edo NEWSNewsletter of the Environmental Defender’s Office WA (Inc)

CONTENTS

Level 2, Kings New Office Tower533 Hay Street Perth WA 6000

Tel (08) 9221 3030Fax (08) 9221 3070

Freecall: 1800 175 542

Email:edowa@edowa.org.auWeb: www.edowa.org.au

Vol 12 No 4December 2006

Bridgetown Greenbushes Friends of the Forest save Nunn blockBy Mary Frith (BGFF) and Nicola Rivers (EDO Out-reach Solicitor) Bridgetown Greenbushes Friends of the Forest (BGFF) has finally succeeded in its 16 year battle to protect the Nunn Block near Bridgetown. The Min-ister for Environment and Conservation announced on 2nd November that the block would be saved and incorporated into the surrounding Dalgarup Na-tional Park. The EDO assisted BGFF on this mat-ter in the delicate final weeks of their campaign.

The block has very high conservation value, having only been logged by hand for jarrah sleepers early last century, apart from a small section of creek line which had been cleared and planted to pine. Part of the block carries one of the few remaining close packed stands of large jarrah and marri and there are some very an-cient blackbutts – possibly the biggest in the world. The block abuts the Dalgarup National park on three sides.The Nunn Block first came to BGFF’s attention in 1990 when the owners, Bunnings, a subsidiary of Wesfarm-

Australian Emissions Trading? 2

People v GM: Climate Litigation 3

Climate Change in Upper House 3

Starlings: feathered foe in WA? 5

Contaminated Sites Act 6

River Management Act 7

FOI rejected by High Court 8

Changes to Electoral Laws 9

Quiz Night Donors 10

AGM 2006 11

ers, notified the Depart-ment of Agriculture of their intention to clear the land for plantation. BGFF members were aware of its high conservation val-ue and decided to fight to save the block. At that time Dalgarup National Park did not exist but the group hoped that one day Nunn block could be in-corporated into a National Park which would include all of Dalgarup Forest, adjacent parts of Nelson and Gregory Forests, and the Bridgetown Jarrah Park, which was set up as a picnic site in 1990.

A packed house at the EDO’s sell out Quiz Night 31 October 2006.

Historic result for EDO QuizBy Cameron Poustie, Principal SolicitorTuesday 31 October 2006 saw the biggest and best EDO fundraiser in the organisation’s 11 year history, with our first ever Quiz Night netting over $7,000 profit. The funds provided a much-needed boost to the EDO, with the Management Committee already increasing the paid hours of Fran Jones, our office coordinator, as a result.

Around 350 people filled the South Perth Civ-ic Centre and enjoyed challenging questions from ABC 720 personality Bernadette Young, food from sustainability collective Cooks with a Con-science, Random Valley wine and BioBean coffee.

This event was almost totally volunteer driven, with the lynchpin being Katrina Bercov, who sold tickets, sought a great range of prizes, wrote most of the questions, and coordinated volunteer effort both for the logistics of the night and the making and serving of the food.

Continued on page �

The EDO aims to hold an even better Quiz Night in 2007, but with Katrina having since pur-chased a new café and catering business, we will be reliant on new organising volunteers (with Katrina’s guidance, however). Please contact Fran Jones on 9221 3030 if you are interested in being on next year’s team!

RIGHT: MC Bernadette Young ABC 720

December 2006 Page 2

An Australian Emissions Trad-ing Scheme: just hot air?By Hayden Teo, EDO VolunteerA recent proposal by State and Territory gov-ernments may provide an innovative scheme to reduce greenhouse emissions in Australia.

The proposed national emissions trading scheme (‘NETS’) was developed by the National Emissions Trading Taskforce (the ‘Taskforce’). In August 2006, the Taskforce released a discussion paper titled Possible Design for a National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trad-ing Scheme, which sets a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 60% by 2050, when compared with levels in the year 2000.

An emissions trading scheme essentially relies on market forces to set a price on the emission of green-house gases. Rather than relying on industry or technology-specific subsidies, or so-called govern-ment ‘command and control’, the constant lowering of emissions caps causes the market to seek out the lowest-cost method of achieving an emissions limit.

How would an Australian NETS work?An Australian NETS would essentially involve:

A cap to be set annually on the acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions; The allocation of permits, each of which bestow the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide and would only be effective for the year they are used. Each permit would be date stamped with a ‘vin-tage’ year. This means that it could only be used either in that year or subsequent years. Permits would be both freely allocated and auctioned off, and permits would be treated as property which could be sold between firms at the market price; andCivil penalties for non-compliance with the emis-sions cap, regulated via mandatory reporting, monitoring, and verification of emissions levels.

