The instrument operates around a narrow set of administrative concepts: revocation of previous adoptions, adoption of State-prepared recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans, identification of the affected listed threatened species, and timing of when those adopted plans come into force at the Commonwealth level.

Statutory authority: The instrument is made under two express statutory references. It cites subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and subsection 269A(7) of the EPBC Act as the legal basis for revoking prior adoptions and adopting the listed State recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans. The instrument therefore presents itself as an exercise of delegated administrative power under those provisions.

Revocation and substitution: The instrument revokes the Commonwealth adoption of two specific NSW recovery plans relating to the southern corroboree frog (two documents dated 2000 and 2001) and substitutes a suite of new State-prepared recovery plans from NSW, SA and WA. The source text explicitly lists titles and publishers for each adopted plan, making the exact documents clear.

Adoption as Commonwealth recovery plans: The core operative act in the instrument is the adoption, for the listed threatened species, of specified State recovery plans. The text states that it "hereby adopt[s] as recovery plans for the listed threatened species specified below, the respective plans made by New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia (or agencies of those States) specified opposite those listed threatened species." The language ties the adopted documents to particular listed species or ecological communities as enumerated in the tables.

Timing: The instrument sets a discrete commencement rule: "The adopted recovery plans will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments." The adoption therefore has an administrative trigger tied to federal registration rather than the signing date.

Document specificity: The instrument supplies bibliographic details for each adopted plan (authoring agency, year, title, place), which enables parties to identify precisely which documents have been adopted. It also names the signatory and her capacity as a delegate for the Minister, thereby recording the decision-maker for administrative and legal tracing.

What the instrument is not: The text does not itself lay out recovery measures, statutory duties imposed on third parties, enforcement provisions, funding commitments, or cross-references to other substantive EPBC provisions. It does not purport to alter state law, nor does it include explanatory rationale beyond the administrative actions of revocation and adoption.

Directly named subjects: The instrument directly affects the listed threatened species and ecological communities specified in the tables, by adopting State recovery plans for those species as Commonwealth recovery plans. The species named in the instrument are:

• Litoria booroolongensis (Booroolong frog)
• Pseudophryne corroboree (southern corroboree frog)
• Pseudophryne pengilleyi (northern corroboree frog)
• Swainsona recta (small purple-pea)
• Pseudomys australis (plains rat/plains mouse)
• Lagorchestes hirsutus bernieri (rufous hare-wallaby, Bernier Island)
• Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae (rufous hare-wallaby, Dorre Island)
• Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp. (mala, central mainland form)
• Bettongia lesueur lesueur (burrowing bettong, Shark Bay)
• Bettongia lesueur unnamed subsp. (burrowing bettong, Barrow and Boodie Islands)
• Lagostrophus fasciatus fasciatus (banded hare-wallaby)
• Perameles bougainville bougainville (western barred bandicoot, Shark Bay)

State agencies and document authors: The instrument adopts plans prepared by New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage or previously the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service), South Australia (Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources), and Western Australia (Department of Environment and Conservation). Those agencies are identified as the makers of the adopted documents; the instrument therefore affects their work product by conferring Commonwealth adoption on those documents.

Commonwealth decision‑maker: The instrument records that Debra Jayne Callister‑Carter, Assistant Secretary, Wildlife Branch, acting as a delegate for the Minister, made the revocation and adoptions. That identifies who decided at the federal administrative level.

Parties potentially affected but not enumerated: The instrument does not list private parties, landowners, developers, or other stakeholders. However, by adopting recovery plans at the Commonwealth level for the listed species, it creates a change in the administrative status of those specific recovery plans. Stakeholders referenced within the adopted plans (for example, landowners, local councils or resource proponents) will potentially be affected by any measures, actions or recommendations contained in those plans once they are in force. The instrument itself does not specify who must act to implement the plans or who must comply with their contents. It does not purport to modify state law or to confer direct regulatory obligations on third parties; it records the Commonwealth’s administrative adoption of the documents.

Geographic reach: The adopted documents are State-prepared plans; their primary geographic subject matter will be the jurisdictions and locations identified within those plans. The instrument does not extend or limit geographic effect beyond adopting the stated documents as Commonwealth recovery plans for the listed species.

Temporal effect: The instrument fixes the commencement for the adopted plans as the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Until that registration occurs, the new adoptions are not in force; conversely, the instrument revokes earlier Commonwealth adoptions of two NSW documents as part of the same administrative action.

The instrument itself is an administrative adoption and revocation record and does not, on its face, enumerate prescriptive duties or enforceable rights. Its operative content is limited to revoking earlier adoptions and adopting specified State recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans under the authority it cites. Therefore the immediate, document-level duties and rights created by the instrument are limited to the change in administrative status of the listed documents.

