There are perhaps 1000 breeding pairs of the swift parrot left. If you managed to line them up side by side, every one of these resplendent birds left in the world could probably fit on your living room floor. That's how close we are to losing them for good.

In winter, this small population can be found spread across south-eastern Australia, but in summer they breed exclusively in Tasmania, mostly in old-growth blue gum forest. There is no mystery about the decline of the swift parrot. Destruction of its forest habitat for agriculture, logging and development is the primary cause. About 70 per cent of Tasmanian blue gum forest has been cleared for these purposes.

Even within what remains, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment has said "forestry operations and firewood collection are altering the age structure of forests resulting in the loss of older trees which provide a substantial food resource as well as hollows for nesting."

The swift parrot has a lovely voice, but it's not one that's likely to be heard on November 24.

During the debate over the Gunns pulp mill, both major parties did their best to create the impression they had no power or interest in intervening to protect the forest homes of species like the swift parrot.

The federal Environment Minister issued what were said to be the "world's toughest" environmental standards for a pulp mill, but not one of them relates to the wood supply for the mill or the old growth forest that can be burned to generate power for the mill or chipped for export.

The Opposition, for its part, grumbled about the process, but could find no fault with the outcome. Promises to improve federal environmental legislation were made, but the details have not been forthcoming. They, too, seem as eager to put Tasmania's forests behind them as a swift parrot headed north for the winter.

But while both parties furiously agreed they had no power to consider issues related to Tasmania's forests in approving the pulp mill, the truth is the Commonwealth does have clear responsibilities for Tasmania's natural environment. Its attentiveness to those responsibilities has varied from reckless to feckless.

The Commonwealth has the power to implement and require compliance with plans for the recovery of threatened species in Tasmania's forests. The Environment Minister also has the power to consider a broad range of social and economic issues in considering projects like the pulp mill, including the social and economic impacts of unsustainable forestry operations. The Commonwealth also retains the power to set export controls over processed wood products.

So there is no shortage of ways the Commonwealth could act to protect Tasmania's forests if it so desired.

The purpose of species recovery plans is to ensure Australia's precious wildlife and plants have a fighting chance, but in practice the plans have been starved of resources and mired in bureaucracy and politics. A review by the National Audit Office this year found only 22 per cent of threatened species had a recovery plan, a full six years after the legislation was passed. Even where plans were adopted, they were not reviewed regularly as required by law.

Embarrassed by this level of non-compliance, the Government took swift and decisive action late last year: it repealed the law requiring recovery plans to be developed, leaving the fate of threatened species to political whim rather than science.

Meanwhile, the Federal Court found forestry in the Wielangta Forest in Tasmania would have a significant impact on the parrot, by removing some of its best remaining breeding habitat.

If logging goes ahead in Wielangta, there is nothing preventing the forest residue from being incinerated in the plant that will power the Gunns pulp mill.

It remains to be seen which party will be the winner in the political gamesmanship around the pulp mill. The clear losers are the swift parrots and the hundreds of other threatened species that continue their steady slide towards extinction.

Minister Malcolm Turnbull has assured his constituents "the mill will not process any timber from old growth forests". Shadow minister Peter Garrett's party has a national platform that commits to "further protection of identified Tasmanian high-conservation-value, old-growth forests, rainforests, and other ecosystems".

Both parties should explain how they intend to protect Tasmania's old-growth and high-conservation-value forests with the vigour and urgency the issue demands, regardless of whether the timber will be used at the mill, for electricity generation or woodchipped for export.

A key test of the next government's leadership credentials, regardless of who wins, will be whether it has the foresight, courage and perseverance to ensure our Australian wildlife and ecosystems, in all their splendour and diversity, will still be there for our children to marvel at.

Don Henry is executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation.