The proposed changes would…

The proposed changes would further weaken protection and recovery of species at risk. I see no support in this proposal for your claim that it will improve outcomes for species at risk.

Species at risk will not be helped by delaying their listing or by ministerial interference in COSSARO's decisions.

Species at risk will not be helped by allowing the Minister to suspend and limit their protection, and to develop habitat regulations only “when needed” in someone's opinion.

Species at risk will not be helped by allowing the Minister to delay recovery actions indefinitely.

Allowing developers to pay into a fund instead of following rules will encourage the harms they do, and a fund is no substitute for protection. Recovery after further population and habitat losses is many times more difficult and expensive and risky than protecting in the first place.

Your proposals regarding permits, agreements and exemptions will allow more sweeping authorizations that may be nice for business but will not help species at risk.

In your last paragraph you propose that the Minister be allowed to pause protections without review, in order to “minimize associated social or economic impacts”. The quoted phrase represents the whole proposal. You think that minimizing social or economic impacts of protecting a species at risk is more urgent and important than avoiding further losses to that species. I say that protecting a species at risk is more urgent and important than minimizing the social or economic impacts of doing so.