Who would a NETS affect?The stationary energy sector will be primarily affect-ed by a NETS. This sector is based around activities requiring the combustion of fuel for energy purposes other than transport, and includes electricity genera-tion, petroleum refining, and manufacturing.The Taskforce suggests the preferred approach is that a NETS will initially only cover electricity generators

with an output of over 30 MWe at the start of the scheme in 2010. After the first five years, coverage would be ex-tended to areas such as gas, coal, and oil combustion. By 2015, NETS would effectively cover around 45% of the national volume of greenhouse gas emissions.

Alternatively, all stationary energy emissions could be considered for coverage at the scheme’s commence-ment, with inclusion dependent upon exceeding an emissions threshold.

Will NETS be implemented?As a consultation document only, the discussion paper does not constitute a solid commitment by any of the State or Territory governments, and the governments have responded to the proposal with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The Victorian government has suggested it will require public reporting of all industry greenhouse gas emissions, whilst Queensland Premier Peter Beat-tie withdrew his support for the scheme soon after the release of the discussion paper.

Other difficulties may arise given the lack of Federal Government support and the significant institutional and legislative arrangements that need to be settled by the proposed 2010 starting date. The Federal, State and Territorial elections which will occur before 2010 may also affect the chances of an Australian NETS going ahead.

For more information and submissions:The Taskforce calls for submissions from stakeholders up to 22 December 2006. Community and environmen-tal groups are encouraged to have their say on the pro-posed scheme. For more information on the discussion paper or to make a submission, go to www.emission-trading.net.au

Fact sheet & newsletter volunteer wanted

Can you use InDesign and / or Pagemaker?

We need your skills on an infrequent basis to assist with layout of this quarterly news-letter and ongoing fact sheets. Volunteers may work from home or from our offices.

Contact Fran on 9221 3030 or fjones@edowa.org.au

An Australian Emissions Trading Scheme?

Page 3December 2006

State Greens, Liberals and Na-tionals turn up heat on Climate and EnergyMedia Release 26 October 2006

Historic climate change initiative sweeps through Upper HouseWestern Australia moved a step closer to a multi-billion dollar renewable energy industry future today as Greens legislation passed in the Upper House of Parliament with the support of the Liberal and National parties.

Southwest Greens MLC Paul Llewellyn, who introduced the legislation, said the collaboration is the State’s most significant climate change initiative to date. The Western Australian Renewable Energy Target Bill mandates 20% renewable energy by 2020 and will result in billions of investment in clean energy technologies and jobs.

According to Mr Llewellyn, Western Australia will be the big winner, with hundreds of wind generators, bio-energy plants and small-scale facilities servicing regional communities with clean, safe, reliable power.

“The Greens, Liberals and Nationals are turning up the heat,” said Mr Llewellyn. “This Government must deliver a timelined action plan with practical measures on climate change if it is to regain the confidence of the Western Australian community,” he said.

The new legislation will move on for debate in the Leg-islative Assembly.

For more information contact:

Paul Llewellyn MLC 9848 1555; 0428 317 182 pllewellyn@mp.wa.gov.au

The People v GM: ‘climate change litigation’ in CaliforniaBy Hayden Teo, EDO volunteerThe proceedings in the case of The People v GM be-gan on 20 September 2006 when the State of California brought an action in the United States District Court against six leading car manufacturers: General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan. California is seeking compensation for harm allegedly caused by the manufacturers’ products in significantly contribut-ing to global warming. This litigation is part of an in-creasing use of legal proceedings in the United States to curb harmful environmental activity.

California is pursuing two causes of action under tort law: a public nuisance action under federal common law and a public nuisance action under California statute. To succeed, the plaintiff will generally need to show that the defendants caused an unreasonable interfer-ence with either a public right or the health, life or prop-erty of a considerable number of individuals (there are minor differences between the definitions of a public nuisance at common law and under the California Civil Code). Significant emissions of carbon dioxide are al-leged to constitute the public nuisance in both causes of action, and compensation is sought for addressing the current and future effects of climate change.

This case represents part of a growing body of law known as ‘climate change litigation’, although it is un-clear whether legal proceedings in the US for causing global warming will have the same success as asbestos and tobacco litigation. Previous litigation commenced in 2004 by several US states and environmental groups against five of the nation’s largest power producers un-der a public nuisance action failed on the basis that it would require the judiciary to consider non-justiciable political questions. A case to be reviewed by the US Supreme Court in December this year will consider the administrative powers of the US Environmental Pro-tection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change. The big-gest hurdle for California in the present case is likely to be establishing causation: that the defendants in fact caused the alleged harm.

