There is also a belief that greater regulation alone will achieve little.

Too much conservation work currently relies on philanthropists’ cash and devoted volunteers, those in the sector say, and much more languishes on the to-do list due to a lack of money.

The federal government directly spends about A$700m on nature protection, a fraction of the A$33bn – or 1% of GDP – conservationists say it should be. That is an eyebrow-raising figure, people like Paul Elton concede, but one they argue is reasonable.

According to his research – which the government disputes – more than A$26bn is still being spent on subsidies for things like mining, intensive agriculture or fuel despite Australia signing global pledges to wind them back.

“For every dollar the government is spending on positive biodiversity conservation action, there’s A$26 being spent on subsidies that are causing harm to nature,” he tells the BBC.

“That’s a pretty stark imbalance.”

Minister Watt didn’t directly respond to questions about conservationists’ demands, but said: “We remain committed to long-term environmental recovery, in partnership with state and local governments, community and environmental groups.”

Though public sentiment is shifting, there’s scepticism the government will prioritise the environment amid competing demands and compounding crises until voters force them to do so.

“The community will say to you, we should spend a lot of money on the environment. And then if you say, ‘Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice to ensure that funding base?’, then they’re no longer interested,” Hill says.

In the face of so many challenges and what they see as little progress, advocates admit it’s hard to hang on to hope.

“We know what the problems are. We know how to address them. We know when we spend money on the environment, it pays back many times over,” Ritchie, a mammal ecologist, says.

“It’s like being a doctor and seeing all these sick people in the community and you know how to fix them, but no one will let you do that.”