The instrument uses and activates three primary legal concepts: (1) adoption of recovery plans, (2) revocation of previously adopted recovery plans, and (3) delegation of ministerial authority to an Assistant Secretary. Each concept is explicitly invoked in the instrument text.

Adoption of recovery plans: The instrument states that, “under subsection 269A(7) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, hereby adopt as recovery plans for the listed threatened species specified below, the respective plans made by New South Wales and Western Australia (or agencies of those States) specified opposite those listed threatened species.” That sentence performs statutory incorporation by reference: specified State documents are declared to be the federal recovery plans for the listed threatened species and ecological communities named in the schedule.

Revocation of adopted recovery plans: The instrument also declares, using the same subsection of the EPBC Act and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, that the Commonwealth adoption of three earlier State recovery plans is revoked. The instrument’s revocation is limited to the Commonwealth adoption of those documents; it does not purport to extinguish or alter the documents as State instruments.

Delegation and administrative authorisation: The instrument is signed by a departmental delegate rather than by the Minister, and expressly cites the delegatory power by naming the delegate’s position. By signing, the delegate acts pursuant to the EPBC Act (s 269A(7)) and the Acts Interpretation Act (s 33(3)), confirming that the power to adopt or revoke recovery plans is capable of exercise by a delegate in the relevant administrative chain.

Operational timing: The instrument sets commencement by reference to registration: “The adopted recovery plans will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.” That creates a clear temporal trigger for when the adopted State documents take effect as federal recovery plans.

Document specificity: Each adopted plan is identified by a full title, authoring State agency, and year. Some entries are titled “Interim Recovery Plan” with an explicit coverage period (for example 2011-2016). One Western Australian adopted plan is a landscape or biosphere recovery plan that covers multiple species and communities in a single document (Fitzgerald Biosphere Recovery Plan). The instrument therefore adopts mixed formats: single-species recovery plans, interim recovery plans with fixed years, and broader landscape-scale recovery plans.

What the instrument does not do (explicit by absence): it does not amend EPBC Act text, it does not set funding or enforcement modalities, it does not summarise content of the adopted plans, and it does not provide transitional arrangements beyond the stated commencement mechanism. Those matters must be found in the EPBC Act, the adopted plan documents themselves, or other administrative instruments; they are not in this instrument.

The instrument directly and expressly affects the listed threatened species and ecological community names set out in its schedules by declaring particular State documents to be recovery plans for them under the EPBC Act. The named taxa and communities include, for New South Wales: Persoonia pauciflora (North Rothbury persoonia), Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides (button wrinklewort), and the White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland ecological community. For Western Australia, the instrument adopts nine separate recovery plans or interim plans, including a multi‑species Fitzgerald Biosphere Recovery Plan that lists numerous species (Acacia rhamphophylla, Adenanthos dobagii, and others), Banksia pseudoplumosa, Dasyurus geoffroii (chuditch, western quoll), Egernia stokesii subspecies, Grevillea brachystylis subsp. grandis, and Schoenia filifolia subsp. subulifolia.

Government agencies: The instrument names the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage and the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water as the authors of the NSW recovery plans, and the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation as authoring the WA plans. By adopting those State-authored documents, the Commonwealth formally recognises State agencies’ recovery-planning outputs as Commonwealth recovery plans. That recognition may affect coordination, reporting and administrative responsibilities shared between Commonwealth and State agencies; however, the instrument itself does not specify administrative roles or funding arrangements.

Practitioners and land managers: Although the instrument does not itself spell out duties on private parties, the practical audience affected by the adoption of recovery plans normally includes landowners, developers, mining and forestry operators, local government planners, and other parties whose activities might impact the habitats or populations of the listed species and community. This instrument makes it necessary for practitioners in those sectors to be aware that the named documents are federal recovery plans for the species and community on the Commonwealth list; the content of the adopted plans will determine recommended or required recovery actions and priorities. Because the instrument contains commencement timing (the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments), entities operating in affected areas must note that date to know when the adopted plans take effect for federal planning and assessment purposes.

Delegates and decision‑makers: The instrument demonstrates that the Minister’s power to adopt and revoke recovery plans under the EPBC Act may be exercised by a delegate. Administrative officers, branch heads and departmental lawyers dealing with threatened species policy or EPBC Act implementation will be affected by the delegation practice exemplified here, because it speaks to who may sign instruments adopting recovery plans.

Legal continuity and affected documents: The instrument revokes three previously adopted State recovery plans. Stakeholders who had relied on the prior Commonwealth adoption for policy, assessment or compliance reasons must recognise that those adoptions are revoked. The revocation does not, by this instrument, alter the State documents at source; it only alters their status as Commonwealth adoption under the EPBC Act.

