I strongly disagree with the…

I strongly disagree with the proposal. While housing and other infrastructure developments are important, they cannot come at the cost of our precious ecosystem. The new proposal is too lax and would invite serious abuse.

Some of my biggest concerns:
1. The government should not have the power to remove species from the protected list. The government does not have the subject expertise nor objectivity to make wise decisions on this matter, and the ability to remove ANY species' protection regardless of risk is completely unacceptable. Therefore, this kind of responsibility should go to independent science based committee like COSSARO.
2. registration first model would remove oversight and allow harmful activities to proceed and cause irreparable harm to species habitats before regulating bodies could stop them. These are fragile areas, recovering them after damage will be a costly and lengthy endeavour, so we cannot afford to take on a reactive approach to enforcement.
3. Redefining "habitat" to an animal's dwelling and its immediate surrounding is way too limiting to serve meaningful conservation efforts. Just like how we humans cannot survive entirely confined to our homes, animals need spaces to forage, interact, and expand (that is what we want out of conservation right? have more animals and lower their risk?). Limiting habitat also creates a downward spiral: less space means fewer animals, fewer animals means even less space, until there are no species left to protect.
4. Removal of requirement to develop recovery strategies means after a habitat has been damaged (via 2, 3 or other gaps), it would most likely not be repaired. The net result of all the proposed changes would be reduced species protection and eventual loss of our natural heritage. If we care about conservation at all, recovery planning should be mandatory.

In conclusion, the proposed changes, while claim to be balancing economic development with species protection, strips away too much protection for so called "sustainable economic growth". Our ecosystem is fraught with global environmental threats already, we cannot further weaken its protection. Wilderness and biodiversity is not something we can simply remove and then restore at our leisure. This proposal should rollback aforementioned changes and instead focus on faster assessments (maybe risk based review tiers, better funding), encourage voluntary conservation (reward developers who restore or protect habitats beyond the legal minimum), and set clearer guidelines for sustainable development.