TRANSCRIPT – Sky News Politics Now with Tom Connell

Angie Bell MP

Shadow Minister for the Environment

Shadow Minister for Youth

Federal Member for Moncrieff

TRANSCRIPT

Sky News Politics Now with Tom Connell

 

5 November 2025

 

Subjects: EPBC flaws; Graeme Samuel Review Recommendations; Net zero; Liberal Party

E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………………………

TOM CONNELL:

Joining me now is Shadow Environment Minister Angie Bell, who’s been combing through this Bill. Thank you for your time. So, you’re not supporting the laws as they stand. Going through a few of your points that you’ve made. So, you say there’s no improvement.

The Bill does talk about avoiding duplication in terms of having the approval powers at state, not federal level. That would be an improvement, wouldn’t it, in terms of duplication, which a lot of people complain about?

ANGIE BELL:

I think there’s merit, definitely, in bilateral agreements with the states and territories to go through assessments and some approvals. I think there’s definitely merit in that. It was a recommendation of the Samuel Review, it was a recommendation of Sussan Ley when she was the Environment Minister as well. That would certainly streamline it. But the problem, there is a problem and that is that those bilateral agreements will be put in place after this reform bill is passed, if it’s passed. And so, it’s beholden on the Minister to be able to actually get those bilateral agreements in place. And currently they’re very much like our Federation, different in each state and territory.

TOM CONNELL:

So, you’d agree with that happening, you’re worried about the lag between when the Bill starts and when that happens, rather than an issue with that changing of itself. But that would be a positive change?

ANGIE BELL:

Yeah, there would be environmental standards around that. So, the Commonwealth environmental standards that the Minister will have the power with the passage of the Bill to make. The states and territories who are accredited to make those decisions would have to come up to that national environmental standard. Now those standards also, I’ve heard the Minister has released a few today, we’ve had them for a little while. We’ve had the environmental standard on offsets and the environmental standard on matters of national environmental significance, known as MNES, we’ve had that for some time. And so, there would be the power for the Minister to make those national environmental standards as well. So that’s where the states and territories would have to come up to those standards.

TOM CONNELL:

Yeah, but if it happens, it does smooth it out.

ANGIE BELL:

Again, it would happen after.

TOM CONNELL:

Yeah, no, I understand that. Okay, so you mentioned 37 different definitions of unacceptable impacts. An unacceptable impact meaning a project would not be able to go ahead.

ANGIE BELL:

Yep

TOM CONNELL:

You said it’s too many. Isn’t it better that they’re defined? Because at the moment when we talk about the equivalent and the current Act, it’s not defined. Isn’t it better to define it?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, we think that the definition should be able to be changed over time and come up to best practice and that’s where a national environmental standard would come in for the definition of unacceptable impacts. Because currently it’s in the legislation, and as you say, pages of it, and we’d like to see that come out of the legislation into an environmental standard, which can be disallowed in the Senate if it’s not up to scratch. So, it’s more accountable if you like.

TOM CONNELL:

Okay. Stop work order. Do you agree this power is needed? There have been some flagrant breaches of environmental laws in Australia and if you don’t stop the work, it just happens. There’s no way to get that environment back, get that pristine environment, Indigenous rock art, whatever it might be.

ANGIE BELL:

Sure. We don’t want to see extra damage done to the environment that’s unnecessary and we want to see obviously a power to stop that. However, in the legislation it outlines that there is either a date for starting work again, with the stop work order that is issued, or there isn’t a date. And so therefore it’s just not tight enough in terms of the language around that. So you could issue…[interrupted]

TOM CONNELL:

An amendment look for there, comfortable with the concept of a stop work order power.

ANGIE BELL:

Well, we’ll have to look at all of the details around that and speak with stakeholders but that’s where I’m up to at the moment.

TOM CONNELL:

Okay. The EPA in the approval process. What was that in the approval process? I haven’t seen that mentioned anywhere else. It was in your response to this.

ANGIE BELL:

So, the Minister hasn’t ruled in or out assessments and approvals with the Department or under the EPA, both of those things. And so, currently the CEO is not accountable to the Minister. That’s probably what you’re talking about in my press release. The CEO is not able to be sacked by the Minister, and we’d like to see some accountability there. If there is to be an EPA, a big burgeoning, bigger public service, we’d like to see that the CEO is accountable to the Minister rather than the Governor-General.

TOM CONNELL:

But in terms of highlighting that in your response in Parliament, you made it sound like it was locked in. You’re just saying it’s not ruled in or out at this stage.