The instrument itself does not create a detailed statutory duty regime or enumerate rights; its operative effect is to declare that specified State recovery plans are adopted as recovery plans under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, pursuant to subsection 269A(7) of that Act. As such, the key legal consequence is incorporation by reference: the adopted plans become the applicable recovery plans for the named listed threatened species and ecological community. The instrument therefore affects duties and rights that arise under the EPBC Act through the existence and content of recovery plans, but it does not itself set out those obligations. From the instrument text, the following points can be stated concretely and source‑groundedly.

Adoption as the legal instrument: The instrument states that each named State-made plan is “adopt[ed] as recovery plans for the listed threatened species specified below.” That phrase is the legal mechanism by which the listed documents become recovery plans under the EPBC Act. The content, structure, recommended actions, and priorities that appear within those State documents are thereby elevated to the status of federal recovery plans insofar as they address the specified listed species and community.

Revocation effect on previously adopted plans: The instrument explicitly revokes the Commonwealth adoption of three named State recovery plans. The practical legal effect is that the revoked adoptions no longer operate as federal recovery plans under the EPBC Act after revocation. The instrument does not purport to erase State legal obligations or State-level planning; it revokes the Commonwealth adoption only.

No direct rights or penalties specified here: The instrument contains no clauses creating rights of third parties, no administrative appeal pathways, and no penalty provisions. It does not specify funding entitlements or enforceable obligations such as mandatory recovery actions or timelines. Any duties, rights or compliance requirements that apply to landowners, proponents, or agencies will be those contained within the EPBC Act generally and within the text of the adopted recovery plans themselves. Those must be consulted to identify binding or advisory commitments.

Temporal rights and duties: The adopted plans are stated to “come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.” Rights to rely on the status of the adopted plans and any duties that flow from them will crystallise at that time. Revocations are effective from the instrument’s operation; the instrument does not provide transitional arrangements for actions taken under the previously adopted plans.

Delegation and administrative competence: The instrument records that the adoption and revocation were executed by a delegate. That indicates that administrative powers under subsection 269A(7) have been exercised according to the department’s delegations framework. Parties evaluating whether a decision was competently made will note that the instrument records the delegate’s authority.

Document-based duties: Because the instrument adopts whole State documents by reference, the actual duties that affected parties must observe are found inside those adopted documents. Some adopted documents are titled “Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016”, indicating they contain time-limited recovery actions and possibly milestones. Others are broader landscape recovery plans. The instrument does not alter the text of those documents; therefore, the measures, actions, recommended priorities and any specified performance indicators are those provided in the adopted documents themselves.

This instrument does not itself create offences, impose monetary penalties, or set out enforcement processes. Its text is limited to revocation and adoption of specified recovery plan documents under the statutory authority cited (subsection 269A(7) of the EPBC Act and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901). There are four discrete, source‑supportable observations about penalties and enforcement linked to the instrument.

No penalties in the instrument: Nowhere in the instrument’s text is there a provision imposing civil or criminal penalties, infringement notices, or enforcement mechanisms. The instrument confines itself to administrative acts,revoking prior adoptions and adopting new recovery plans,and to specifying commencement timing.

Enforcement mechanisms remain external: Any enforceable measures, compliance obligations or sanctions relevant to the recovery plans must be found in the EPBC Act proper or in separate statutory instruments or regulations that the Act authorises. This instrument does not summarise or reproduce those mechanisms; it simply installs the named State documents as recovery plans under the EPBC Act. Accordingly, readers seeking to understand enforcement consequences for breaches of recovery-plan-related obligations must consult the EPBC Act and the text of the adopted plans.

Implication for compliance and assessments: By making State documents Commonwealth recovery plans, the instrument places those documents in the suite of materials that regulators and decision-makers may refer to when assessing proposed actions that affect listed threatened species or ecological communities. Although this instrument does not itself define enforcement steps, the adoption potentially affects the content of assessments and the conditions attached to approvals under the EPBC Act because recovery plans commonly inform recommended or required mitigation and recovery measures. The instrument does not itself specify how recovery plan content will be incorporated into approvals, conditions or compliance regimes.

Administrative review and challenge: The instrument records exercise of administrative powers by a delegate. While the instrument itself does not establish review or appeal procedures, administrative law principles and relevant statutory review mechanisms outside the instrument remain the routes by which affected parties could challenge the legality of the instrument or the delegate’s decision, if such avenues exist under other legislation. The instrument does not describe or limit such avenues; it simply evidences the decision to adopt and revoke.

