Comment

Paul Bongiorno
Inside Murray Watt’s environmental deal

Parliament’s last sitting week for the year was an intense guessing game, as Environment Minister Murray Watt haggled with competing sides on how best to reform Australia’s environment laws.

Watt had put everything on the line politically, creating a deadline to finalise what was in fact a five-year journey to reach a destination everybody agreed was needed, namely the implementation of recommendations proposed by businessman Graeme Samuel after his review of a framework that had been in place for 25 years.

Watt, the ebullient Queenslander, who has become Anthony Albanese’s chief fixer, delivered the government a significant win after convincing the 10 Greens he needed in the Senate that the perfect no longer needed to be the enemy of the good.

The demands of the Greens’ environmental protections lead negotiator, Sarah Hanson-Young, weren’t quite as robust as some of her colleagues would have liked, but, in the end, Hanson-Young viewed the amended bill as a vast improvement on the version that was originally presented.

Coal and gas projects would no longer be fast-tracked and, critically, there was significantly less delay in ending the logging of native forests. There was also more protection of the natural environment and endangered species.

Earlier in the week, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley suspected Watt and Albanese were about to do what she described as a “dirty deal” with the Greens. Her concerns were principally over the fate of natural gas projects, which she claims are essential to providing affordable energy.

The Coalition was most unhappy about the proposed environment protection agency and its ability to heavily fine industry for flouting environmental safeguards.

This was a key recommendation of the Samuel Review and gives Australia for the first time what Albanese says is a strong independent regulator. Samuel told the prime minister he is elated his reforms have finally been implemented.

The truth is the Coalition was struggling to present consistent demands. Watt says he was dealing not only with shadow minister Angie Bell but also with “multiple Coalition frontbenchers” who had come to him with their own thoughts. It was “quite difficult to then work out who was the actual negotiator and what is their position”. He said he had meetings with Coalition representatives who would say they’ve “got their final list of demands, and then we meet with someone else, and they’ve got other demands”.

Watt bristled at Ley’s criticism of him for “mismanag[ing] this entire process” and, she says, endangering the resources sector that is critical for “our national income”.

Watt says the reformed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act strikes the right balance between conservation and project developments, which includes housing.

During the tense negotiations this week senior ministers were very nervous about concluding a deal with a fractious Coalition. One cited the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009, signed off by then Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull. Ultimately, that deal was broken, the leader was dumped and the vote failed in parliament.

That has not been Ley’s fate, although the parliamentary year ends with her being regarded as a seat warmer, waiting for one of her conservative rivals to strike.

Things are much more settled under the leadership of Larissa Waters in the Greens party room. A cabinet minister observed:
“The Greens all have their say in their party room, but they trust their negotiator, Hanson-Young, and once they have made a decision, stick with it.” The Greens insisted more notice be taken of the potential climate change impact of any environmental or development projects, a view with considerable support, according to the latest Essential Report.

However, the Coalition’s abandonment of the net zero target and the rise of support for One Nation, an even more strident critic of climate science and action, appears to have taken a toll. Polling shows an erosion in the number of Australians who accept climate change is happening and caused by human activity. It now stands at 53 per cent, down from a high of 64 per cent eight years ago.

According to the same poll, 36 per cent of people believe Australia is not doing enough to address climate, against 20 per cent who think it is doing too much.

The opposition seems hell-bent on representing this minority. Rather than welcome Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen taking an active international role as president of policy negotiations for next year’s COP31 in Türkiye, advancing the net zero target set in Paris in 2015, it accuses him of abandoning his portfolio responsibilities.

On Monday, the Coalition came up with the glib phrase that Bowen was now a “part-time minister, full-time president”.

Of course, this is a ridiculous characterisation of the position. Bowen cited a number of examples of ministers in other countries simultaneously carrying out their COP roles while retaining their domestic portfolios. He told parliament that to suggest his new role is a full-time job “is a complete and utter invention, it is a fantasy”.

Ley’s first question to the prime minister on Monday scoffed at government claims that Bowen’s role gave “unprecedented influence” on important international emissions reduction efforts. “Why isn’t this part-time minister, full-time president” using his “unprecedented” influence to lower energy bills for Australians, she asked. The cynicism is breathtaking.

Albanese accused the opposition of “talking Australia down” and ditching bipartisan support for Australians playing key international roles, such as former Liberal finance minister Mathias Cormann, who is now the secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Cormann has been reappointed for a second term, with the government’s support.

Albanese accused the Coalition of failing to address energy shortages and price rises when in government and said their current plan would lead to higher prices because of its negative impact on investment in cheaper renewable energy projects.

The opposition’s other refrain for the week was to ask the government, repeatedly, “When will energy prices come down?” It is a question they cannot themselves answer in regard to their “affordable energy plans”.

Everyone knows the transition to renewables is unavoidably expensive, made worse by almost a decade of Coalition government doing nothing to replace ageing coal-fired power stations.

Ministers avoided providing assurances of early price relief, although Bowen did point to the successful home battery uptake and the way solar panels substantially cut electricity costs for households.

Midweek the new, expanded basket of goods and services included in the monthly consumer price index showed a 0.0 per cent change. That owed more to the fact it was the first in the new series than anything else. More worrying was the annual rate to October rose 3.8 per cent. In Question Time, the opposition avoided tackling Treasurer Jim Chalmers and directed its sole question on the rise in the cost of living to Albanese. It was a curious strategy that suggests it is gun-shy of Chalmers.

Ley reminded the prime minister that earlier in the year he had “promised the Australian people” the country had “turned the corner on inflation” and that the treasurer assured them the government had “inflation under control”.

Albanese is acutely aware of the potency of living costs for voters and accepted that the latest figures “confirm” households are still facing pressures. He noted the withdrawal of state energy subsidies was a contributing factor, but said his government was focused on relief measures and wanted to give assistance.

Chalmers said any decision to continue federal energy bill relief will be made closer to the midyear fiscal review but they can’t be a “permanent feature”. Blunting the opposition’s criticism was its failure at the May election to support the rebates and tax cuts.

Speaking at the National Press Club, shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien attempted to distance the survivors in the Coalition from its ill-fated election policies. He is promising tax cuts next time. His press club address was widely seen as an audition to keep his job should there be a change of leader in the new year.

Cost-of-living issues weren’t worrying Pauline Hanson on Monday night when she served Barnaby Joyce wagyu steaks that retail for about $145 a kilogram. Making the steaks more delicious for both politicians, no doubt, was the fact they came from Gina Rinehart’s cattle company.

Admiration for Australia’s richest person is only one of the things the two right-wing rabble-rousers have in common.

Why Joyce is continuing his flirtation with One Nation and its leader after Hanson’s disgraceful repeat of her burqa stunt in the Senate has his Nationals colleagues shaking their heads. She donned the garment after the Senate refused to allow her motion to ban Muslim face coverings.

This outraged the Senate, particularly its Muslim members. When the Senate resolved to eject Hanson from the chamber, she refused to leave, causing a two-hour suspension of proceedings.

This contempt of the chamber led to Labor, the Greens and some of the cross bench voting to suspend her from the Senate for seven days – a rare event – and from representing the Senate on parliamentary delegations.

The government’s Senate leader, Penny Wong, said Hanson had “been parading prejudice as protest for decades”. Unrepentant, the Queensland senator says she will run again and “the people will judge me at the next election”.

Joyce quit the Nationals on Thursday to sit as an independent for the rest of this term. He is widely expected to head One Nation’s New South Wales Senate ticket at the next election.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on November 28, 2025 as "Murray Watt’s environmental factors training".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Send this article to a friend for free.

RELATED READING