Senator FERRIS —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and it relates to the Natural Heritage Trust. In the coalition government's revegetation program, how critical is it to provide landowners and community groups with access to banks of native seeds? What is the government doing to overcome the longstanding deficiency in Australia's natural resource management?

Senator HILL (Environment) —It is good to get a serious question on the Natural Heritage Trust. And it is true that in the revegetation of Australia, which is the principal purpose of the bushcare part of the Natural Heritage Trust, there has been a shortage of seed banks and there has been a shortage of good information for landowners and community groups in order to maximise their seed growing potential.

The government, through the bushcare program, is pleased to be able to support the development of a network of regional seed banks in Australia. We are supporting in this coming year some two banks in Western Australia, two in Queensland, one in Tasmania, five in New South Wales and one in Victoria. These seed banks will collect the seed of native trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses locally, where possible, and from seed orchards. Seed will then be stored under ideal conditions and distributed at optimal times for direct seeding and the raising of seedlings.

This very important initiative will be complemented by better information. I make reference in particular to Flora bank—which is a project of the Australian National Botanic Gardens, CSIRO, Greening Australia and the Australian Tree Seed Centre—which will be able to provide to the community the best possible information on access to this genetic material, up-to-date information on the best plants to use in particular locations, revegetation techniques, and so on. These initiatives will better equip Australians to meet this enormous challenge of revegetating Australia, and it is an excellent initiative under the Natural Heritage Trust.

Contrast that constructive approach of this government with that of the Labor Party, which is determined to wreck the Natural Heritage Trust. I have to say that those who read the Age over the weekend might have reflected on its attempts to destroy the Woodhouse Pastoral Company's contribution. They might have, in particular, noted the comment of Dr Brian Whelan of the Trust for Nature, Victoria, who said of that particular investment:

For the investment of $52,900 not only the state—

of Victoria—

but also Australia has protected this prime area of box forest in perpetuity. It was a fantastic deal. To buy that land on the edge of Melbourne would have cost us millions.

That was the view of the conservation movement; that was their endorsement of this particular initiative.

Of course, what was said—and Senator Carr said it here the other day—was that the Labor Party does not support the concept of supporting conservation values on private land. But what Senator Carr should have done was refer to his own party policy. If he had read the platform released late last year, he would have seen that it said, `Labor is committed to off-reserve conservation programs developed in partnership with land-holders to ensure our native plants and animal habitats are maintained.'

So what this government did in relation to the Woodhouse Pastoral Company, in actual fact, was exactly what the Labor Party said should be done. Of course, the difference here was the name `Baillieu'. Once you saw the name Baillieu, that was the end of the issue; all you could say was `political rort'.

Senator Carr interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr.

Senator HILL —It is about time the Labor Party, and in particular Senator Faulkner, apologised to the Baillieu family for defaming the living and defaming the dead. Perhaps after that apology—

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Senator HILL —Just a little bit of leadership, Senator. After that apology, you might follow your own party platform and endorse these programs of conserving these important natural values on private land as well as public land.

Senator FERRIS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have further information that he could give to the Senate on the proportion—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! I would like to hear the question.

Senator FERRIS —Does the minister have further information on the proportion of funds allocated to the bushcare projects?

Senator HILL (Environment) —I must say—particularly as a result of the useful question of Senator West, which was probably the best question to come from the Labor Party—I did get some further calculations made. One of the most interesting was that, in fact, as a result of my so-called intervention in the New South Wales projects, projects in Labor Party seats actually got more money than was recommended to me by the New South Wales Labor government.

Government senators —Ha, ha!

Senator HILL —But never let that get in the way of the chance of a political point. The other interesting statistics that have come out of this research—which do not surprise me because it was exactly what was intended—are that, as a result of that intervention also, when we look over the bushcare programs as a whole, more money went to community grants than was recommended. So more went to community grants, and less to state agencies; and more money went to capital works on the ground, and less to monitoring, inventory, investigations, et cetera. So, in actual fact, we are achieving exactly what we pledged. We are getting the money where we need it, projects on the ground. That is what was designed and that is what is occurring. (Time expired)