The instrument expressly cites two statutory anchors: subsection 269A(7) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Those citations indicate the instrument’s relationship to the EPBC Act and to the federal Acts interpretation regime for delegations or instrument-making formalities. The instrument’s text, by adopting State documents as recovery plans, creates an interaction between Commonwealth-level recovery planning and State-level recovery plan content. The following interactions are explicit or logically follow from the instrument’s text.

Statutory basis in the EPBC Act: Adoption and revocation are performed under s 269A(7) of the EPBC Act, as stated in the instrument. That shows that the EPBC Act envisages recovery plans and that a Commonwealth decision-maker has the statutory power to adopt recovery plans. This instrument exercises that power and thereby produces federal legal instruments,recovery plans,that have a place in the EPBC Act framework. The instrument does not reproduce the EPBC Act’s other provisions; it simply activates the adoption power under the cited subsection.

Use of Acts Interpretation Act delegation/technical power: The instrument invokes subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to revocation. Subsection 33(3) is cited as the source for revocation authority, indicating that the authority to make, amend, or revoke instruments is being exercised in accordance with general Commonwealth rules on the making of instruments. The instrument does not elaborate on the operation of s 33(3); it records the legal foundation for the practitioner looking to the Acts Interpretation Act to confirm the delegate’s competence.

Adoption of State documents: The instrument does not purport to amend State law. Instead, it declares State-authored documents to be recovery plans under the EPBC Act. That creates a cross‑jurisdictional interaction whereby a document initially produced under State authority becomes, by adoption, a federal recovery plan for Commonwealth-listed species or ecological communities. The instrument itself does not reconcile differences that may exist between the State plan content and federal administrative priorities; it simply adopts the State documents by title.

Potential overlap in administrative responsibilities: By adopting State-made recovery plans as Commonwealth recovery plans, the instrument situates those State documents within federal processes,assessment, approval, and potentially compliance reporting,while leaving the document content as authored by State agencies. The practical effect is that both Commonwealth and State actors will be working with the same recovery plan documents; the instrument does not allocate roles or funding between governments, nor does it alter the State origin of those texts.

No explicit conflict‑settling mechanism: The instrument contains no clause dealing with conflicts between EPBC Act obligations and State statutory obligations, nor does it provide transitional or savings provisions for activities approved under prior adoptions. Therefore, where there are inconsistencies between State instruments and subsequent Commonwealth action under the EPBC Act, the resolution of conflicts would have to be addressed through the broader statutory and administrative law framework rather than by this instrument.

Commencement and registers: The instrument’s operative commencement depends on registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. That links the instrument to the administrative law regime for disclosing legislative instruments. The instrument thereby interacts with procedural obligations around publication and notice: it will take effect the day after registration, and the named adopted documents become federal recovery plans from that point.

The instrument itself is dated 21 February 2013 and records two actions: revocation of three prior Commonwealth adoptions and the adoption of a set of State recovery plan documents. The instrument, as presented, does not list any amendments to the instrument itself; it is a single instrument that effects change in the status of particular documents. The concrete, source-grounded statements that can be made about amendment history are as follows.

One-off change instrument: The instrument is drafted as an instrument adopting and revoking recovery plans. Its content indicates that it is a discrete administrative action rather than an amendment to a pre-existing instrument. It revokes specified prior adoptions and replaces the Commonwealth adoption status for particular species by adopting other State documents. The instrument’s date and the requirement for registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments indicate its place in the administrative timeline.

Revocations recorded: The instrument revokes the Commonwealth adoption of three specific State recovery plans. Those revoked earlier adoptions are identified by author and year:

• Hartley, R., & Barrett, S., (2008), Recovery Plan for the Kundip Wattle Acacia rhamphophylla.
• Hartley R., & Barrett, S., (2008), Recovery Plan for the Long-sepalled Daviesia Daviesia megacalyx.
• Orell, P and Morris, K. 1994. Chuditch Recovery Plan 1992-2001. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Wanneroo, WA.

Adoptions recorded: The instrument lists the adopted State documents in full, identifying agency authors and years. For New South Wales, three recovery plans (all dated 2010 or 2012) are adopted. For Western Australia, six recovery plans and interim plans are adopted, with dates ranging from 2011 to 2012 and one multi‑species Fitzgerald Biosphere Recovery Plan (2012).

No textual amendments to adopted plans: The instrument does not amend the content of any adopted plan. It adopts the State documents by title. Where State plans are titled “Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016,” those timeframes remain as expressed in the adopted documents because the instrument does not purport to alter them.

