A recovery plan under the EPBC Act is a document that sets out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, listed threatened species. The EPBC Act distinguishes between making a plan (s 269A(2)) - where the Commonwealth develops its own plan - and adopting a plan (s 269A(7)) - where the Commonwealth adopts a plan made by a state or territory agency. Adopted plans have the same legal status as made plans. The instrument revokes previously adopted plans using the general revocation power in s 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which applies unless the contrary intention appears. The concept of “listed threatened species” is central: each species named in the instrument is already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, which carries its own protections. The instrument does not add or remove species from the list; it only changes which recovery plan applies to them. The instrument contains two tables. Table 1 lists 59 species (including subspecies such as Petroica multicolor multicolor and Pachycephala pectoralis xanthoprocta) that are covered by the Norfolk Island Region Threatened Species Recovery Plan. Table 2 lists 26 species endemic to the Northern Rivers region of NSW that are covered by the adopted NSW plan. The instrument uses the term “recovery plan” for both the made and adopted plans, meaning that for legal purposes both are treated as started, revised or adopted under the EPBC Act. The Norfolk Island plan replaces the two earlier species-specific plans, so the Scarlet Robin, Golden Whistler and Green Parrot are now part of a multi-species regional plan rather than having their own standalone documents. The Northern Rivers plan is an existing state plan that becomes a Commonwealth recovery plan only for the listed species in Table 2 that are endemic to the region; it does not apply to all species in the state plan. The instrument also distinguishes between “covering” the region (Table 1) and “endemic to the region” (Table 2). That distinction may matter for legal interpretation: a species that occurs in the Northern Rivers region but is not endemic would not be covered by the adopted plan. The instrument’s effective dates are consistent: both the revocation and the new plans come into force on the day after registration, meaning there is no gap in recovery plan coverage for the species.

The instrument directly affects the legal status of recovery planning for 85 listed threatened species. For the Norfolk Island region, the species include iconic birds such as the Norfolk Island Green Parrot (Cyanoramphus cookii), the Pacific Robin (Norfolk Island) (Petroica multicolor multicolor) and the Norfolk Island Boobook Owl (Ninox novaeseelandiae undulata), as well as numerous plants, ferns and reptiles. Persons whose activities may have a significant impact on these species will be affected because under the EPBC Act the Minister must have regard to any relevant recovery plan when deciding whether to approve an action, and a recovery plan can inform the conditions attached to an approval. This includes property developers, infrastructure operators, farmers, foresters and tourism businesses in the Norfolk Island region and in the Northern Rivers region of NSW. Government agencies are affected: the Director of National Parks is the designated proponent of the Norfolk Island plan and must implement it. The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water is responsible for the state plan that has been adopted, and its actions must be consistent with the plan’s provisions to the extent they are functions of the Commonwealth. Landholders on Norfolk Island may face restrictions on clearing, grazing or building that could affect listed species, and the recovery plan may guide those restrictions. The instrument does not directly impose obligations on private citizens, but the recovery plans it activates may contain recommendations or measures that the Commonwealth expects to be carried out. The instrument also affects the previous regime: the two revoked plans no longer have legal effect, so any person relying on those plans for guidance or compliance must now refer to the new Norfolk Island regional plan. The Northern Rivers adoption means that persons in that region who are already subject to the NSW plan will now also be subject to federal oversight, because the adopted plan becomes a matter the Commonwealth must consider in its own decisions. The instrument also affects the public interest by shifting conservation focus from single species to regional ecosystems, which may alter resource allocation and stakeholder engagement.

The instrument itself imposes no duties or rights directly. However, by bringing the new recovery plans into force under the EPBC Act, it triggers existing duties in that Act. Under s 138(2), the Commonwealth must not take any action that is inconsistent with a recovery plan. This binds government agencies such as the Director of National Parks and the Department. Under s 139, the Minister must have regard to a recovery plan when making a decision on whether to approve a controlled action under Part 9. For a person other than the Commonwealth, the EPBC Act does not impose a direct duty to comply with a recovery plan; the duty is enforced through the approval process. If an action is likely to significantly impact a listed threatened species, the person must refer the action to the Minister. The Minister’s decision on whether the action is a controlled action and on approval must be informed by the recovery plan. Thus, the instrument indirectly creates a set of expectations: persons planning activities that may affect the listed species should consult the relevant recovery plan to understand likely assessment and approval conditions. The instrument also preserves the right of the Minister to adopt a plan under s 269A(7), meaning the NSW plan can be amended or replaced by the Commonwealth. There is no private right to enforce a recovery plan; enforcement is left to the Minister and civil enforcement mechanisms in the EPBC Act. The instrument does not create a right to participate in the making of the plans (the plans were made before this instrument). However, under s 269A(3), the Minister must consult with the relevant state or territory before making a plan; that consultation occurred before this instrument. The instrument does not confer any rights of compensation or property access. It is an administrative act that changes which documents guide government decision making. The revocation of the two old plans removes any duty to consider those earlier documents; but since the new plan covers the same species, the practical effect may be neutral or increased complexity depending on the content of the new plan.