What the instrument creates administratively

• Adoption status: For the listed species, the specified State recovery plan documents are adopted as recovery plans under the EPBC Act by operation of this instrument. The instrument states that it "hereby adopt[s] as recovery plans for the listed threatened species specified below, the respective plans made by" the named States. That adoption will be effective the day after the instrument’s registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.
• Revocation of prior adoptions: The instrument expressly revokes the Commonwealth adoption of two earlier NSW recovery plans for the southern corroboree frog (the NSW NPWS 2001 recovery plan and a November 2000 recovery plan). The revocation removes the previous Commonwealth adoption status of those particular documents.

What the instrument does not contain

• No substantive obligations: The instrument does not itself set out recovery actions, obligations on landowners, funding provisions, or enforcement measures. It does not contain penalties or sanctions. In short, it records which documents are adopted as recovery plans, but does not stipulate the substantive legal consequences or enforcement regime; those will be found, if at all, in the EPBC Act provisions referenced (subsection 269A(7)) or in the content of the adopted plans themselves. The instrument does not reproduce any provisions from the adopted plans, nor does it attach any explanatory memorandum within its text.

Practical implications for duties and rights (process perspective)

• For administrators and advisers: The instrument signals that the adopted State documents are to be treated administratively as the Commonwealth’s recovery plans for the listed species once the instrument is registered. Practitioners will therefore need to consult the adopted documents to determine what recovery strategies, priorities, or recommended actions they contain, and to assess whether those actions generate subsequent legal or policy steps under other parts of the EPBC Act or administrative practice. The instrument itself does not provide those details.
• For stakeholders: Landholders, proponents and local authorities who are referenced in the adopted plans will not find in the instrument direct statements of duty or rights, but the adopted plans may include recommended management actions, responsibilities or cooperative frameworks. Those substantive elements are present only in the adopted documents cited, not in the instrument.

In sum, the instrument changes the formal federal adoption status of named documents (adoption and revocation) and establishes their commencement timing, but it does not by itself create a schedule of duties, rights or sanctions; any such obligations must be sought in the EPBC Act itself or the text of the adopted plans.

The instrument contains no penalty provisions, enforcement mechanisms, or compliance sanctions. Its text is exclusively administrative: it revokes prior Commonwealth adoptions of specified NSW documents and adopts specified State recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans for listed species, citing the statutory authority relied upon (Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 33(3) and EPBC Act s 269A(7)), and fixing a commencement mechanism tied to registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Nowhere in the instrument does the delegate prescribe an enforcement regime, monetary penalties, criminal or civil sanctions, or powers of entry or mandatory compliance.

What this means for enforcement analysis

• No immediate enforcement terms in the instrument: Because the instrument does not articulate penalties or enforcement steps, it does not itself change or create federal enforcement processes. Any enforcement consequences that flow from the adopted recovery plans must therefore be sourced in other legal texts: either in the substantive provisions of the EPBC Act or in the adopted plans themselves (to the extent those plans establish cooperative arrangements, compliance expectations, or administrative mechanisms). The instrument does not reproduce or reference such enforcement provisions.
• Administrative status may affect subsequent decisions: Adoption of a recovery plan as a Commonwealth document may influence administrative decision-making under other provisions of the EPBC Act (for example, decisions about threatened species matters, approvals, or conditions attached to actions). The instrument does not specify how it will be used in that decision-making, nor does it itself impose conditions on permits or approvals. Practitioners should therefore look to the EPBC Act provisions operative in the relevant statutory contexts and to the content of each adopted plan for any procedural or substantive implications that could affect enforcement.
• Revocation of prior adoptions: The revocation of earlier NSW adoption documents removes those documents from the pool of Commonwealth-adopted recovery plans. If enforcement or decision-making previously referred to the older adopted documents, the revocation could affect reliance on those earlier versions; the instrument does not itself state transitional rules for decisions taken under the revoked documents.

Practical task for compliance/legal teams

• Confirm the in-force date: The instrument states the adopted plans come into force on the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Enforcement consequences, if any, will not arise under those adopted documents until they are in force. Compliance teams should confirm the registration date and obtain the adopted plan documents cited in the instrument to determine whether any substantive measures or decision‑making frameworks within those documents require administrative action or monitoring.

In summary, the instrument makes no changes to enforcement law itself; it records administrative revocation and adoption. Any penalties or enforcement consequences must be traced to other statutory provisions or to the content and administrative use of the adopted recovery plans.