ANGIE BELL:

Well, I think in my discussions with the Minister, he hasn’t quite landed on that. He says the Minister will have the final power for approvals, but we don’t know about assessments. Graeme Samuel said it was about making sure that there were audits in place, quality and assurance for the EPA, and they were the key functions.

TOM CONNELL:

Okay and the Samuel review was something, something, obviously, the Coalition put out there?

ANGIE BELL:

We commissioned it under Sussan Ley that’s right.

TOM CONNELL:

And you were happy with it at the time?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, it’s normal for governments to take some recommendations and not others. I think it’s a bit disingenuous for the Minister to say that he stuck to the letter with the Samuel review because Graeme Samuel recommended a Commissioner, not an EPA. And the Minister couldn’t actually outline how many jobs would be necessary in the EPA and how much it would cost.

TOM CONNELL:

All be it is that difference. Graeme Samuel said on this he’s  satisfied to finally see his work realised there’s no variation in any significant or small way from the recommendations of the review. He’d know, wouldn’t he?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, he should read Recommendation 2, which was a commissioner.

TOM CONNELL:

So, he just hasn’t read it properly?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, I’ll leave that for you to determine, but I also invite your watchers, people who are watching this program to go and read the recommendation.

TOM CONNELL:

So, in terms of that particular power, though, the rest of it is pretty in keeping with what he said, is that what you’re saying?

ANGIE BELL:

Well sure, there are parts and recommendations from the review that line up with what the Minister’s doing.

TOM CONNELL:

He says a lot further than that.

ANGIE BELL:

And there are others that are not.

TOM CONNELL:

His work is fine, there’s no variation in any significant way. Have you spoken to him since the?

ANGIE BELL:

I haven’t spoken to him during this last few months. It’s been quite crazy and, as you can imagine, I’ve been running at a pretty fast pace. So I have engaged with lots and lots of stakeholders. I’ve been over to Western Australia and talked with those stakeholders as well so I’ve been quite busy.

TOM CONNELL:

Okay, might be worth having a chat.

ANGIE BELL:

I’m certainly open to a meeting with him in my office. He hasn’t reached out to me either.

TOM CONNELL:

Maybe he’s watching so there you go.

ANGIE BELL:

I think there was a text message in the early days when I first got the portfolio.

TOM CONNELL:

Fair enough. Okay. Net Zero, do you support keeping it as a policy?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, what I support is our party coming to a position on it. I’d like to see that happen within that timeframe that Dan Tehan has outlined, which is six to nine months. I think we’re up to month six and it would be good if our party room could land on a position on net zero. Definitely.

TOM CONNELL:

Okay. What’s your view on it, though?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, my view is I’m in the shadow cabinet and I hold the shadow cabinet solidarity rule very seriously.

TOM CONNELL:

Which means right now you support net zero and a couple of months you might not.

ANGIE BELL:

Well, which means that we’re going through the process. I’m also on the Energy and Emissions Committee that Dan Tehan is heading up and we are having another meeting this afternoon for the committee on that and so hopefully that’s another step towards an outcome.

TOM CONNELL:

The Coalition has Net Zero as a policy for many years in power so for some to say it’s not tenable now, what are they saying has changed? What would the justification be?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, I think you can ask my colleagues that. I don’t wish to be at this point in time adding to the further noise that some of my colleagues are putting into this debate. I would prefer to be focused on the government’s failings when it comes to their energy policy and I would prefer to be focusing on what our policy is moving forward and giving the leader some clear air to put forward her message.

TOM CONNELL:

She hasn’t had much, has she?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, I think she’s had some really good speeches on the economy.

TOM CONNELL:

She hasn’t had much clear air.

ANGIE BELL:

Well, she’s promised to lower taxes and she’s promised to help young people with unfairness, intergenerational unfairness. So, I think she has been on point with her messaging. Even John Howard has come out and said that. But you’re right, she hasn’t had the clear air.

TOM CONNELL:

So, if someone were to come out now and say she’s not getting the job done as leader, that would not be a fair comment because she hasn’t had a chance to do the job as leader?

ANGIE BELL:

Well, I think she deserves to have a fair go. I think she deserves to have 12 months in the job where she can prosecute her case, speak directly to the Australian people and have the clear air to do that.

TOM CONNELL:

Angie Bell, appreciate your time today. Thank you.

ANGIE BELL:

Thanks, Tom