If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority, and that is the problem with this bill.
Clause 6 is actually just a series of statements rather than any stacking of or noting of particular priorities. When you put that in context with the already rejected definition of “ecological integrity”, the consequence is that this bill has no priorities whatsoever, and it is up to the minister of the day what the priorities are. The consequence of that is that there will be a limited ability to actually direct a particular vision of any kind.
If there's no ecological integrity, which there isn't, and there's no ecological health, which there isn't, and there is no statement of priorities, which there isn't, the consequence will be that this park will be much less than it ever could be.