The instrument expressly invokes two statutory authorities: subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and subsection 269A(7) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Those citations identify the legal pathway used for revoking prior adoptions and for adopting State-prepared recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans. Beyond those explicit statutory citations, the instrument does not set out cross-references to other provisions of the EPBC Act, other Commonwealth statutes, or State laws.

Direct statutory interaction recorded

• Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 33(3): The instrument invokes subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as a grant of power or procedural authority in conjunction with EPBC Act s 269A(7). The instrument does not quote s 33(3) or s 269A(7), but the citation records reliance on those provisions for revocation and adoption actions. Practitioners should consult those statutory provisions directly to understand the full legal mechanics and any limits on delegation, revocation, or adoption powers.
• EPBC Act s 269A(7): The instrument is made "pursuant to" s 269A(7). That means the Commonwealth’s adoption of State-made recovery plans is executed under that section’s authority. The instrument itself does not restate or interpret s 269A(7); it records an exercise of that statutory authority.

What the instrument does not do with respect to other laws

• No express alteration of State law: The instrument does not purport to amend, supersede or otherwise alter State legislation. It adopts State-prepared documents as Commonwealth recovery plans, but it does not purport to change the legal status of those documents under State law. Whether the adopted plans have any legal effect under State statutes is not addressed.
• No direct cross-references to other EPBC provisions: The instrument does not specify how the adopted recovery plans interact with other EPBC Act processes (for example, environmental impact assessments, approvals under Part 9, or listed threatened species decision-making). The instrument contains no procedural directions about using the adopted plans in other EPBC contexts.
• No administrative funding or delegated implementation provisions: The instrument contains no provisions about funding, administration, intergovernmental arrangements, or delegation of implementation tasks to State agencies. Any interaction with Commonwealth funding or program delivery would need to be evidenced elsewhere.

Implications for legal analysis

• The instrument is a node connecting State-prepared recovery plans into the Commonwealth administrative architecture via the adoption power in s 269A(7). To determine interactional effects with other laws or regulatory processes, practitioners must consult s 269A and other EPBC Act provisions, and the text of the adopted plans themselves, which may set priorities, recommended actions or frameworks for cooperation with State agencies. The instrument by itself is a limited administrative step; it signals which documents are to be treated as Commonwealth recovery plans, but does not elaborate the legal consequences of that status in other statutory contexts.

Recommended next steps for lawyers and compliance officers

• Read the cited statutory provisions (Acts Interpretation Act s 33(3) and EPBC Act s 269A(7)) to locate any constraints or consequences on adoption, revocation, or use of adopted recovery plans.
• Obtain and review the full text of each adopted plan for any provisions that interact with other statutory processes (for example, recommended triggers for action, monitoring frameworks, or suggestions for regulatory conditions).
• Check whether subsequent EPBC decisions or instrument-based policies reference these adopted plans for decision-making, to map practical interplays with other regulatory instruments.

This instrument itself is a single dated administrative instrument (10 September 2012) that effects both revocation and adoption. The body of the instrument records its immediate amendment action: the revocation of the Commonwealth adoption of two specified earlier NSW recovery plans and the adoption of a suite of State-prepared recovery plans from New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia that are dated 2012 (as shown in the bibliographic details).

Recorded changes effected by the instrument

• Revocations: The instrument expressly revokes the Commonwealth adoption of two NSW plans: "NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2001). Recovery Plan for the Southern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne corroboree). NSW NPWS, Hurstville, NSW" and "Recovery Plan for the Southern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) prepared by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (November 2000)". That revocation is part of the instrument’s operative content.
• Adoptions: The instrument adopts a set of 2012 State-prepared plans for the specified species and provides full citations. The list contains three NSW plans (OEH, 2012), one South Australian plan (Moseby, 2012) and two Western Australian plans (Richards, 2012).

Temporal mechanics and registration

• Commencement rule: The instrument provides a specific commencement mechanism: "The adopted recovery plans will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments." The instrument’s effective change to the Commonwealth adoption status of the listed documents is therefore contingent on registration, and the operative date will be the day after the registration date.

Delegation and signature

• The instrument bears the name and delegation credentials of the decision-maker: Debra Jayne Callister‑Carter, Assistant Secretary, Wildlife Branch, is identified as the delegate for the Minister. The instrument also cites the Acts Interpretation Act s 33(3) alongside EPBC Act s 269A(7) as the legal basis for the revocations and adoptions. That allocation documents the administrative chain for the change.

No further amendments recorded

• The instrument does not contain any history of prior amendments to itself; it is presented as a single instrument effecting the changes described. It does not reference consequential amendments to other instruments or regulations, nor does it include transitional provisions for actions or decisions previously taken under the revoked Commonwealth-adopted documents.

