It’s a hard job being environment minister. Here’s an insider’s view of the key challenges facing Murray Watt
- Written by Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
Australia’s new environment minister, Murray Watt, is reported to be a fixer. That’s good, because there’s a lot to fix.
Being environment minister is a hard gig. It often requires difficult choices between environmental and economic priorities. In cabinet, the minister is often up against a phalanx of ministers with economic portfolios and overriding political imperatives such as jobs and growth. I saw this repeatedly over the 16 years when I held senior leadership roles in environment departments at territory and federal levels.
In Labor’s first term, this tension played out again. Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek came to the role with big ideas. To that end, she tried to make Australia’s national environment laws fit for purpose and introduce a federal environmental protection agency (EPA).
A cumbersome approach to consultation didn’t help, but ultimately it was development concerns led by big mining companies and West Australian Premier Roger Cook that saw the reform can kicked down the road. Perversely, the only legal reform we saw was an amendment to protect not a threatened species, but the salmon farms threatening it.
Now it’s Watt’s turn. He has a reputation for getting things done and may drive a bargain to get some version of the EPA through. But that’s only one piece of the reform jigsaw and he’ll have to return to the mammoth task of reforming Australia’s national environment laws. He will have to push back against efforts by the Greens in the Senate to broaden the agenda to include climate and forests, and weather opposing pressures from industry and environment groups.
Stalled reforms
Watt’s largest challenge will be to revive the stalled Nature Positive Plan. This was the government’s response to the 2020 Samuel Review, which found Australia’s natural environment and iconic places were declining and under increasing threat, while national environmental laws were no longer fit for purpose.
Samuel’s solution was groundbreaking: create new, legally enforceable national environmental standards to deliver better environmental protection. Last term, Labor committed to introducing the standards, reforming laws and introducing an EPA. Unfortunately, Plibersek ran out of time and most of the reforms were put on the backburner.
Plibersek pitched an independent EPA as a tough cop on the beat, but it wasn’t independent enough for many environmentalists.
Industry didn’t like it either. WA miners used their influence to attack the EPA for being unaccountable. Their lobbying worked and the EPA was pushed back. As one mining figure told the Australian Financial Review: “The heat [industry pressure] was no one’s first preference; it was just required because there was no other way to influence the actual policymaking.”
Miners and other big businesses are likely worried the proposed independent EPA would reduce their influence. At present, the environment minister has near-complete discretion over approvals. Much of this discretion — and the political influence associated with it — would disappear with an independent EPA making decisions based on national environmental standards.
More challenges are looming. Here are two:
Gas extraction on the North West Shelf
Watt will soon have to decide on Woodside’s application to expand gas extraction off Australia’s northwest coast. If approved, the North West Shelf Extension Project would be Australia’s largest resource project. Environmentalists hate it, describing it as a climate bomb. The WA government approved it last year.
If Watt follows the pattern of his predecessors, we can expect to see the development approved subject to numerous conditions, pitched as strict environmental safeguards. Despite such safeguards applying to operations in Australia, the real damage done by the project will be global, not local, as the gas will be burned overseas.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
The delayed ten-year review of the Murray-Darling basin plan is due in 2026. It will reopen old wounds. The basic problem is there’s not enough water for both the environment and irrigators.
When the draft plan was first released in 2010, angry irrigators burned a copy of it. The government backpedalled furiously, eventually approving a plan with a lot less water returned to the environment. Experts say the plan hasn’t actually helped the environment.
Watt is a former agriculture minister and will have insight into both sides. But he’ll need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a successful approach.
It’s hard to fix systems
Making environmental headway is downright hard. The underlying problem is that politics is about trade-offs, but nature doesn’t negotiate. Nature is a system of systems, and if we take too much from it those systems begin to break down – usually irreversibly.
In previous decades, governments often dealt with environmental problems by creating national parks and World Heritage areas. If only things were still that simple.
Authors: Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
