E&OE….
Topics: Carmichael mine proposal
ROBERT MAILER:
Greg Hunt is the Federal Environment Minister, and Greg Hunt, is your mistake going to cost thousands of jobs in Queensland?
GREG HUNT:
Well with respect, your introduction was inaccurate. The decision has not been – and certainly something that the groups have said was inaccurate – there wasn't an overturning by the court, there wasn't a finding by the court that it was improperly conducted. The court responded to our request, the Commonwealth's request to set aside the decision so as it could be remade.
The Department has said that it's a technical and administrative matter which will take six to eight weeks to resubmit and then to be reconsidered. I won't pre-empt the outcome, but following the Department's advice their view was there's a chance that the court may have required new material which had not previously been supplied as a matter of practice across other categories, and that therefore it was prudent to withdraw the decision, to remake it, and that will involve consideration of all relevant material.
ROBERT MAILER:
Okay, but is that because the Department didn't provide you with two crucial pieces of information with regard to these threatened species when you made the original decision?
GREG HUNT:
Well in fact all the material provided by the Department was completely considered. So I considered everything provided by the Department.
ROBERT MAILER:
No no, I didn't ask that. What I'm asking is …
GREG HUNT:
No I understand…
ROBERT MAILER:
…did the Department- is the reason why the Department have said it's prudent to remake this decision because they did not supply you with two pieces of information that they should have with regard to these threatened species?
GREG HUNT:
Well their view now is that there’s a possibility that the court may have required two additional pieces of material which previously had not been part of the standard or practice. And so there was a sense that the court may have determined that a new standard was to be implied with additional materials to those which they previously supplied as a matter of course.
And so they said well, in order to be prudent, exactly as you've just said, to remove any doubt about procedure, to make sure that there is no question, we would advise Minister that these additional materials be considered now, which we haven't previously on similar occasions sought in the past, and that therefore remake the decision within the next six to eight weeks.
ROBERT MAILER:
Okay. But that isn't …
GREG HUNT:
I won't pre-empt that, and be on its merits.
ROBERT MAILER:
That is not a small decision. That is not a small decision to make, obviously. Would they have made this decision if this court case hadn't been happening?
GREG HUNT:
Look I can't say. All I can say is that as the case progressed, the Department advised that they thought there may well have been a new interpretation that…
ROBERT MAILER:
How do you – with respect – how do you interpret a new interpretation? In a sense I guess we're just going with information we've been receiving today from…
GREG HUNT:
Sure.
ROBERT MAILER:
…from the successful party, and they're suggesting that you didn't look at the environmental advices, these two environmental advices which you were meant to have because you weren't supplied to you by your Department. Michael Roche himself…
GREG HUNT:
Everything that was received was considered in microscopic detail.
ROBERT MAILER:
Yeah yeah, no I understand that, I understand that point, it's been a long process. What I'm asking though is even Michael Roche from the Minerals Council says, and I quote, we've been advised that because certain documents were not presented by the Department in finalising the approval, it created a technical legal vulnerability.
So what I'm trying to get here is the Department's had a sense that it's not going to go right, they've changed their decision – is it correct to say they've made a big mistake here and should have provided you with those documents?
GREG HUNT:
Look, their advice is that we should consider them. As a matter of prudence, the court may well not have found, may not have found, that they were required but the advice from the lawyers was there is a prospect the court may apply a new standard, in which case rather than engage in a long, lengthy drawn out case, consider it, make the difficult decision to remake the judgement.
Do that now, do that on the technical and administrative matters that they've raised. And the advice is that that can be done within six to eight weeks.
ROBERT MAILER:
Okay.
GREG HUNT:
Again, I won't pre-empt the outcome.
ROBERT MAILER:
No, that's fine.
GREG HUNT:
It's very important that I don't do that.
ROBERT MAILER:
Greg Hunt is the Federal Environment Minister. We heard outside the court after the representatives from the Mackay group, Jo Bragg from the Environmental Defenders Office, who is saying that they have furnished you with further information today, including information about possible job numbers, overall amounts of money being involved etcetera, etcetera. She's saying that you have to consider that now when making this decision – is that correct?
GREG HUNT:
Well, anything and everything which can be legally considered will be legally considered. And so…
ROBERT MAILER:
And so do you have to do that?
GREG HUNT:
Look, I haven't got the material in front of me so I will proceed very carefully and work with the departmental lawyers to make sure that we consider all necessary and or legally admissible and available material, which is what we have previously done – obsessively so. I remember spending numerous, numerous, numerous hours working through materials on this and asking whether all materials had been considered and on the standards available at the time they were.
It now appears that a new standard could be required by the courts. So the additional material and all additional material that can and should be legally considered will be because of course if you consider some things which are not appropriate legally that can equally be used against a decision…
ROBERT MAILER:
Sure.
GREG HUNT:
…it's a very precise, technical act.
ROBERT MAILER:
What do you think the international resources investment community, including India and the Indian Government, think when they see ostensibly this enormous project that's been stopped because of an ornamental snake and a skink?
GREG HUNT:
Look, I won't speak for them. I understand that whatever decision I make in many of these projects they could be challenged by either side. And some have said, in relation to the Galilee Basin, they was a paper published a few years ago which said- from some of the environmental groups – we will challenge every single step through every court.
And there are State proceedings, there are Federal proceedings and so we offered a chance to remove some of these legal and technical risks to the ALP, which they rejected in the Parliament, they declined to proceed when it came to the Senate over a year ago. And so we are living in that environment…
ROBERT MAILER:
So you're saying the…
GREG HUNT:
…to comply with the law.
ROBERT MAILER:
…is the system stacked for environmentalists?
GREG HUNT:
Look, the law is what it is. And some of them were absolutely clear in writing, in a paper that was published, that they would use all possible legal means to defeat the case irrespective of any Federal or State decisions. And so my job is to make sure that the law of the land is upheld and that's what I'm doing.
ROBERT MAILER:
Appreciate your time, Greg Hunt, thank you very much.
GREG HUNT:
Thanks Rob.
(ENDS)