Practical note on tracking amendment history

• To establish the full amendment lineage for the Commonwealth’s recovery plan adoptions affecting a particular species, practitioners will need to consult prior instruments (including the two NSW adoptions that this instrument revokes), the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments for registration dates, and any subsequent instruments that may further adopt, revoke or replace recovery plans. The current instrument records one discrete amendment event: revocation of the 2000/2001 NSW adoptions and adoption of the 2012 State-prepared documents listed.

The instrument itself does not record or reference any litigation. It is an administrative instrument that revokes two prior Commonwealth adoptions and adopts specified State-prepared recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans. The text contains no mention of court proceedings, challenges, or judicial interpretations related to the revocations or the adoptions it effects.

What is ascertainable from the instrument

• No litigation mentioned: The instrument simply records administrative action and contains no annexes, notes or references to litigation history or legal disputes.
• No judicial reasoning or declaratory guidance included: Because the instrument is an administrative adoption, it does not set out legal reasoning that a court would do in published judgments. It does not purport to resolve legal arguments or to implement outcomes from judicial decisions.

How to proceed if litigation context is relevant

• If a legal practitioner needs to understand whether these adoptions or revocations have been subject to challenge, or whether the adoption of a State recovery plan as a Commonwealth recovery plan has been interpreted by courts, the instrument does not supply that information. The practical tasks are:
  • Search judicial databases and court registries for cases referencing EPBC Act s 269A(7) or for cases concerning the specific species and recovery plans named.
  • Search administrative tribunal records for decisions that may engage these adopted documents.
  • Review subsequent statutory instruments or ministerial statements for any administrative responses to litigation or court-ordered changes.

Limits on drawing litigation conclusions from the instrument

• Because the instrument does not mention litigation, no inference about court involvement for these specific adoptions can be drawn from the text alone. Any litigation history must be established from external legal research sources. The instrument can, however, be used to establish the precise documents adopted and their effective timing for any litigation analysis that requires chronological or documentary evidence.

The instrument is concise in form but several practical pitfalls arise for practitioners relying on it as a basis for compliance, advice or administrative decision-making. The instrument’s brevity means important operational questions are left to be answered by consulting other sources.

1. The instrument does not reproduce the adopted plans: The instrument adopts named State documents but does not include their content. To understand legal or policy effects practitioners must obtain the full text of each adopted plan listed (for example, NSW OEH 2012 National Recovery Plan for Booroolong Frog). The instrument’s bibliographic details are sufficient to identify those documents, but the substantive measures are not present in the instrument itself.

2. Timing depends on registration: The adopted plans "will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments." The instrument is dated 10 September 2012, but the effective date is contingent upon registration. Do not assume the signing date is the commencement date; confirm the FRLI registration date to know precisely when the plans become operative federally.

3. Revocation removes older adoptions: The instrument revokes earlier Commonwealth adoptions of two NSW documents (2000 and 2001). If administrative decisions, approvals or conditions previously referenced those older adopted plans, the revocation may change the documentary basis for those decisions. Check whether any ongoing approvals or conditions relied on the revoked documents and whether transitional arrangements exist elsewhere.

4. Adoption does not itself declare duties or enforcement: The instrument does not create or list enforceable duties, penalties or funding obligations. Users expecting the instrument to contain regulatory prescriptions will need to consult both the EPBC Act provisions cited (particularly s 269A(7)) and the adopted plans for any operational expectations or recommended actions. Do not treat the instrument as a stand-alone source of substantive legal obligations.

5. State authorship vs Commonwealth adoption: The plans are made by State agencies (NSW OEH, SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, WA DEC). The instrument adopts these State-made documents for Commonwealth purposes. Do not assume that the adoption harmonises state and Commonwealth legal duties; the instrument does not address the legal relationship between State obligations and Commonwealth adoption.

6. Document identification: Some species entries in the instrument compress multiple taxa into a single line (for example, Pseudophryne corroboree and Pseudophryne pengilleyi are grouped under one NSW OEH 2012 plan). Careful reading is required to match species to the correct adopted plan where a single plan covers multiple taxa.

7. No guidance on administrative use: The instrument does not instruct how decision-makers should use the adopted plans in other EPBC Act processes. If an approval, referral or decision-making process under the EPBC Act requires consideration of recovery plans, practitioners must determine administratively whether and how these adopted plans will be referenced.

8. Delegation traceability: The instrument records a delegate signing on behalf of the Minister. For challenges to administrative validity, practitioners should consult the delegations framework in force at the time, as the instrument does not include that delegation instrument or its limits.