In Australia, climate change litigation has principally been pursued under administrative law. A challenge was recently lodged against the proposed coal mine in

Climate Change: Litigation in California - Upper House Initiative

Continued on page 6

December 2006 Page 4

In 1993 the group discovered that Bunnings pro-posed to log Nunn, using a CALM prescription. The EPA was powerless to oppose this and an ap-peal to the then Environment Minister was refused.

A small sub-commitee of Dame Rachel Cleland, Dr Henry Schapper and Mary Frith wrote to Wesfarm-ers requesting that, in recognition of all the benefits of access to State Public Forests that Bunnings had enjoyed for so many years, the Nunn Block could be donated to the National Conservation Estate.

Over the next few years, negotiations with Wesfarm-ers continued. In 1999, following a request from BGFF, the National Trust approached Wesfarmers who agreed that the Trust would be a suitable benefi-ciary of Nunn. It took four more years for Wesfarm-ers to cut the mature pines along the creek and ef-fect the transfer, but in June 2003 the Deed of Gift was effected and the transfer of land carried out.

BGFF celebrated this win, thinking that the block would now be protected for the public, but in October 2004 the group was shocked to learn that National Trust had ad-vertised Nunn for sale on the open market, with a conser-vation covenant placed on it. The group immediately ob-jected and wrote to the Premier requesting intervention.

Public attitudes to forest protection had changed over the years and things were vastly different both in the forest scene and in CALM. In 2001 following a massive forest campaign, Labor came to power, promising pro-tection of Old Growth Forests. With another huge effort BGFF succeeded in securing Dalgarup and its environs into a National Park, but it was obvious that Nunn was the missing piece needed to complete the area and ra-tionalise the eastern boundary of the National Park.

In 2004 the group were surprised but pleased by an an-nouncement from the Environment Minister, Dr Judy Edwards, “Government buys Nunn Block for new National Park”. Again the group celebrated, think-ing the block would finally be included in the con-servation estate. Their joy was short lived, however.

Only months after the agreement to sell the land to CALM, the National Trust announced that they would not go through with the sale and instead seek a pri-vate sale of the land. Not surprisingly, this met with some resistance from Government, as CALM were keen to acquire Nunn for the Dalgarup National Park.

Once more BGFF sprang into action. From May 2006

they lobbied CALM (and after 1 July 2006, the new Department of Environment and Conservation) to encourage the Minister for the Environment, Mark McGowan, to take the plunge, buy the block and complete the picture of the Dalgarup National Park.

One last letter writing effort by members and others, a bit of information spreading and some contingency plans in case the National Trust put Nunn on the open market all came to an end when the group were notified by an adviser in the Minister’s office that the sale had been completed. The Minister stated in Parliament on Tues-day, 2 November 2006 that “the intention is that now Nunn Block has been purchased it will be incorporated into the adjoining Dalgarup National Park”. BGFF and the EDO are very pleased with the result and hope that

Nunn Block saved continued from page 1

JP & Wildi to wed!Jean-Pierre Clement, principal author of our popular book The Law of Landcare in WA, is to marry Wildaliz de Jesus Arocho in her native country of Puerto Rico in January 2007.

JP and Wildi met during the latter’s internship at the EDO between May to August 2005!

Saved: Jarrah Tree in Nunn Block.

Nunn Block Saved ctd

Page 5December 2006

Starlings – feathered foe find-ing a foothold in WA?By Anna-Marie Penna (DAFWA) and Cameron Poustie (EDO Principal Solicitor)

What are starlings?The European or common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) originated in Europe and Asia, and is found across much of this area. It has been introduced and become established in North America, Jamaica, South Africa, New Zealand, and south-eastern Australia. In a little over 100 years, it spread across continental USA from an initial population of just 170 birds released at three localities.

The starling is now listed by the IUCN as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive or alien species.

Starlings can travel enormous distances and have been invading WA from South Australia since the 1970s, with small flocks crossing into south-east WA via the Nullarbor Plain. These incursions have been controlled by the Department of Agriculture. Starlings have also been found in other parts of the state; in 1998 a single starling was found at the Cadjebut mine in the Kim-berley region. Starlings can also stow away on ships or within transported heavy loads, from overseas or, more likely, from the eastern states.