No recorded subsequent amendment instruments in the source: The supplied text contains no later instruments, no superseding adoption instrument, and no note of amendment history beyond the single act of revocation and adoption dated 21 February 2013. If there were further amendments subsequent to this instrument, they are not contained in the provided text.

Administrative record: The instrument’s effective operation depends on registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. The instrument states that the adopted plans “will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered” on that register. The instrument therefore has an administrative effect dependent on that registration act; any change to the registration status would affect the instrument’s commencement.

The text of the instrument contains no record of litigation, judicial review, appeals, or court challenges in relation to the adoption or revocation actions it effects. The instrument is an administrative act recorded by a delegate acting under statutory authority; the supplied material does not indicate whether the instrument was subject to any legal challenge either before or after its registration.

What the source permits one to say about litigation history, and what it does not:

• The instrument contains no references to, nor summaries of, any judicial decisions, appeals, or administrative review processes. It therefore provides no source-grounded material on litigation history.
• Because the instrument is dated 21 February 2013 and the adopted documents themselves have earlier dates (2010-2012 for the adopted plans, and earlier dates for the revoked plans), it is possible that litigation concerning those species, plans, or related approvals exists elsewhere; however, that is not recorded in the instrument and cannot be asserted on the basis of the supplied text.
• The instrument records only that the delegate performed specified administrative acts. Administrative acts of this kind are, in general, potentially amenable to judicial review on conventional administrative law grounds (such as jurisdictional error, procedural fairness, or unreasonableness), but the instrument does not address legal challenges and does not provide any factual or legal detail about any judicial scrutiny that might have occurred.

For practitioners: to ascertain any litigation history relevant to the adopted plans, their status as Commonwealth recovery plans, or the revoked adoptions, it is necessary to consult external legal records, court databases and the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments to find any associated notices of challenge, judicial review filings, or reported decisions. That material is not contained in the instrument.

This instrument contains several features that can create practical pitfalls if not carefully noted by practitioners. The following are source-based cautions derived from the instrument text.

Commencement timing tied to registration: The adopted recovery plans “will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.” The exact date of registration is not provided in the instrument. Parties who act on the assumption that the plans are in force immediately on the instrument’s date (21 February 2013) risk error. Practitioners must check the Federal Register to determine the registration date and thereby the precise commencement date.

Adoption by reference of whole State documents: The instrument adopts State-authored recovery plans by title. That means the Commonwealth recovery plan is the State document in its entirety as drafted by the State agency. If the State document uses State-specific terminology, administrative arrangements, or references to State statutory powers, those textual features will be part of the Commonwealth recovery plan as adopted; the instrument does not modify or harmonise the wording. Users should not assume the adopted plans have been redrafted to align with Commonwealth drafting conventions.

Interim plans with fixed timeframes: Several adopted plans are “Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016.” The instrument does not address what happens at the end of those interim periods. The instrument does not extend, amend, or replace the interim period; it merely adopts the document as it stands. Practitioners should check the adopted plan text for specified review, reporting or expiry mechanisms and not assume the instrument itself alters those temporal provisions.

Revocation limited to Commonwealth adoption: The instrument revokes only the Commonwealth adoption of the three named State plans; it does not purport to amend or revoke the underlying State instruments. A mistaken assumption that the State documents themselves were revoked would be incorrect. Stakeholders who rely on State recovery planning frameworks should check the State registers and agencies for the current status of the original plans.

Multi-species landscape plans: The Western Australian “Fitzgerald Biosphere Recovery Plan” is a landscape-scale recovery plan that lists a long cohort of species and ecological communities in a single document. Adopting a landscape plan as a single Commonwealth recovery plan can change how species are grouped for planning and assessment purposes, and may affect priorities and resource-allocation logic embedded in the plan. Practitioners should review the adopted multi-species plan carefully for species-specific measures and for any cross-species trade-offs the plan documents.

Delegation and administrative competency: The instrument is signed by a departmental delegate. Parties considering the validity of the instrument should note that the instrument records the delegate’s authority and the legislative provisions used. Challenges to the instrument’s validity could engage delegation or administrative law grounds; the instrument itself does not address those matters, so practitioners should confirm the delegation instrument within departmental records if that is relevant to any legal query.

No express enforcement or funding: The instrument contains no funding commitments, no enforcement changes, and no alteration to approvals regimes. If practitioners are seeking to understand whether new funding is available, or whether enforcement priorities change as a result of these adoptions, those matters are not addressed here and must be found in other instruments or departmental policy documents.