9. No transitional provisions: The instrument revokes prior adoptions but does not set out transitional arrangements for matters initiated under those revoked documents. Parties relying on the earlier Commonwealth-adopted plans should check whether any other instruments or administrative guidance address transitional effects.

10. Reliance risk: If external entities have acted in reliance on the prior Commonwealth adoption documents, the revocation could alter the federal administrative record. The instrument does not state whether the revocation was intended to be retrospective or to affect past administrative decisions; assume the revocation operates prospectively from the instrument’s effective date unless another text indicates otherwise.

This instrument is an administrative adoption and revocation: compliance in the narrow sense requires awareness of the adopted documents and their federal commencement date. Because the instrument does not itself impose specific operative duties, compliance work is primarily documentary and procedural: identify the adopted plans, confirm their in‑force date, and review their contents to determine if and how they affect your client’s activities or obligations.

Practical compliance steps

1. Confirm registration and effective date:

   • Check the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) to determine the registration date of the instrument. The instrument makes the adopted recovery plans come into force on the day after registration. Do not rely on the signing date (10 September 2012) for compliance cut‑offs.

2. Obtain the adopted recovery plans:

   • Use the bibliographic citations in the instrument to source the exact documents adopted. The instrument provides full references (authoring agency, year, title). Acquire the following texts:
     • NSW OEH (2012) National Recovery Plan for Booroolong Frog
     • NSW OEH (2012) National Recovery Plan for Southern and Northern Corroboree Frogs
     • NSW OEH (2012) National Recovery Plan for Small Purple-pea (Swainsona recta)
     • Moseby, K. (2012) National Recovery Plan for the Plains Mouse (Pseudomys australis)
     • Richards, J. D. (2012) Rufous Hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus) National Recovery Plan
     • Richards, J. D. (2012) Western Barred Bandicoot, Burrowing Bettong and Banded Hare-Wallaby National Recovery Plan

3. Review plan content for obligations and actions:

   • Read each adopted plan to identify recommended recovery actions, monitoring requirements, timelines, stakeholder roles, proposed management zones, and any mention of cooperative arrangements with landholders or industry. The instrument does not contain those details; they exist only in the adopted documents.

4. Map plan content to statutory/regulatory triggers:

   • Determine where the content of the adopted recovery plans intersects with other statutory processes (for example, referrals, approvals, conditions under EPBC Act provisions). The instrument does not state how the plans should be used in subsequent EPBC decision-making, so this assessment requires cross-referencing the EPBC Act and relevant administrative policies.

5. Check prior reliance and transition risk:

   • If clients or projects have previously relied on the revoked Commonwealth-adopted NSW documents, determine whether any regulatory decisions, approvals, or management regimes were based on those older adopted plans. If so, analyse the practical effect of the revocation and whether any transitional or clarifying administrative guidance has been issued elsewhere.

6. Identify stakeholders and notify where required:

   • The adopted plans may name stakeholder groups, landowners, or agencies expected to perform actions. Where your client is named or likely to be affected by recommended management actions, prepare engagement plans and, if necessary, seek clarification from the responsible Commonwealth or State agency about expectations.

7. Recordkeeping and evidential preparedness:

   • Keep a dated record of the registration date, a copy of the instrument, and the full texts of the adopted plans. If administrative decisions reference the adopted plans, be prepared to demonstrate the exact versions in force at specific times.

8. Seek administrative clarification where necessary:

   • If the implications of an adopted plan for approvals, conditions or project design are unclear, seek clarification from the relevant Commonwealth decision-maker or the State agency that produced the plan. The instrument identifies the delegate and the statutory basis; however, it does not provide procedural guidance for implementation.

9. Monitor for subsequent instruments or policy guidance:

   • Adoption and revocation instruments can be followed by policy statements, guidelines, or other instruments that shape implementation. Keep an eye on subsequent FRLI instruments, ministerial statements, or departmental guidance that reference the adopted plans.

10. Legal review for high‑risk activities:

• For activities likely to impact any of the listed species (for example, land clearance, development in the species’ range, or actions that might trigger EPBC Act referral thresholds), obtain a legal or ecological assessment informed by the adopted recovery plan content and current EPBC Act procedures.

In essence, compliance in the context of this instrument is documentary and preparatory: confirm the FRLI registration (and thus the operative date), obtain and analyse the adopted recovery plans, and map any plan content to other statutory processes or on-the-ground actions that may affect your client. The instrument itself does not specify operational duties or sanctions; these must be sought in the EPBC Act and the adopted plan texts.