Budget

Ghosh opposed the motion, arguing that the 0.1 per cent figure was an artificial metric that ignored the government's broader environmental agenda, including reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Ghosh highlighted increased funding for the Saving Native Species program and commitments to protect 30 per cent of land and marine areas by 2030. Ghosh also criticised the opposition for previously opposing environmental reforms while now claiming concern for specific issues like invasive species.

Hanson-Young supported the motion, stating that the government failed to match recent legislative protections with adequate financial investment. Hanson-Young argued that experts recommended spending at least one per cent of the budget on nature to halt biodiversity loss, contrasting this with $4 billion in cuts to climate transition funding and $46 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Hanson-Young characterised the lack of investment as treating environmental protection as a luxury rather than a fundamental necessity.

Grogan defended the government's holistic approach to environmental protection, citing investments in Indigenous rangers, renewable energy, and the new Environmental Protection Agency. Grogan argued that progress had been made since 2022 and that the motion's narrow focus ignored the totality of the government's efforts. Grogan suggested that obstruction from crossbenchers had slowed environmental progress and called for support on upcoming Murray-Darling Basin issues.

Roberts agreed that environmental protection was a duty but disagreed with the motion's focus, arguing that net zero transition projects caused significant environmental damage. Roberts cited land use for carbon sequestration, wind turbines, and transmission lines as detrimental to native fauna and agriculture. Roberts advocated for returning land to farming or native forests and cancelling net zero projects to prevent what was described as environmental vandalism.

Whish-Wilson supported the motion, noting that spending on damaging climate and nature activities far exceeded protection funding. Whish-Wilson highlighted specific concerns such as the lack of funding for the Great Southern Reef and the risk to critically endangered species like the swift parrot and Maugean skate from logging and salmon farming subsidies. Whish-Wilson argued that the current budget approach borrowed from future generations without intention of repayment.