I am concerned about the…

I am concerned about the opportunities for political intervention into what should be a science-driven determination of what species are at risk, e.g. allowing the Minister to apply her/his own reading of the evidence, vs relying on experts who have no political obligations, no worry about being re-appointed to their job through a popularity contest (= election).

I am extremely worried about allowing the Minister to consider alternatives to prescribed automatic species and habitat protections. Any compromise or alternative "solution" will logically mean less than ideal protection for the species at risk. If we are having an act to protect our biome, we need to rigorously protect all of nature which can't vote and lobby the Minister.

Worst of all is the notion that developers and polluters can somehow "mitigate" their destructive activities by paying into a conservation fund. The underlying belief seems to be that profits (framed more benignly as "economic development") are more important than the longterm survival of the natural world.

Greed (even if more politely framed as "jobs" and "prosperity") is no grounds for compromising with the protection of our natural world.