How can you identify them?Starlings are stocky birds, black or dark grey in colour and about 21cm long with fine pointed beaks and short tails. They have glossy black feathers with a bronze-green and purple sheen. The beak is blackish in colour for most of the year, but it is yellow while the birds are breeding. Young birds are a dull mouse-brown colour, but they may appear a patch brown and black as they moult to adult plumage. They breed from July to De-cember, having several broods if seasonal conditions are suitable.

On ground, starlings run about jerkily with quick jabs of their open bills into the soil in a ‘sewing-machine’ like action; they do not hop. They fly by rapid wing movements interspersed by short glides. Flocks are of-ten seen wheeling and turning quickly in tight flying groups. This is the main way in which starlings can be recognised at a distance.

Why should we be concerned about starlings in Western Australia?Starlings are aggressive, social birds that can form very large flocks that move, feed and roost together. Star-lings eat nearly everything edible they can find includ-ing insects, seeds, grains, and fruit. The birds can be found in urban and rural habitats in other parts of the Australia and the world where they have effectively es-tablished. In the USA, the combined effects of starlings are estimated to cost US$800 million dollars per year in lost agricultural production alone.

Biodiversity is also at risk because of the competition for nesting hollows and roosting sites, particularly near WA’s wetlands, and the spread of weeds. In addition, starlings are very damaging to urban infrastructure and are considered noisy and irritating by tourists.

What is being done to solve the problem?The Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) has successfully run a well-planned containment cam-paign to exclude starlings since 1971 but now faces a difficult task due to their mobility and ability to breed quickly.

The critical importance of the need for land managers and the public to report sightings of any unusual birds has been highlighted through a recent research project co-funded by DAFWA, and the South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team (SCRIPT), one of WA’s six Regional NRM Groups. The outcomes of this success-ful research trial were that more flocks of starlings were detected and the area of the infestation was greater than had previously been known. Additional research by DAFWA is looking at finding out more about the biology and ecology of this species to find their ‘weak-

Continued on page 7

Starlings - feathered foe in WA?

December 2006 Page 6

At last, the Contaminated Sites Act is in operationBy Sonia Isaac, EDO volunteerOn December 1 2006, the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (WA) came into force, giving rise to a new set of rights and obligations in reporting such sites. The laws now provide for a greater protection of waters and land which have been contaminated and those who deal with them.

Reporting known or suspected contaminated sitesThe obligation to reportAny person may report what they know or suspect to be contamination of any site. However, land-owners, or those who either know or suspect they have caused or contributed to that contamination, have a duty to re-port. The maximum penalty for failing to report known contamination within 21 days (or failing to report sus-pected contamination as “soon as it is reasonably prac-ticable to do so”) is $250 000 and $50 000 per day after that period. For corporations the maximum penalty is $1.25 million plus daily penalties.

Unlike the rest of the Act, the above time limits will not first take effect until 1 June 2007, however.

Identifying contaminated sitesA site is contaminated when there is a substance present on that site (including land and water), at above back-ground concentrations, that presents, or has the poten-tial to present, a risk of harm to human health, the envi-ronment or an environmental value.

The Department of Environment and Conservation dis-cusses identifying possibly contaminated sites its Fact Sheet 7, available from their website (www.dec.wa.gov.au ).

Reporting the contaminationThe report must be submitted in the prescribed form, describing the location of the damage and its extent, and must summarise the basis on which the person knows or suspects the contamination. There must be reason-able grounds for making the report. The standard form is set out in the Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006 (WA) -Form 1 (Available at www.dec.wa.gov.au/con-taminatedsites ).

There are procedures to keep the identity of the reporter

confidential unless absolutely necessary in the admin-istration of the Act. The maximum penalty for breach-ing this confidence is $125 000. This penalty will also apply for engaging in the victimisation of people re-porting contaminations.

Dealing with contaminated landWhere there has been a report made, it will be inves-tigated and the land will be classified accordingly. The public will have free access to most of the information on the database listing sites where either contamination has been confirmed, or where a site has been “remedi-ated for restricted use”. However, where sites are clas-sified as either “decontaminated”, “not contaminated”, “possibly contaminated” or “report not substantiated”, a written request to the DEC and a $30 fee will be re-quired.

