Speaker 4: thing going on.
Speaker 1: And this year she got quite heated in the Senate
Speaker 1: this week, Karen, can you tell me how it played out?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: What we've seen in the Senate at the end of
Speaker 4: this last sitting period was a battle of wills and
Speaker 4: parliamentary tactics. On Wednesday, those opposition parties and cross benches
Speaker 4: ganged up to use their numbers combined to force the
Speaker 4: Government to extend the Thursday question time by an extra
Speaker 4: half an hour and allow five more questions from non
Speaker 4: government senators to put extra pressure on the government to
Speaker 4: make the point that they weren't going to take this lightly.
Speaker 5: Thanks very much, Deputy President. I take great pleasure, well
Speaker 5: maybe not actually in moving this motion today, because it
Speaker 5: highlights a very significant problem that we have in this
Speaker 5: country and then we have here in this Parliament, and
Speaker 5: that is with a government that is unwilling to be
Speaker 5: compliant with the orders of this chamber. Is with the
Speaker 5: government that is not willing to be upfront and transparent
Speaker 5: with the Australian people.
Speaker 4: In response, on the Thursday, the government not only allowed
Speaker 4: the extra half hour, which was a ruling of the Senate,
Speaker 4: but they then used their powers in the Parliament to
Speaker 4: make question time on and on and on their own.
Speaker 4: Senators jumped up and said, well, hang on, we deserve
Speaker 4: extra time as well, so we're going to ask our questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of
Speaker 4: the beautiful state of Tasmania regarding the nutrition workforce.
Speaker 3: Is they granted? Is not granted the Senator Brown.
Speaker 4: Order?
Speaker 3: And then they used procedural motions and the light to drag.
Speaker 4: Question time on for an interminable three and a half
Speaker 4: hour on the longest we've seen in very long time.
Speaker 4: So that's the sort of game plan we're getting to
Speaker 4: in the Parliament, and that tells you that the government
Speaker 4: was determined not to just acquiesce.
Speaker 3: There is some politicking going on here too.
Speaker 4: The protagonists in the Senate on this point are David
Speaker 4: Pocock and Katie Galaho, the Minister. Now they both come
Speaker 4: from the Act, they're both senators contesting the same space.
Speaker 4: And Katie Gallaho isn't a big fan of David Pocock,
Speaker 4: who's appeared on the scene two elections ago, was reelected
Speaker 4: and has captured some of the vote that used to
Speaker 4: be a Labor vote in the Senate. So there's a
Speaker 4: bit of personal animus going on and agenda going on
Speaker 4: here under the surface, as well as the broader political
Speaker 4: argument about whether the government should be keeping such things
Speaker 4: secret or not. And the government has declared this a
Speaker 4: cabinet document, so it's not allowed to be released. And
Speaker 4: there are shouts of hypocrisy from the other side because
Speaker 4: under the previous government the Labor Party in opposition were
Speaker 4: furious that the Morrison government did that, very frequently.
Speaker 1: Sending all very Shakespearean Karen, how damaging do you think
Speaker 1: this could be for the government, because they were elected
Speaker 1: on a platform of integrity and transparency. We have a
Speaker 1: knack that seemingly does nothing. They're also clamping down on
Speaker 1: freedom of information requests and now we have a secret
Speaker 1: report about jobs are made that the government won't release.
Speaker 1: Can they really hand on hearts? They've done anything to
Speaker 1: restore transparency and people's faith in government?
Speaker 3: Well, they have done some things.
Speaker 4: I mean, we saw the ridiculous and alarming multiple ministries
Speaker 4: issue with Scott Morrison that was exposed when later it
Speaker 4: was in government about how Scott Morrison secretly took on
Speaker 4: responsibility for all kinds.
Speaker 3: Of portfolios that nobody knew about.
Speaker 4: They've made changes to ensure that that doesn't happen, that
Speaker 4: that is much more transparent. Having said that, what you
Speaker 4: just outlined is very true, and they are doing a
Speaker 4: lot that seems to run counter to the retoric of
Speaker 4: transparency in aco ability.
Speaker 3: How bad will it be?
Speaker 4: Well, it depends a little bit on whether all of
Speaker 4: these incremental issues end up forming a picture in the
Speaker 4: minds of the public.
Speaker 3: You know, are people very interested in freedom of information.
Speaker 4: While we in the media are people who are politically engaged.
Speaker 4: Are the broader population not so much? Do they care
Speaker 4: much about reports? For jobs for the boys.
Speaker 3: Maybe not.
Speaker 4: Do they care about all the shenanigans in parliament, probably not.
Speaker 4: But if opposition parties and independents can start to form
Speaker 4: a picture of the government in the minds of the
Speaker 4: people as not doing what it said or not standing
Speaker 4: up for what it said, it would then I think
Speaker 4: that does become a problem. And there's always a risk
Speaker 4: for a government that's one with a very big majority,
Speaker 4: as this government has, of getting a bit arrogant and complacent,
Speaker 4: and all of these things can come together and cause
Speaker 4: a problem for a government as it faces the next election.
Speaker 4: So we'll see whether the government can side step all
Speaker 4: of these and downplay them enough for them not to
Speaker 4: be a problem.
Speaker 3: But I think they'd be wise to.
Speaker 4: Be vigilant about them and start to ensure that that
Speaker 4: impression is not one that's formed.
Speaker 1: Karen, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: This week, we learned that the government has begun deporting
Speaker 1: people to Novu. It's the government's solution to a High
Speaker 1: Court ruling that found out was against the law to
Speaker 1: hold people indefinitely in immigration attention. The deal with Naru
Speaker 1: is worth billions of dollars and is set to last
Speaker 1: for thirty years, but it raises a lot of questions
Speaker 1: which we're going to get into tomorrow. Seven Am is
Speaker 1: a daily show from Solstice Media. It's made by Adigus Bastow,
Speaker 1: Chris Danegate, Daniel James, Ruby Jones, Sarah mcvee, Travis Evans
Speaker 1: and Zodnfecho. Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and
Speaker 1: Josh Gin of Envelope Bodier. Thanks for listening and thanks
Speaker 1: for your support. See you tomorrow.