Ms MACKLIN(10.45 a.m.) —Today we are talking about our natural heritage, and what I want to focus on in my remarks today is the need for our natural heritage to extend to the urban environment where most Australians live. To talk about the natural heritage, what I want to do is emphasise the way in which that heritage can enhance the lives of the majority of Australians. Of course, that depends on how it is treated by individuals, communities and all levels of government. It is very important to emphasise that our natural heritage should not be seen as only those very special places that are protected by world heritage or national parks. They are very special places that should be protected, but we need to take a much broader view of our natural heritage—an all-embracing view that extends to those places where the majority of Australians live.

It is the case that local communities do not wait for governments to take practical steps about enhancing their local environments. That said, however, it is incumbent on governments at all levels to support and facilitate these activities of local communities through funding, regulation and, of course, overall protection. I will have more to say about governments a little later on.

In my own electorate of Jagajaga, we have the perfect example of the way in which local communities get involved in protecting, enhancing and improving their local environment—both the heritage of our local area, which is very special, and also our natural environmental assets. The most practical example of this—which I know Deputy Speaker Jenkins will be very familiar with—is the sheer number and diversity of local groups involved in this endeavour. Since becoming the member for Jagajaga, I have established a local group called Envirowatch, which involves all of the local environmental groups that are individually and collectively seeking to enhance our environment.

These groups are very diverse. They cover the Darebin Parklands Association, Friends of Diamond Creek, Friends of St Helena Bush Reserve, Friends of the Eltham Copper Butterfly, Friends of Yandell Reserve, Friends of Yarra Valley Metropolitan Parks, the Latrobe Valley Metropolitan Parks, the Latrobe University Friends of the Wildlife Reserve, Lower Plenty River Support Group, Montmorency Field Naturalist Club, Protection of Public Lands Coalition, the Riverland Conservation Society of Heidelberg, the Rosanna Parklands Protection Association, the Warringal Conservation Society, both the councils—the shire of Nillumbik and the Banyule City Council—and I am pleased to say that Greening Australia Victoria is located in the electorate of Jagajaga.

All of these groups are very active at a very practical level in protecting our local waterways, in protecting public land and in trying to do some very practical things such as controlling weeds and planting trees. What they also do is lobby, organise and, through all of their activities, seek to protect the local environment.

There is no question that they are the foundation on which any national environmental policy can work. It is the case that these groups not only care about their local environment but also care very much about what is happening globally. They care very much about the effect of local activities on both the nation and our global environment.

So it is the case that they decided locally that their priorities would focus on air pollution and related transport issues. They see the Kennett approach to the environment. I would have to say that our Premier in Victoria seems to have a love affair with the car, and this is extending into our local electorate, because we are seeing more and more proposals for extensions of roadways. But what our local environmental groups and communities are concerned about is the rapid increase in asthma amongst our children, the deterioration of air quality in our local area and the decrease in use of public transport. So we have decided as a community to actively lobby and make this a priority in our local area.

It is—as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker—a very special part of Melbourne. It is a special part of Melbourne because of the Yarra River, the green wedge and the many parks and waterways that need to be protected. What is it in this Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill that might help this protection? I am afraid to say that there is very little, largely because this bill does not go to some of the critical urban environmental issues with which I am very concerned.

I want to just turn to the latest StreamWatch report from Melbourne Parks and Waterways, which lists its key concerns about water quality and the very high levels of sediment and nutrient and poor microbiological quality that exist in our local area in the Yarra River, the Plenty River and the two major creeks. The reason for this poor quality in our waterways is, of course, the result of our urban development policies. Urban stormwater run-off is a bit like the emphasis on cats by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowan, (Mr Richard Evans).

Urban stormwater run-off is never seen as a very exciting issue to pursue, but it is this issue of urban stormwater and urban development that is leading to a major continuing deterioration in the quality of our waterway. There is limited treatment of run-off before it enters our waterways through the stormwater drainage system, and it is the result of construction activity, vehicle movement, agricultural activities, manufacturing air emissions and the day-to-day living that generates the contaminants. Those remarks are taken from this latest StreamWatch report.

I particularly want to emphasise in the StreamWatch report two areas in my electorate: the lower reaches of the Yarra River downstream from Warrandyte and the Darebin and Diamond Creeks. I am sorry to say that in both those areas the StreamWatch report rates water quality as moderate to poor and as containing increasing levels of sediment contaminations. These are areas which need an enormous amount of our attention and effort.

As I said before, Labor supports many of the things in the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill. It is the case that many of the things contained in the bill are Labor policy. If we look at the support for the Murray- Darling or the coastal initiatives, all these things could be found in Labor's policies before the election. But we do not agree with the way in which this government is seeking to raise the funds for the environment. As the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) said, we do not agree that we should be holding the environment hostage to the sale of one of Australia's pre-eminent assets—Telstra. It is important to say in this regard that, although there are many things in this bill that we do support, we have to look at the government's pre-election promises. The sale of Telstra and the $1 billion going into the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia would be on top of the environment budget. But we find that the environment budget for 1996-97 is in fact only $190.5 million—a cut of 13 per cent in last year's allocation by the Labor government.

