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