Environment

Laxale opposed the motion, stating that the opposition lacked a coherent environmental policy and had recently voted to abandon net zero targets. Laxale highlighted the government's legislative achievements, including stronger emissions reduction targets and significant investments in renewable energy and conservation. Laxale noted that Australia's emissions had fallen substantially below 2005 levels due to these policies. Laxale argued that the government had protected millions of hectares of land and ocean and supported Indigenous ranger programs.

Venning supported the motion, describing the government's response to the algal bloom as a catastrophic failure in environmental management. Venning detailed the severe impact on fishing and tourism industries in his electorate, noting that thousands of marine animals died and local businesses faced financial ruin. Venning criticised the government for ignoring scientists and refusing to declare a national emergency, which would unlock greater resources. Venning called for accountability and urged the Environment Minister to explain the delay in action.

Gregg opposed the motion, arguing that it lacked substance and ignored the government's concrete environmental actions. Gregg outlined the $14 million in support announced for South Australia, including funding for research, clean-up efforts, and improved forecasting tools. Gregg reiterated the government's success in reducing emissions and protecting biodiversity, contrasting this with the coalition's historical record. Gregg suggested the motion was hypocritical given the opposition's recent rejection of net zero commitments.