Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. What action is the government taking to encourage the expansion of landcare on farmlands? What is the social and economic importance of landcare?

Mr ANDERSON —I thank the honourable member for his question. The environment and landcare policy that we took to the election represents a historic marriage of the community's—

Dr Lawrence —What is your interest in the environment?

Mr ANDERSON —Same as yours. Come on! It is a historic marriage of the com munity's enthusiasm for protecting the environment with the farm sector's will and determination to tackle land.

Mr O'Connor —So you are going to sell Telstra!

Mr ANDERSON —I will start again. The environment and landcare package that we took to the election represents a historic marriage of the community's enthusiasm for protecting the environment and the farm sector's will and determination to tackle land and soil degradation.

Mr Crean —Will the money from Telstra be big enough?

Mr ANDERSON —We will come to that in a moment. That was reflected in the symbolism of the Prime Minister's launch of the environment package, flanked by the then spokespeople for the environment and for primary industries and energy.

Let us say a few things of substance about this. Land and water degradation are Australia's No. 1 environmental problem. This is the largest environmental package ever contemplated by a government in Australia and put before the people. It is very much more substantial and innovative than the one the then government put before the Australian people, and they were never able to explain how they were going to pay for it. It establishes the National Heritage Trust fund of Australia with a capital injection of $1 billion, much of which will be used for key capital works projects.

The national vegetation initiative is one of the projects and it will be to revegetate hundreds of thousands of degraded lands. The national land and water resources audit will measure once and for all the true extent and economic cost of land and water degradation. The Murray-Darling 2001 project will tackle the major environmental problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, so eloquently referred to by the Prime Minister yesterday, and is substantially larger than the proposition you put forward and did not indicate how you would pay for it.

Mr Beazley —All our policies.

Mr ANDERSON —There is no contrast, none at all. Even if that were the case you would want to see it implemented, would you not? Of course you would. Their credentials are probably not all they are made out to be. We have a commitment to establish a national reserve system and a coast and clean seas program, all of which are very valuable.

Let me make a couple of other points. It needs to be recognised that farmers manage no less than 60 per cent of Australia's land. Therefore, they will play a critical role in implementing the package. The first principle is that farmers have to be in the black if they are to be truly green. In the end, the fact is that they do the bulk of the work and undertake the bulk of the expenditure.

Mrs Crosio —And they make the profit.

Mr ANDERSON —You do not like profit; we know that. They do the bulk of the work and undertake the bulk of the expenditure. They do so not only to secure their future but to secure sustainable agriculture and to sustain a resource base for future generations. So there is a big community benefit.

The first challenge in all of this is to restore the economy through economic reform in areas that the Labor Party would not tackle. That is the first priority—restore the economic fortunes of the rural sector. It is the key to landcare because poor economic management has been the rural sector's greatest problem in recent years.

Look at your performance during the 1980s so far as the farming sector was concerned. We had interest rates well over 20 per cent for years on end because of your very one dimensional approach to managing the economy. We had your utter failure to tackle meaningful industrial relations reform, which cost the farm sector a fortune. You gutted IEDs at the very time when they could have helped the rural sector prepare for the drought and the commodity price declines of the 1980s. You ripped them out.

The reality is that we have to deal with what we have been left with—that is, a farm sector in bad shape because you managed the economy so badly for so long. You always resisted on-farm landcare works because you were not prepared to recognise the community benefits of doing so. We do recognise the community benefits. We will facilitate them. We will drive them. We will free them up. We will let them happen. Most of all, this expenditure will be encouraged through the introduction of a system of landcare tax rebates and credits—something that you would not tackle, even though I understand your then minister wanted you to—to enable farmers with low or negative incomes to continue spending on landcare. The package is now in danger—

Mr O'Connor —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 145 relating to relevancy. The honourable minister has just circumnavigated the globe of irrelevancy about three times. I think it is about time he wound up his answer.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am following the minister's response very carefully. The question actually went to the policies required of government and not to a general announcement about what the government's intentions might be. The minister will address the question. I would encourage him to wind it up as quickly as possible.

Mr Kelvin Thomson —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: pursuant to standing order 321, I request that the minister table the document from which he has been reading.

Mr SPEAKER —Is the minister reading from confidential notes?

Mr ANDERSON —In part I have. I can table part of it.

Mr SPEAKER —The minister will table the unconfidential portion of his notes.

Mr ANDERSON —That portion is two quotes. The first was made by the President of the National Farmers Federation during the campaign. He said:

So, on balance I believe the sale is a win, win, win for us. Funding for much needed conservation work will be available. Services to the bush will be assured. And an injection of commercial competitive pressures into Telstra will be a good thing for Australia and for the bush.

Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I do take exception. Yesterday, we went to the anticipation rule. You ruled that there was no point of order because the debate was not before the House. Clearly, this debate is currently run ning on Telstra. The minister deliberately alluded to the sale of Telstra being the basis upon which their promises could be met. That part is clearly out of order. I would ask you to rule accordingly.

Mr SPEAKER —We have addressed this point of order a couple of times over the last few days. I have looked exhaustively through the Hansard record of the previous few days including yesterday's. Whilst the Treasurer particularly has gone very close to the points of order raised by honourable members of the opposition, the rules themselves—the standing orders—have not been breached. I think the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has completed his answer. There is no further point of order.

Mr Crean —Yes, he may have concluded the answer, but has he breached the standing order, Mr Speaker? That is what you have to answer.

Mr SPEAKER —I am aware of that, and there is no point of order. I will further evaluate the comments made by ministers as they are made.

Mr Crean —Can I plead with you, Mr Speaker, to tell us when the anticipation rule does apply then?

Mr SPEAKER —Yes, indeed.

Mr Crean —As a further point of order, Mr Speaker, could I ask the minister to table the document from which he was reading?

Mr SPEAKER —He has tabled the documents.