Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Ms BOELE (Bradfield) (16:40): One startling statistic about the budget has flown under the radar this year, and it's funding for nature. It's made up just 0.3 per cent of total spending. That's less than one-third of one per cent of the budget.

To put that into perspective, for every $100 spent by the federal government this year, only 30c will go to activities that benefit nature. It gets worse because the 30c declines to 10c in 2029. That's down from a $1.10 per $100 under the Rudd-Gillard governments.

Let's take it a step further and narrow down to the money allocated specifically to on-ground conservation activities. These are the programs that directly protect nature, like establishing new conservation areas, restoring habitats for native animals like koalas, or combating invasive species. Here the picture is even worse.

The Biodiversity Council calculates that funding for on-ground nature programs is only 0.6 per cent of the budget. That's $1 for nature out of every $1,667 spent by the government. In other words, it's practically nothing.

Our main program for preventing new extinctions, the Saving Native Species Fund, only has two more years of funding, and it's less than $40 million a year. Australia is the world leader in extinctions. It is No. 1 in the world for mammal extinctions and No. 2 for biodiversity loss.

These are not records of which we should be proud. It's great that the government has committed to no new plant and animal extinctions and to conserving 30 per cent of its land and marine species areas by 2030. But these are just commitments.

They're just words. The great thing about the budget is it allows us to evaluate whether the government is doing what it takes to achieve those commitments. This budget shows too clearly that it's not.

At the same time as providing minimal funding for nature protection, it's pouring far more money into activities that harm nature—fossil fuel subsidies, including fracking projects that damage water tables; native forest logging; and projects that clear native vegetation. When the odds are stacked against it like this, Australia's unique and ancient biodiversity will continue to die and on this government's watch.

This isn't just a problem for environmentalists; it's a problem for Australians. The good news is that we know it's smart economic management to invest in nature. Nature underpins everything else in the budget.

A strong economy is impossible without a healthy environment. Our prosperity would crumble without well-functioning ecosystems to provide us with potable water, clean air, healthy and productive soils, pollinators for fruit and nut trees and other crops, and mangroves for storm and flood protection. None of these things is nice to have.

Each is absolutely critical. So what kind of spending do we need to put nature on a better footing? Is it 10 per cent of the budget?

Is it five per cent? It's actually not that large a number. Leading scientists and ecologists from organisations like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and the Biodiversity Council have calculated that to put Australia's environment onto a more secure footing would cost only one per cent of the budget.

That's about $8 billion a year. Yes, it's a lot of money but an incredibly worthwhile investment. Research shows that the more a country spends on conservation, the fewer species it loses.

That one per cent of the budget would go to tackling invasive species, stopping new extinctions, protecting 30 per cent of Australia and restoring Australia's degrading landscapes—in other words, its habitats. One per cent is to stop us going backwards and set us up for a healthier, cleaner future. Now, most Australians want this to happen.

Australians care about nature and they want the government to do more to protect it. Ninety-five per cent of Australians believe that spending on nature should be increased to one per cent or more. One per cent is doable.

It's well within the realm of possibility but only if the government treats nature as a priority. And budgets are just that; they are priorities. They are the one time in the annual political calendar when governments have no choice but to lay all their cards on the table.

In following the money, this budget makes it clear as day that this government simply doesn't prioritise nature, so my question to the government is: to meet the government's commitments to no new extinctions and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030, what advice are you relying on that has led you to reduce funding for nature in this budget?