Buying and selling Where there has been a clean up, hazard abatement or investigation notice issued against the land, or if the land is classified as either “contaminated”, “remediated for restricted use” or “possibly contaminated”, the CEO will issue a memorial to the Registrar of Titles. Own-ers of this land must give a disclosure notice (Form 6: Available at www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites ) to each person who is to become a new owner, mortgagee or lessee of most of those categories of the site at least fourteen days before completion of the transaction. Failure to do so, will incur the maximum penalty of $125 000 for individuals or $625 000 for corporations.

Perth Zoo for free!Please call the office on 9221 3030 now! There are four free passes available, and all you need is to be a current financial member, or willing to become one.

First come first served…

the Hunter Valley, on the basis that the Director-Gener-al of the NSW Department of Planning should instruct the developer to submit an environmental assessment which considers the full greenhouse emissions from the mine. Tort based actions, perhaps under a public nuisance cause of action as in The People v GM, may also be attractive to potential plaintiffs, although the potential success of this type of litigation remains to be seen.

People v GM continued from page 3

Contaminated Sites Act - People v GM ctd

Page 7December 2006

nesses’ for more effective targeting of eradication pro-grams.

In response to a recent upsurge in starling activity on the south coast the State Government has allocated ad-ditional funding of over $2m to define the extent of the starling incursion and to contain the population so that a detailed eradication plan could be developed and resourced. At the same time, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) committed ap-proximately $300,000 to assist with the program. Addi-tional funds have also been allocated for research from SCRIPT, Invasive Animals CRC and the Australian Research Council.

What can you do?There are some local native bird species that can be confused with starling flocks, particularly when birds are flying in groups, such as Yellow-throated Miners (or Mickey Miners), Woodswallows, and Lorikeets (eg Purple-crowned). However, any flock of small dark birds seen wheeling and turning quickly in tight groups while flying or unusual birds seen with livestock should be reported immediately to DAFWA’s Pest & Disease Information Service on (Freecall) 1800 084 881.

More information is available at your local Department of Agriculture and Food office, or on the Department’s website at www.agric.wa.gov.au

Managing our rivers: the Swan and Canning Rivers Manage-ment Act 2006By Hayden Teo & Toni Stokes, EDO volunteersIn October, WA Parliament passed the Swan and Can-ning Rivers Management Act 2006 (the ‘Management Act’) and the Swan and Canning Rivers (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2006 (the ‘Transition-al Act’). Currently, their main operational changes as summarised below await commencement by the gov-ernment (it is expected they will come into effect in 2007), and the Swan River Trust is developing regula-tions to support the operation of the legislation.

The Management Act replaces legislation previously providing for the maintenance of the Swan and Can-ning Rivers, including the Swan River Trust Act 1988 and the Environmental Protection (Swan and Canning Rivers) Policy 1997, with the replacement assisted by the Transitional Act. Whilst the Transitional Act is nec-essary for the efficient shift to the new legislation, the scope of operational change is contained within the Management Act.

The overall aim of the Management Act is to allow for safe development by accounting for ecological and community benefits and the amenity of the Swan and Canning Rivers. Native title rights are unaffected by the new legislation.

Establishment of Swan Canning RiverparkThe Management Act establishes the Swan Canning Riverpark, which will consist of the waterways and adjacent Crown land reserves of the Swan, Canning, Helena and Southern Rivers, but which will not include any private property. This aims to recognise the iconic value of the rivers as similar to Kings Park, and for a more efficient and integrated management of the water-ways, shorelines and adjacent reserves.

Increased community involvement The Management Act vests statutory authority for the overall management of the Riverpark with the Swan River Trust, which will consist of a chairman and 7 members. Six are to be appointed by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and will have knowledge and experience in conservation, natural resource man-agement, recreation, tourism, planning, development, interests of the rural community and interests of the Nyungah community.

Implementation of a river protection strategy via environmental targetsA river protection strategy, outlining environmental tar-gets for the Riverpark, will be developed by the Swan River Trust in consultation with stakeholders. The spe-cific implementation of this strategy will be achieved through management programs, also to be developed through community consultation. These programs could deal with issues such as nutrient management, protection of foreshores, and biodiversity protection.

To avoid duplication and ensure consistency, manage-ment programs developed by others may be approved under the new legislation.

Starlings continued from page 7

River Management Act

Continued on page 8

December 2006 Page 8

Clarification of management responsibilitiesThe Management Act seeks to create accountability for activities affecting the Riverpark by requiring that public authorities take into account the objectives and principles of the Management Act, unless this would be inconsistent or substantially interfere with carrying out their functions. It should be noted that these principles, including sustainability principles, intergenerational equity, and biodiversity and ecological integrity, will rarely provide the basis for administrative law actions.

