That's exactly what it is until we can afford a proper website.
What's wrong with the present website? Bar the hyacinth

.
I think the site is great as is.
There is info on how to get there, opening times, cost of entry, a bit of history, a bit about the birds etc.
All looks well.
Thanks for your longer post about the park in general. I think you should start your own thread - not because you are hijacking this thread, but because your post is lost in here. A new and separate thread would probably get more readers.
I suppose that every zoo enthusiast is different, but there are probably a few general categories that we would all fall into. My wife and I fall into the category of the visitor who wants more animal interaction than the average person. Yes, it's nice to snap a great photo for Facebook with macaw on your arm, but just the thrill of touching and interacting with a pseudo-wild animal can be enough.
Let me give you two examples to illustrate my point. My wife and I visited the bird parks in Singapore (and in Kuala Lumpur). The Singapore bird park is absolutely awesome, and has almost any bird you can think of. They probably have a dodo off-display for all I know. Anyway, despite this, the only interaction we got with the birds was a conveyor belt, "queue up and get your picture taken" with some macaws on us that lasted about 30 seconds. We really were after more interaction, like in the huge lorrie aviary where you could buy a little cup of food and the lorries would come to you. Still, the experience was a bit underwhelming.
Example number 2 is a little fauna park in Kyabram in Victoria. There was a walk-in aviary about the size of my living room with a few sulphur crested, Major Mitchell, and Red-Tailed-Black cockatoos, plus a few galahs and rainbow lorrikeets. Nothing spectacular, but we enjoyed the experience more than the world-renowned Jurong. The reason is that the sulphur crested cockatoos were like pets. 100% tame, and you could cuddle them, pick them up, play with them etc the way you would your own pet. The Major Mitchells were less sociable, but you could at least pet them. There was a bench to sit in the aviary, and we spent at least an hour just hanging out with the birds and playing/talking to the cockatoos.
Anyway, we are after the latter experience rather than the former. It's not too meaningful for us to see birds in cages, or even metres away despite being in a free-flight aviary. But if we can interact with them, then that is something for us to specifically make a trip for. (As an example, we flew to Canberra for a few hours just to do the tour at their zoo to feed the tiger and lions etc.)
Well, I am rambling a bit, so let me try and wrap it up. At my ideal birdpark, I would like to be able to feed the birds (get them to come on my arm and I feed them, or they stay on their perch or hand railing etc), to pet them, and to interact with them. We like sociable birds, rather than the pseudo-wild experience where the birds are shy and you have to look through the leaves to spot a portion of their tail. We are parrot people, so parrot interaction is always preferable for us over emus say.
Anyway, that's just one category of zoo visitor. Maybe what we like is not feasible, maybe visitors and children would stress out a $5,000 macaw, maybe a sick person might throw stones at a black cockatoo and it would become shy again, who knows. You asked what we liked, and I told you.

You would be in a better position than me to say whether a birdpark can ever have the level of interaction that we are after.
Cheers.