I am vehemently opposed to…

I am vehemently opposed to the changes proposed. The description of habitat is far too narrow. The proposed changes make it sound like the preservation of vulnerable species and undisturbed habitats will take a backburner to development projects. The system of "register and proceed" leaves too much room for "mistakes" to be made! Bulldoze first and ask questions later? You're also intending to remove rehabilitation requirements, supporting *voluntary* restoration initiatives with an impressively large sum. This seems disingenuous. It gives the appearance of positive change, knowing that there will be very few that take you up on it. Anyone who disturbs protected areas or species should have a mandatory restoration requirement that comes out of their own pocket. Despite my objections, I am open to change and improvement. Please rework this proposal with our environment and vulnerable species given the FIRST priority, while streamlining the process where possible to allow for more efficient applications and decisions to be made. Protections must remain in place.