The Act attempts to clarify uncertainty regarding the responsibility for controlling erosion and providing and maintaining river walls, and also allows for binding col-laborative arrangements delegating responsibilities for management programs between the Swan River Trust and government, industry or community agencies.

River protection noticesRiver protection notices may be issued by the Swan River Trust to an owner or occupier of land in the Swan Canning and Avon catchments requiring them to either perform a particular activity or cease certain activities. A notice must be property specific, and may be issued whenever it is necessary to protect or enhance the eco-logical and community values and amenity of the riv-erbank. Notices have no effect if the matter is appealed and until the appeal is resolved, but once a notice has come into effect, failure to comply is an offence and may result in a fine of up to $50 000.

Streamlined assessment of applicationsSome activities that previously required Ministerial assessment will now be dealt with by the Swan River Trust under regulations to be developed in collabora-tion with stakeholder groups. These activities will in-clude like-for-like repairs and maintenance, emergency works to prevent pollution or ensure public safety, and erosion control undertaken by a public authority. Min-isters will only need to be involved in these cases where agreement cannot be reached.

Also, extensions of time, errors and minor variations to development approvals may be made without submit-ting a new application.

For more information or to register an interest in being involved in the development of regulations:www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au or email srt.legislation@environment.wa.gov.au

River Act continued from page 7 FOI limited by High Courtby Michelle McComish, EDO volunteerThe Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) is designed to give the Australian community the right to access government documents. But how accessible are they?

Michael McKinnon, the Freedom of Information Edi-tor at the Australian Newspaper, requested documents pertaining to the extent of bracket creep (the process of inflation pushing wages into higher tax brackets) and its impact on tax revenue, as well as well as reviews of the First Home Buyers Scheme, its associated fraud by wealthy individuals and its impact on the housing economy. On September 6 2006, after a two-year legal battle, his request was rejected by the High Court.

The Freedom of Information Act contains a list of 19 general exemptions including internal “working docu-ments”. These documents are exempt from disclosure if an objective description of the document is not supplied and/or disclosure would be contrary to public interest. Ministers are able to issue certificates of exemption es-tablishing that a matter is contrary to public interest, which are enforceable for a set period of time. A minis-terial certificate was issued by the department of Treas-ury effectively blocking Mr McKinnon’s request.

Mr McKinnon appealed the Minister’s decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which reviewed the exemption and upheld it as rational. The Tribunal’s de-cision was appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court which again upheld the exemption, finding that no error of law had been established. The final appeal took place in the High Court, where the discretionary nature of the Act was emphasised.

The High Court found by 3:2 majority that the release of the documents would jeopardise departmental can-dour, restricting the practices and efficiency of govern-ment departments. They held that:

the documents referred to matters which were current and not complete, interfering with work in progresssome of the documents were prepared for Parlia-mentary use and protected under Parliamentary privilege, so their release would compromises the integrity of our responsible government. the documents were also held to contain techni-calities and jargon which the general public would not be able to understand unless aided by experts, and therefore their release would be irresponsible and contrary to the public interest.

FOI limited by High Court - River Act ctd

Page 9December 2006

Changes to electoral laws affecting enrolmentsBy Hayden Teo, EDO volunteerThe Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 (the ‘Integrity Act’), which received Royal Assent on 22 June 2006, has changed to several aspects of electoral and referen-dum law as established under the Commonwealth Elec-toral Act 1918 (the ‘Electoral Act’). These are particu-larly pertinent for individuals who want to ensure they are either enrolled or enrolled at the correct address.

The effect of these changes is that people who want to vote at the next Federal election having regard to en-vironmental issues should enrol to vote (or check their enrolment details) now, as the window of opportunity after the election is called is very narrow indeed.

1. Proof of identification may be required when enrolling or updating enrolment details

Currently, an application for enrolment must be attested to and signed by a witness on the ap-plication form. This remains unchanged until a proposed new scheme of a ‘proof of identification’ requirement is commenced by Parliament.

The proof of identification scheme establishes that:If the applicant can provide their driver’s licence number, their application does not need to be at-tested. The Australian Electoral Commission will have the capacity to check the applicant’s details with each State or Territory licensing authority in order to minimise the possibility of people using false addresses or names to enrol to vote;If the applicant does not have a driver’s licence, a prescribed identification document (such as a birth certificate or passport) must be sighted by a witness who is an enrolled elector in a prescribed class (see further below). The application will as-sumedly be signed by the witness to verify they have sighted this document; andIf the applicant does not have a driver’s licence or prescribed document, they must have their enrol-ment claim countersigned by two electors who can confirm the applicant’s name and who have known the applicant for more than one month.

