Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.44 a.m.) —I wish to make a contribution on the amendments and requests that are before the chair. Let me commence by addressing some of the issues that have been the subject of debate between Senator Brown and Senator Hill.

The truth of the matter is this: we have a situation now where some very important and very successful environmental programs in relation to revegetation have been axed in the government's budget. The one billion trees program—gone, axed by Senator Hill. The save the bush program—gone, axed by Senator Hill. Then of course you have a more complex situation in relation to a number of other really important programs. Let me mention a couple. The wet tropics tree planting scheme. I in fact was surprised that I was actually congratulated by some coalition senators for this scheme. Another example would be the Daintree rescue package. I certainly would want to mention the mahogany glider rescue package.

Senator Hill —I think all the programs you mentioned are good programs. Congratulations.

Senator FAULKNER —You say they are good programs and you say `Congratulations' in a smarmy and cynical way.

Senator Hill —No, I am genuine.

Senator FAULKNER —You are genuine, are you?

Senator Hill —Yes.

Senator FAULKNER —Wipe the smirk off your face then.

Senator Hill —We can't help our physical deficiencies, can we?

Senator FAULKNER —True enough. I certainly would plead guilty on that count. Why then, if they are such good programs, have they been cut, delayed or rebadged? That is the truth about it. Why have they been rolled in, we hope, to the Natural Heritage Trust program and these very successful Labor government initiatives repackaged and sold as new programs from the coalition government?

That is what is happening in relation to the sorts of programs that you and Senator Brown have been debating. That is the truth of the matter. It is a pretty miserable record on behalf of the government and a very poor performance by you in terms of defending the natural environment in this country through successive budgets and protecting the natural environment in this budget. I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself in terms of that contribution as Australia's environment minister.

But let me come back to the question before the chair—that is, the requests and amendments that the government is proposing. The issue is this: the government is proposing that its $1.149 billion commitment during the election campaign—the great environmental con; the Telstra environment link—a commitment to funding promised over five years and promised to be over and above the forward estimates of the previous Labor administration, now stands exposed as money not above the forward estimates of either the environment department or, for that matter, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. It is not extra money at all and not money over five years. You are now trying to gild the lily and string it out over six years.

Those are the issues that are before the committee now. It is on those issues as well as the other matters in relation to the import ant programs that have been the subject of debate between Senator Hill and Senator Brown. That is an important debate, and let's have it at the appropriate time. The issue before us now is the breach of the commitment that this Liberal government made during the election campaign to fund the environment over five years to the tune of $1.149 billion on top of the forward estimates of the previous Labor administration.

That is what is before us in black and white. What has been exposed during this committee stage debate is the fact that this is an open and shut case—a black and white case—of Senator Hill and the Liberal government breaking their word, breaching their commitment and deceiving the Australian people.

It is for that reason that the opposition will not accept these government amendments. We do not want to see Senator Hill get away with it. Perhaps the committee will agree with him. Perhaps the Senate will support this breach of commitment. Perhaps they will allow the big lie, the big con, the big deception of the election campaign to be enshrined in this piece of legislation. I hope not. I hope Senator Hill and the government will be kept to their word. I hope that they will be exposed for their deceit during the election campaign and the trickery of the scam that is before us now.

I urge the committee to focus on the issue before the chair and say to the government, `No, we won't let you get away with this environmental con, with this trick by the government. We won't let you get away with this deceit.' It is for those reasons that I would urge the committee to defeat the government amendments and government requests that are before the chair.