We have also seen the abolition of the better cities program—a program which enabled the related issues of urban development and environmental degradation to be addressed. We have seen both a reduction in the overall environmental budget and a massive cut as a result of the better cities program. These are the reasons we oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because it is holding this country to ransom. It is saying, `We'll only take this issue of the environment seriously if Telstra is privatised.' Once Telstra is privatised and there is no more income from this magnificent publicly owned enterprise, what will be the result for the environment?

We have to look at this government's environmental credentials more broadly. There are dramatic changes to federal export controls on woodchipping which mean that we will see a significant increase in woodchipping in our native forests. There is a cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. The government wants to approve a new uranium mine in Kakadu National Park. It wants to back away from our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions. It has given the green light to Hinchinbrook which, of course, threatens one of our world heritage values.

This government also said before the election that, in dealing with world heritage issues, it would consult the states when making recommendations on world heritage listings. The government is now saying that states can have a veto on any area that might be listed for world heritage. I suggest that this is yet another example of the lack of leadership of this national government. Basically they are saying to the states, `If you don't agree with it, we won't push for it. It doesn't matter how special it is. It doesn't matter how important it is to our nation. If you've got a problem we won't be showing any national leadership.' It is the same sort of approach that we have seen over the last few days with ministerial conduct.

I want to go back to the issue of urban development because this is an issue with which I have quite a long history. It is something that I am very pleased to be able to add to in this debate. In my previous life as the Director of the Urban and Regional Development Review, I was responsible for putting together a major study called Green Cities. We actually looked at the way in which the ecological sustainability of Australia's urban areas could be enhanced. I think it is time that the sustainability of our urban areas got as much attention as the sustainability of other parts of Australia. It is the case that the structure of Australian cities—where the vast majority of Australians live—contributes significantly to a range of environmental problems. I want to touch on the most significant of those problems.

The first problem is urban air quality. There is ongoing concern about urban air quality in Australia, primarily because of our significant dependence on motor vehicles. It is our reliance on the car that is central to our concerns. The second problem is Australia's high level of urbanisation and low density settlement patterns. Of course these are related to our high rate of use of the car and our poor fuel economy. These things are leading to the high level of per capita energy use and, of course, our high per capita greenhouse gas emissions. What do we see from this government on greenhouse gas emissions? No attempt to deal with urban development, no attempt to deal with energy use and no attempt to deal with issues around motor vehicles. There is a movement away from any commitment to reduce Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

The government think it is too hard. They will not put the money in. They will not put the effort in. They will not get into the difficult negotiations. Difficult discussions and negotiations have to surround urban development and use of the car. They are things that affect the way we live our lives. Unless we get serious about these issues our urban environment will continue to decline.

The third area is urban waste. Australians are very large generators of waste across a wide range of different types of waste. It is the case that Australian governments previously had set a target of halving the amount of waste by the year 2000. Unless reduction initiatives are put in place we will have no hope of addressing this target. Of course, we have had complete silence from the other side about this very critical issue.

Urban water, as I have already indicated in my previous remarks, is another matter of great significance for our environment. Once again, the impact of urban development on the environmental quality of our waterways is substantial. Health threats, loss of recreational amenity from bacteria, blue-green algae, loss of aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity by habitat destruction and polluted waters all come as a result of urban development. All of these things come as a result of not taking seriously the environmental impact of our urban development practices. These are the things that have to be addressed as part of our thinking about our natural heritage if we want to make sure that our urban water quality is improved.

The final issue I want to talk about is coastal urbanisation. It is the case, as everybody in this place would know, that recreation and conservation values are threatened by the continued scale of urbanisation, particularly in northern New South Wales and south-east Queensland. The major problem once again is the result of increased water pollution, which of course is the almost inevitable consequence of a general process of coastal urbanisation.

In the priorities of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill, we need to see each and every one of these issues—coastal urbanisation, urban water improvement, urban waste reduction, urban energy use reduction and urban air quality improvement—addressed by a serious analysis and change to the way in which we develop our cities.

It is true that we can improve the sustainability of Australia's urban areas, but to do that we need to take serious action on our planning and development processes. It is not good enough for the national government to just wipe its hands and say, `These aren't matters for us. We'll just leave that to the state governments or to local governments. We won't get involved in these national planning issues.' I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these are now national planning issues.

We cannot meet our international obligations for protection of the world's greenhouse arrangements if we do not act as a nation. We will not address our problems on the coasts unless we take national planning action. We will not address the waste problems in this nation unless there is national action. It cannot be the case that the national government washes its hands of these problems, because they are national problems. They require national leadership and action that needs to come from this Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill—a bill that must be funded honestly and up-front through the consolidated fund, not through the sale of one of Australia's most wonderful assets, Telstra.