The Integrity Act provides that regulations may be made to impose additional requirements, as well as to prescribe identification documents and the class of pre-

scribed electors. At this time, it is unclear as to exactly what documents will suffice as prescribed identifica-tion documents: the scheme itself will not commence until 22 February 2007 unless that part of the Integrity Act is proclaimed earlier.

Furthermore, even once the scheme for proof of identi-fication commences, the current procedures for enroll-ing or updating enrolment details will not change until Parliament actually enacts the scheme as replacing the current procedure of application witnessing.

2. Amended timeframe for enrolling and changing details after writ has been issued The writ is the document commanding an electoral of-ficer to hold an election and contains dates for the close of rolls, the close of nominations, the polling day and the return of the writ. Previously, the close of rolls pe-riod was set at seven days after the writ was issued, but this deadline has been altered by the Integrity Act:

a. New enrolments after the writ is issuedFor most people, the effect of the Integrity Act is that they only have until 8.00 pm of the day on which the writ is issued to enrol to vote – or they will be ineligi-ble to vote on polling day. Because of this very narrow window of opportunity to enrol once the writ has been issued, people should enrol as soon as possible, rather than waiting for an election to be announced.

There are two limited exceptions to this deadline. Un-der changes brought by the Integrity Act, the following people have until 8.00 pm of the third working day after the writ has been issued to enrol to vote:

17 year olds who turn 18 before polling day; andPeople who expect to become Australian citizens between the issue of the writ and polling day.

If the writ is issued on a Monday, for example, then they will have until 8.00 pm on Thursday. ‘Working days’ do not include weekends or any day which is a public holiday in a State or Territory.

b. Updating enrolment details after the writ is issued

Under the Integrity Act, those who are already enrolled at the time the writ is issued have until 8.00 pm of the third working day after the writ to alter their enrolment details, after which time the electoral rolls will close.

Continued on page 11

Electoral Law Changes

December 2006 Page 10Quiz Night Thank You

Thank you to our Quiz Night DonorsOur successful Quiz Night on 31 October was made possible by the support of an array of generous donors. These fantatsic people helped us in so many different ways and the EDO is delighted to thank:

Bernadette Young: ABC 720: our sensational MC and Quiz MasterRandom Valley Organic Wine & Little Crea-tures Brewery: for helping stock our bar with their delicious productsCooks with a Conscience: for the beautiful food and donated catering servicesBiobean Coffee: delicious fair trade organic tea and coffee and donation of baristaAdasound: for donating the sound equipment

PrizesWe would also like to thank the following generous companies who donated over $3500 worth of prizes:

An Organic ExperienceBees Neez ApiariesBurnside Organic Farm Cards with a ViewCleanlifeCocos RestaurantConsistent PorkEnvironment HouseFair Go TradingFilm and Television InstituteFremantle Arts Centre CafeFremantle Mussel Bar GOZONE Greenmart EcostoreJody Smith PhotographerKulchaLuna Palace CinemasMargaret River Hemp CompanyMega Gift Baskets Onya InnovationsOrganic & Natural Enterprise GroupPear Tree ProductsPerforming Arts Centre SocietyPossum Creek LodgeSandcastle Organic RestaurantSepia Panorama PhotographyStunned Emu DesignThe Berry FarmThe Chifley

The GreenwoodTinderboxTupperwareTura New MusicWASOWWFZanthorrea Nursery

We also thanks these kind individuals for prizes:Andrew HorabinJo VallentineJohn Hyde MPJudy Edwards MLALynn PoustieMark McGowan MLA Peter WilmotTim Winton - authorYvonne Bercov

VolunteersJust as important as donating prizes and resources we really appreciate all the wonderful people who volun-teered their time to make it all happen.

We especially thank:Katrina Bercov overall cooridnator, EDO staff Cameron, Nicola and Fran Michael Bennett and Serena Fletcher for their as-sistance with assembling prizes and soft drinksKevin Sneddon, bar manager

Along with our other great volunteers:Jenny & Angus Pope, Michelle Walker, Brian Moyle, Su Lee, Corinne Salmon, Michelle Walker, Brian Moyle, Su Lee, Angas Hopkins, Michelle McComish & Vince, Emma Costantino, Ken Passlow, Maryclaire Andrews, Helen, Leon and Jeremy English, Natasha van Heemst, Lee McIntosh, Liza Beinart, Claire Mun-ro, Adam Becker, June Lowe, Rod, Yvonne and Jacqui Bercov, Lynn, John and Ian Poustie, Catherine Hall,

Finally, we thank the 350 supporters who purchased tickets and came along to participate on the night to make it such a success.

