Watt defends intervention powers, saying it will not be used to fast track coal and gas

Environment Minister Murray Watt has assured a special power in environment reforms being introduced on Thursday would not allow him to intervene on behalf of coal or gas projects under the guise of “defence or national security” needs.

The minister said a special power allowing himself or future ministers to override some environmental rules if a project was deemed in the “national interest” had been carefully drafted so that it would not be used to fast track coal or gas projects.

Ahead of the overhaul of Australia’s environment laws being put into parliament, Senator Watt also fired a warning shot at the Coalition and Greens, saying it would be a “very sad reflection” on the parties if they sunk the laws out of their own political interest.

After failed attempts by former environment ministers Sussan Ley and Tanya Plibersek to update the 25-year-old laws, Senator Watt acknowledged in a wide-ranging interview with the ABC that any further delays would put this attempt at risk.

“It certainly makes it harder the longer this goes on,” he said.

“I think it would be a very sad reflection on the Coalition and the Greens if they repeat what they did last term and simply get in the way and obstruct things for their own political gain.

For months, Senator Watt had been quietly meeting stakeholders over a fix to national environment laws that set the rules for housing, mining, energy and other major projects, and which are widely considered to be “broken”.

That hit a speed bump last week as details were briefed to the Coalition and Greens — but the minister remains hopeful that agreement can be found with at least one of the parties to pass the laws this year.

Detailed negotiations begin

The Coalition is understood to have four key asks as negotiations get into the weeds.

The opposition wants to ensure there are guardrails around emissions reporting rules to ensure they cannot be used to restrict project approvals and assurances around how the Environment Protection Authority’s leadership is appointed.

It also wants changes to the definitions of a ‘net gain’ measure that would ensure when projects are varied they do not worsen environmental outcomes, and to an ‘unacceptable impact’ rule that the minister says is intended to prevent obviously inappropriate proposals such as a mining project at Uluru or a drilling proposal in the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator Watt told the ABC he wanted to keep those definitions within the legislation, so that they could not be chopped and changed in the future, but added he was open to amendments.

And while the minister has agreed to keep the final say on project approvals with his office, as demanded by both the Coalition and Greens, he acknowledged that in practice the authority on some of those decisions would be delegated back down to the EPA.

Senator Watt said if he was required to give a personal sign-off on every project, it would be “a guaranteed way to delay these decisions even more than what you have got at the moment”.

The environment minister also assured a special intervention power had been written so that it could only be used “rarely” and could not simply be used to allow coal and gas projects to skip over environmental rules.

“I cannot see that happeningbecause of the way we have structured this bill … the bill itself talks about things like defence projects, national security projects, sometimes a natural disaster situation would be the circumstances where this would be justified,” he said.

“But it should be up to an elected government, where they decide that it’s in the national interest, for a particular project to proceed to give it the tick — even if it doesn’t meet the usual benchmarks.”

While Opposition Leader Sussan Ley lashed the government’s proposed environment laws as “a handbrake on investment” just days ago, the shift into detailed discussions hints at steadier progress that leaves open the option that the laws could still be passed at the end of this year.

Key green group ask unlikely to be granted

Meanwhile, Senator Watt has shut down the prospect of a stricter climate change measure being written into the bill, one of the key asks by environment groups.

While major projects would be required to detail their expected emissions and a plan to reduce them, the minister rejected calls for a hard “climate trigger” that could be used to block heavy polluting projects.

Senator Watt told the ABC he could not see the government agreeing to a lesser measure, being dubbed a “climate assurance”, that could potentially lead to stricter climate conditions being attached to projects.

The minister maintained that other legislation, in particular the government’s Safeguard Mechanism, required heavy emitters to cut their emissions over time.

“Given that one of the aims of this legislation is to reduce duplication in the system, we don’t really see a case for including requirements like that into this legislation,” he said.

But he acknowledged there were questions, including within Labor, over whether the bill struck the right balance on climate.

“I think everyone in this parliament will have a different view on whether this bill does enough for the environment, whether this does enough for business,” he said.

“We don’t need to have a binary outcome … Labor’s position is we want to be striving for both.”

Laws to be scrutinised in Senate inquiry

The federal government is expected to refer its bill to a Senate inquiry with a reporting date before that deadline, which would allow the bill to still pass this year.

Senator Watt has previously warned Labor’s housing, climate and productivity promises all depend on those underpinning environment laws being passed.

He said waiting any longer would mean more harm to business and to the environment.

“Graeme Samuel tabled his review for former environment minister Sussan Ley five years ago … in the meantime, we see species in decline, we see housing and renewable energy projects being held up at a time that we desperately need them,” he said. 

“So there is no doubt in my mind that now is the time we need to get moving on these reforms.”