Mr ROBERT BROWN(1.05 p.m.) —The reason that I want to make a contribution to the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories is to restate my personal concern and very strong objection to the decision which the government made to premise any commitment to the improvement and maintenance of the Australian environment on whether or not it was able to sell one-third of Telstra.

I believe that that was one of the most indefensible abrogations of national responsibility which has ever been perpetrated by any national government in Australia. At the time of that debate, when that matter was being considered, I said that the government was, in effect, saying to the Australian people that—despite the fact that many of the great river systems of Australia are being serious degraded; despite the increasing salination of Australian rivers; despite the destruction of Australian forests, the degradation of the soils, the impoverishment of many of our coastal areas—if the Australian people and the Australian parliament were not prepared to allow it to sell one-third of Telstra, then the Australian environment could go to hell.

That is what the government told us, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know. That is what the government told the parliament, and that is what the government told the Australian people as well. If one-third of Telstra were not to be sold, then the Australian environment—with all of that deterioration and degradation and the threat to Australia's future arising from that damage to the environment—could go to hell.

That was a deplorable decision. It was an abrogation of national responsibility in the extreme. It was one of the worst examples of a decision made by a national government that has ever been seen in Australia. I want to make this point as well: I have very serious reservations about the genuineness of the proposed Natural Heritage Fund. If one-third of Telstra is sold and it realises what may be available from it—and that has been estimated at possibly $12 billion or $14 billion—then $1 billion of that will go into what has been referred to as the Natural Heritage Fund.

I am concerned about the genuineness of this government in the disbursement of those funds and the application of them to particular problems of the environment in Australia. I am concerned, because it simply repeats a practice which has become apparent in the operation of the government of Australia under the present coalition government. The other one is the Federation Fund. It is going to be interesting to see how those funds are applied, to which projects they go, and in whose electorates.

Another example is the reintroduction of a program called the roads of national importance. There is one road of national importance, Mr Deputy Speaker, for which you, in particular, have been persistent and courageous for years in pursuing work: the Pacific Highway. Money will be allocated to that, but I am concerned about where the rest of it will go. I believe very firmly and very genuinely that those funds will be used to pork-barrel. There will not be a strict application of funds according to objective criteria and objective priorities.

We have thus got three examples. The Natural Heritage Fund has ostensibly been established to correct the degradation of the Australian environment. I will be watching to see what projects those funds are applied to. The Federation Fund will be another slush fund, another pork-barrel fund. And the most recent one is the roads of national importance program. (Extension of time granted)

The particular project that I want to mention is the Natural Heritage Fund. As I said, I opposed the sale of Telstra and I opposed the funding of environmental programs and projects in that way. But since the decision has been made by the government—and presumably at some time in the future, then, the fund will be established—I want to put in a very strong bid for Lake Macquarie in New South Wales. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not very far from you and I know that you are a frequent visitor to the beauties of that lake. It is the largest coastal saltwater lake in Australia. But, because of its location, because of the nature of the urban development that has taken place around it and because of the nature of the very high risk industries which have developed around Lake Macquarie—in particular, power generation and mineral concentration and processing—there has been some very serious degradation of Lake Macquarie.

Because those particular examples of degradation have taken place as a result of the national contribution which that region has made to the national economy and to the national welfare, I believe that a more than adequate case can be made out for restoration and remediation of the problems of Lake Macquarie being financed from national resources by the national government. I want to mark the spot as far as Lake Macquarie is concerned.

I have written to the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) asking that top priority be given to the needs of Lake Macquarie, in relation not just to some of the heavy metals that people have referred to recently as a particular problem but to the whole question of having an estuarine management plan developed. Very clear priorities can then be determined in relation to Lake Macquarie and appropriate funds can be provided to make sure that that magnificent lake system is returned to a pristine condition. It will be able to continue to make the very substantial contribution that it has made in the past to the future of Australia, not only in terms of urban development and industrial development but also because of the extremely important recreation and tourism role that it fulfils at the present time. It is one of the most magnificent saltwater lakes in the world and it must be preserved and restored.