05/06 Annual ReportIf you missed our AGM but would like to read the EDO annual report you can download it from

http://www.edowa.org.au/meettheedo/annualre-ports.html

Page 11December 2006 AGM - Electoral Act ctd

3. Proof of identification must be provided if a provisional vote is to be cast

A provisional vote is a vote cast by a person whose name cannot be found on the certified list of voters, or whose name is already marked off the roll but claims not to have voted. The provisional voter’s name is checked at the divisional office before the envelope containing the vote is included in the count.

According to the Integrity Act, a provisional vote will not be counted as being valid unless:

Proof of identification, such as a driver’s licence or other prescribed identification document, is pro-vided at the time of casting the provisional vote; orAn original or attested copy of proof of identifica-tion is shown to a polling officer before the close of business on the Friday following polling day.

The Integrity Act provides for possible regulations un-der the Electoral Act that may prescribe the documents sufficiently evidencing proof of identity. Parliament has not as yet prescribed what documents other than a driver’s licence will suffice for provisional voters in this regard. However, it is highly likely that these will be the same documents as those which will be required for people newly enrolling to vote (possibly a birth cer-tificate or passport for example).

4. Any prisoner serving a full time sentence is not entitled to vote

According to the Integrity Act, any prisoner serving a full time sentence of imprisonment is no longer entitled to vote. The Integrity Act inserts a definition of ‘sen-tence of imprisonment’ into the Electoral Act: deten-tion on a full time basis for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, the deten-tion being attributable to the sentence of imprisonment concerned. Prisoners may remain on the roll, or if unenrolled apply for enrolment. However, they will not appear on a certi-fied list or be identifiable as prisoners on the public roll. Those serving alternative sentences such as periodic or home detention, as well as those serving a non-custo-dial sentence or who have been released on parole, will still be eligible to enrol and vote.

Electoral Act continued from page 9 Oh, and we had an AGM on 31 October too!

The 05/06 AGM was an enjoyable affair, but it was completely overshadowed by the Quiz Night held im-mediately after. Attendance was low, which was ironic seeing as holding both events on the same evening was supposed to boost AGM attendance!

We also celebrated the achievements of our many volunteers, although only two award winners were avail-able!

Congratulations to bronze award winner (25 hours) David Lloyd, and gold award winner (100 hours) Xian-Li Davies (pictured)

With proxies we were quorate however, so as well as passing the various reports given to those stalwarts who did attend, the group was also able to elect / re-elect / confirm (as the case may be):

David Lloyd, Treasurer (first elected 2005 as a committee member)Janice Dudley, Secretary (first elected 2000)Angas Hopkins, committee member (first elected 2001)Michael Bennett, committee member (co-opted 13 May 2006)Sharon Mascher, committee member (co-opted 13 May 2006)Lee McIntosh, committee member (co-opted 13 May 2006)Dr Stephanie Turner, committee member (first time nomination)Ambelin Kwaymullina, committee member (first time nomination)

Amended Fact SheetCheck out our website at www.edowa.org.au/factsheets.html, where you will find a range of free fact sheets about environmental law.

We have recently amended the Clearing Native Veg-etation fact sheet which is ready for download.

If undelivered please return to:Environmental Defender’s Office WA (Inc)2nd Floor Kings New Office Tower533 Hay StreetPERTH WA 6000

Print Post approvedPP 602669/00208

SURFACEMAIL

POSTAGEPAID

AUSTRALIA

MEMBERSHIP*: Please return to EDO, Level 2, 533 Hay St., Perth WA 6000.

Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . First name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surname: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postal Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tel: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Email: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date __________________________ Signature________________________* Please note: memberships are subject to approval by the EDO Management Committee. Members must agree to abide by the EDO’s Rules.

PAYMENT Enclosed is a cheque/money order for $ __________

Or, please debit my credit card the amount of $___ _____

Card number:

Name on Card: ________________________ Expiry:

Please renew my subscription annually using the above credit card details Yes / No

The EDO thanks all our sponsors for their support

Core funding for the EDO WA (Inc) is provided by the State and Commonwealth Attorney-General Departments

MEMBERSHIP FEES: $15 Unwaged or concession $�0 Waged or household$40 Non-profit organisation $110 Corporate