Dr LAWRENCE(4.59 p.m.) —I want to continue to point out that there was a very clear breach of undertaking by the government in relation to various programs which were supposed to be funded in the budget. During the election campaign, the government said very clearly—and it has subsequently repeated it—that it would maintain the environment budget at its current levels. Indeed, that was a very explicit promise made by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister (Mr Howard). He promised that there would be no cuts to the environment budget and that all of the funds from the part sale of Telstra would be in addition to Labor's funding. The then shadow minister made much of a boast that, as a result of this, he would be able to double Labor's expenditure on the environment.

In addition to the funds from the sale of Telstra, the coalition promised to spend $84 million on environment programs in the 1996-97 budget. Both of those promises were clearly breached, because there was in fact a 13 per cent cut in environmental spending and none of those extra dollars were applied.

The result is that, even if the part sale of Telstra were to proceed, environment funding would be starting well behind. As I pointed out last evening, it would be likely that the broken promises—that is, the failure to maintain funding plus the failure to apply the additional funds that were promised—would lead to $275.6 million in broken promises over the four years. When you look at the so-called extravagant, extensive funds to be made available from the sale of Telstra, you see that there has been a very significant breach of what the community was led to understand.

I will just give a couple of examples of those 13 per cent cuts. The Australian Heritage Commission budget has been cut by 15 per cent, and most of that has been in cuts to community programs. The commission's national estate grants program has been cut from $5 million to $1 million. This, of course, will hit community based environment and heritage programs very hard.

It ill behoves coalition members to come in here and talk about the new programs that might be funded under the Natural Heritage Trust when existing programs are being cut to ribbons. The reduction in funding means there will be a devastating effect on the identification and conservation of Australia's natural cultural and indigenous heritage—something which the ministers clearly do not care about.

We are all well aware of the very significant cuts that were made from government source funding to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the shortfall of $3.5 million to be made up from a big increase in the reef tax, from $1 to $6 a head—and we all know the impact that that is likely to have on the Queensland community and the tourism industry there.

There was a very significant cut to the Environment Protection Agency. Again, from a government who claims to care about the quality of water and clean coasts and clean seas, that very significant cut means that the Commonwealth has very little capacity to monitor and improve the protection of our environment. There was a 21 per cent cut in last year's budget to the Environment Protection Agency. The cuts relate largely to the abolition of a $5 million paper recycling initiative—something which I would have thought was very sensible—to encourage the recycling of high grade waste paper. Funding for cleaner production was also cut. That again is something that is entirely against the grain of what the government claims in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust.

There are also very significant cuts to the Environment Strategies Directorate, which impact particularly on the directorate's capacity to manage Australia's world heritage areas. So it is not much good trotting out a whole new set of initiatives when existing ones of great importance are being cut so significantly. The budget cuts in that area include a $10 million cut in payments to the states for management of world heritage properties—a cut that is being matched by the states, because they say, `If the Commonwealth is withdrawing, so will we.' There is a cut of $2 million over two years to the mahogany glider Sugar Coast rescue package, and a cut of $5.3 million to the Queensland wet tropics planting scheme. Again, all of these things are alleged to be picked up by many of the initiatives in the so-called heritage trust, yet they are being cut from behind. So the net benefit of this funding, even if it were to be applied, is very small.

If you compare what is to be applied with what Labor was spending and promised during the election campaign, the part sale of Telstra—$8 billion with $1 billion going to the environment—results in a net benefit over those expenditures of less than $50 million a year.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 21—by leave—taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 22.