Absence of transitional arrangements: The instrument revokes and adopts without setting out transitional arrangements for ongoing recovery projects, contractual arrangements tied to the previously adopted plans, or reporting obligations aligned to the older plans. Parties engaged in ongoing recovery actions should check whether their contractual or funding arrangements reference the revoked Commonwealth adoption and should adjust accordingly.

This instrument does not itself impose new operational requirements on third parties; instead it changes the formal status of specified recovery plan documents by adopting them as recovery plans under the EPBC Act and by revoking three prior Commonwealth adoptions. Compliance therefore has two practical aspects: administrative compliance with the instrument itself (for agencies and legal administrators), and substantive compliance with the adopted recovery plans (for land managers, proponents and others whose activities affect the listed species/ecological community). The following are concrete steps grounded in the instrument text.

1. Confirm commencement date by checking registration: Because the adopted recovery plans “will come into force on the day after this instrument is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments,” the first compliance step is to determine the registration date of this instrument on that register. That date establishes when the adopted plans are treated as Commonwealth recovery plans under the EPBC Act.

2. Obtain and read the adopted documents: The instrument identifies the adopted documents by title, authoring agency and year. To understand specific duties or recommended recovery actions, obtain the full text of each adopted plan listed:

   • NSW: Persoonia pauciflora (2012), Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides (2012), White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland (2010).
   • WA: Fitzgerald Biosphere Recovery Plan (2012) covering numerous species, Banksia pseudoplumosa Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016, Chuditch Recovery Plan (2012), Western Spiny-tailed Skink Recovery Plan (2012) for subspecies, Grevillea brachystylis subsp. grandis Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016, Schoenia filifolia subsp. subulifolia Interim Recovery Plan 2011-2016. Compliance with recovery-plan content must be assessed against the adopted texts because the instrument adopts the State documents by title and does not alter their substance.

3. Map obligations and advisory measures in the adopted plans to on‑the‑ground activities: The adopted plans will typically contain actions, priorities, recommended mitigation measures, monitoring protocols and possibly priority areas for management. Practitioners should extract from each adopted plan the specific measures relevant to their activities: habitat protection prescriptions, recommended survey protocols, timing restrictions, preferred mitigation measures, and monitoring/reporting requirements. The instrument does not summarise those measures; the adopted documents do.

4. Review whether prior Commonwealth adoptions affected existing agreements: The instrument revokes the Commonwealth adoption of three named plans. If a person or agency relied on the Commonwealth adoption of those earlier plans for approvals, funding or contractual commitments, they should review whether revocation affects any statutory or contractual obligations. The instrument does not set transitional rules; any practical effect will turn on the EPBC Act, the revoked adoption’s prior terms, and any contractual arrangements that referenced the prior Commonwealth status.

5. Coordinate with State and Commonwealth agencies: Because the adopted plans are State-authored documents accepted as Commonwealth recovery plans, coordination between State agencies (named in the instrument) and Commonwealth agencies will be important for implementing recovery actions. Practitioners seeking permissions, approvals or guidance should identify the relevant State agency named in the instrument (for example NSW Office of Environment and Heritage or WA Department of Environment and Conservation) and the Commonwealth contact point for recovery-plan implementation.

6. Check for any time-limited measures in interim plans: Several adopted plans are interim plans with explicit years (for example 2011-2016). Compliance planning should note whether the interim plan contains specific milestone dates, review dates or sunset provisions. The instrument does not extend or terminate those timeframes; those are matters to be managed within the plan text and any subsequent Commonwealth decision-making.

7. Document reliance and decision-making records: Administrative and corporate actors should record the registration date of this instrument and the date on which the adopted plans became Commonwealth recovery plans, because those dates are the legal turning points for obligations and duties informed by recovery-plan status.

8. For legal risk work, verify delegation records if needed: The instrument is executed by a delegate. If a party needs to challenge the instrument’s validity for legal reasons, they should obtain the departmental instrument of delegation and confirm that the signatory had authority to adopt or revoke recovery plans under the EPBC Act pursuant to departmental delegations. The instrument itself records the delegate’s exercise of power but does not produce the delegation instrument.

9. Monitor for subsequent amendments or superseding instruments: This instrument adopts a set of recovery plans as at February 2013. Recovery plans can be superseded, updated or revoked by later Commonwealth instruments. Parties should monitor the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and the EPBC Act registers for any later instruments that amend, replace or revoke these adopted plans.

10. If in doubt, seek the adopted plan text before acting: Because the instrument does not set substantive measures, any person whose activities may interact with the listed species should obtain and follow the detailed measures in the adopted plans themselves and, where necessary, seek advice from the relevant State or Commonwealth agency before proceeding with actions that may affect those species or communities.