The instrument does not create penalties. It does not amend the EPBC Act’s penalty provisions. The criminal and civil penalty provisions for taking, trading, keeping or interfering with listed threatened species remain as they are: Part 13 of the EPBC Act sets maximum penalties of up to seven years imprisonment and fines of up to $550,000 for individuals and $5.5 million for corporations for knowingly killing or injuring a listed species without approval. The instrument may affect enforcement in practice by altering the information available to the Department and enforcement authorities. A recovery plan can be used to demonstrate that a person knew or ought to have known that their action could harm a listed species, which could be relevant to establishing fault elements in criminal prosecutions. The instrument’s adoption of the NSW plan may also mean that a breach of the state plan could inform a prosecution under the EPBC Act if the action is also a prohibited action under federal law. However, the instrument itself has no enforcement mechanism; it is merely the machinery by which two new recovery plans become legally recognised documents. The Director of National Parks is the designated entity responsible for the Norfolk Island plan, but the instrument does not impose a specific enforcement role on that Director. The Department may use the plan to negotiate conservation agreements or compliance directions. The instrument does not create any auditing or reporting requirements. If a recovery plan is not implemented, the EPBC Act does not provide a direct remedy for failure to implement; the plan is a tool, not a command. The only enforcement avenue would be if the Commonwealth acts inconsistently with the plan or if the Minister fails to have regard to it in a decision, which could be subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or the EPBC Act’s civil remedies.

This instrument is made under the EPBC Act and interacts with that Act’s framework for listing threatened species and approving actions. It also interacts with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 through the revocation power under s 33(3). The instrument adopts a plan made under New South Wales law - the Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan - as a federal recovery plan. That means the state plan now has dual legal personality: it operates as a state document under NSW legislation (such as the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, previously the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and as a federal recovery plan under the EPBC Act. Any amendment to the state plan by NSW would not automatically amend the federal adoption; the Commonwealth would need to issue a new instrument to adopt the amended plan. The instrument also interacts with the Norfolk Island Act 1979, because Norfolk Island is an external territory and the EPBC Act applies throughout it. The Norfolk Island regional plan is a Commonwealth plan and may have been developed in consultation with the Norfolk Island administration. The instrument does not create any inconsistency with state law; it merely adds a federal overlay on top of existing state protections. For species listed in both a state list and the EPBC list, the state recovery plan may continue to apply under state law, but the federal adoption means the federal minister must also consider the plan for controlled actions. The instrument revokes the two earlier plans, which may have been adopted under earlier Commonwealth instruments; those revocations end the legal life of those plans for EPBC purposes. However, the revoked plans may still exist as historical documents and could be referenced in other contexts (e.g., research). The instrument is itself a legislative instrument subject to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (now the Legislation Act 2003), meaning it is publicly registered, may be subject to disallowance by Parliament, and must be tabled. It does not purport to override any other Commonwealth or state laws; it operates within the existing hierarchy.

This instrument is a standalone legislative instrument; it does not amend the EPBC Act itself. It amends the legal landscape by revoking two earlier instruments (the recovery plans adopted under s 269A(7) for the Norfolk Island Scarlet Robin/Golden Whistler and the Norfolk Island Green Parrot). Those revocations are the only “amendments” to the body of existing recovery plans. The instrument does not amend any subsequent instruments; it is a fresh making and adoption. The instrument itself has not been amended, as far as the source states. Since it was made in 2010, subsequent changes to recovery plans for these species would require a new instrument. No history of earlier versions or revisions is provided; the source is the final instrument. The revocation power under s 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act allows the instrument to implicitly repeal the earlier adoption instruments, though the earlier plans themselves are not legislative instruments - they are documents adopted by reference. This instrument explicitly lists the two prior plans and revokes them, providing clarity. There is no indication that the instrument has itself been revoked or amended; it remains in force unless superseded by a later instrument. The EPBC Act has been amended several times since 2010 (e.g., by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Act 2013, the Threatened Species Protection Amendment Act 2014, and others), but those amendments do not affect the validity of this instrument unless they expressly repeal s 269A or alter its operation. The instrument remains a valid exercise of power under the pre amendment text of s 269A.

