There is a component under the act that is supposed to bring in multi-stakeholders, and that's the action planning. So the way the act was intended is that under the recovery strategy, the science is pulled together to identify what a species needs to survive and recover from. Then the action plan pulls together all affected stakeholders and landowners and interested parties and says, now that we have the science, how do we best move forward in a way that has the least economic impact?
But I think part of the answer to your question is that there is truly a lack of an appropriate policy framework to move forward on the act. There was an independent review done by Stratos, as commissioned by the federal government, looking at the failure to identify critical habitat. I think there are some instances where there isn't enough science, and there are some instances where there clearly is enough science and it is still not being identified—although, again, I should say that's my personal opinion, which might not be shared by SARAC.
But the people who were interviewed for that review by Stratos said that not knowing what effective protection meant, or the lack of a policy framework to know what it would mean to protect a habitat once it was identified, made them reticent to identify it. So I think the absence of completed policies is a significant component of why the act is not being effectively implemented.