The source contains no reference to any litigation concerning this instrument. It is possible that the instrument has been the subject of judicial review, but no case is mentioned. Recovery plans under the EPBC Act have been litigated in other contexts; for example, the validity of recovery plans or the failure to have regard to them has been considered by the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, this specific instrument - the Norfolk Island Region Threatened Species Recovery Plan and the adoption of the Northern Rivers plan - does not appear in any reported decision that the source cites. The instrument is an administrative decision that could be challenged under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 on grounds such as improper exercise of power, failure to consider relevant matters, or unreasonableness. A person aggrieved by the making or adoption of a recovery plan might also seek injunctive relief under the EPBC Act. Since the instrument lists many species, it could be subject to litigation if a person argues that the recovery plan is inadequate to achieve its objective, or that the adoption of the state plan did not comply with the EPBC Act’s requirements (e.g., consultation requirements under s 269A(3)). However, none of that appears in the source. The instrument itself is likely to be challenged only if a party’s interests are specifically affected by the recovery plan’s content, which is not disclosed by this instrument alone. The absence of cited litigation does not mean none exists; it simply means the source does not provide any.

First, the instrument revokes the two old plans effective the day after registration, and the new plans come into force the same day. However, if there is any delay in registration or a defect in the instrument, there could be a gap where no recovery plan applies to the Norfolk Island Green Parrot, Scarlet Robin and Golden Whistler. This gap would last until the new plan takes effect, potentially creating legal uncertainty for anyone planning an action affecting those species during that window. Second, the instrument adopts the NSW Northern Rivers plan only for the 26 listed threatened species endemic to the region. The phrase “endemic to the region” may be ambiguous: does it mean the entire species range is within the Northern Rivers region, or that the species occurs only in that region within NSW? The instrument does not define it, and any dispute over a species’ endemism could affect whether the plan applies. Third, the instrument lists many species by Latin name; some may have been reclassified or split since 2010. The instrument does not provide a mechanism to deal with taxonomic changes. If a species is later split into two, the recovery plan may become ambiguous as to which new entity is covered. Fourth, the instrument does not repeal or override any state law. The Northern Rivers plan remains a state plan, and its state legal effect may differ from its federal effect. A landholder might be subject to inconsistent duties under state and federal law if the plan is interpreted differently. Fifth, the instrument does not require the plan to be updated; a plan made in 2010 may be outdated now. Users relying on the instrument should check whether the plan itself has been revised or replaced by a later instrument. Sixth, the instrument is signed by a delegate, not the Minister personally. The validity of the delegation is not apparent from the instrument. If the delegation was defective, the instrument could be invalid. Seventh, the instrument adopts the NSW plan as a recovery plan for listed threatened species, but the NSW plan may cover many more species than those listed in Table 2. The adoption is limited to the listed species; the rest of the state plan has no federal effect. This may confuse stakeholders who assume the entire state plan is recognised. Eighth, the instrument does not specify which provisions of the NSW plan are adopted; it is the whole plan. That could include provisions that are inconsistent with the EPBC Act, creating legal tensions. Finally, the instrument is a legislative instrument but not all recovery plans are legislative instruments; the plans themselves are not disallowable, but the instrument making or adopting them is. This procedural detail may be overlooked.

Compliance with this instrument is indirect: you must comply with the EPBC Act as mediated by the recovery plans it activates. The first step is to identify whether your proposed action may significantly affect any listed threatened species. If your action is in the Norfolk Island region, check Table 1 of the instrument for the 59 species. If in the Northern Rivers region, check Table 2 for the 26 endemic species. For any such species, you must then obtain and review the relevant recovery plan - either the Director of National Parks (2010) Norfolk Island Region Threatened Species Recovery Plan or the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2010) Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan. These plans will describe the actions you must avoid, the measures you can take to mitigate harm, and the conditions under which your action might be approved. If your action requires referral to the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act, you must include in your referral information about how the action relates to any recovery plan. The Minister’s decision will have regard to the plan, potentially imposing conditions that align with its recommendations. For government agencies, compliance means ensuring that any action they take is not inconsistent with the recovery plan (s 138(2)). For the Director of National Parks, this means implementing the Norfolk Island plan. For state agencies, the adopted NSW plan does not directly bind state action unless the state has its own obligations under state law. Private landholders should consult with the Department of the Environment and Energy (or its successors) to determine whether their planned activities are likely to be a controlled action. If the recovery plan recommends specific management practices (e.g., fencing, weed control, fire regimes), adopting those practices can reduce the risk of non compliance and facilitate smoother approvals. The instrument itself does not require reporting, but the EPBC Act may require post approval monitoring conditions. The safest approach is to engage a consultant familiar with the recovery plan and the EPBC Act assessment process. Because the plans are from 2010, also check whether any newer recovery plan has superseded them; if so, the newer plan should be used. Finally, keep a copy of the instrument and the plan as part of your due diligence records to demonstrate that you have considered the recovery planning regime.