❓ WA Parliament QoN regarding the prosecution of an 82-year-old farmer for alleged environmental damage. The Minister defends the prosecution as being in the public interest to protect nature reserves.
AnsweredQoN 1684Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I ask this question on behalf of Hon Robyn McSweeney. I refer the minister to her answer to question without notice 1359 given in the Assembly. (1) Can the minister provide an indicative estimate of the public cost of prosecuting Mr Laurie Carmody, the 82-year-old farmer alleged to have caused environmental damage? (2) Will the minister explain what is the public interest being served by his prosecution? (3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(1) Can the minister provide an indicative estimate of the public cost of prosecuting Mr Laurie Carmody, the 82-year-old farmer alleged to have caused environmental damage? (2) Will the minister explain what is the public interest being served by his prosecution? (3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(2) Will the minister explain what is the public interest being served by his prosecution? (3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(1) Can the minister provide an indicative estimate of the public cost of prosecuting Mr Laurie Carmody, the 82-year-old farmer alleged to have caused environmental damage? (2) Will the minister explain what is the public interest being served by his prosecution? (3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(2) Will the minister explain what is the public interest being served by his prosecution? (3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(3) Can the minister explain whether her claims that she had no power to intervene in the case were based on flawed advice given to the minister; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(4) Can the minister offer any explanation for her public statement other than that it was a means of evading responsibility for the department’s actions in light of the adverse public reaction to the case? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(1) The estimated cost to the Department of Conservation and Land Management of prosecuting Mr Carmody is in the order of $800 based on the salary and vehicle expenses of the investigating officer, processing of the breach report, plant identification and the court summons. (2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(2) I am unable to comment on the specifics of this case while it is before the courts. The public interest being served by this prosecution is in protecting the values of the Seagroat Nature Reserve in particular and nature reserves generally by providing a personal and general deterrent to unlawful activities that damage the conservation values of nature reserves that are set aside for the protection of flora and fauna. There are more than 600 nature reserves in the department’s wheatbelt region alone. Given the highly cleared and fragmented nature of most of the wheatbelt, the remaining nature reserves are extremely important for the conservation of the State’s biodiversity. It is not acceptable for people to enter onto nature reserves and drive vehicles off formed tracks and thereby damage or destroy flora and vegetation without authority. (3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(3) The executive director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management is subject to my broad direction and control in accordance with section 33(1) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. However, it is proper for the executive director to exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with section 113 of the Act, which states that a complaint for an offence against this Act may be made and prosecuted by any police officer or any person authorised in writing by the executive director, and section 26(3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, which states that all proceedings in respect of any offences shall be taken by and in the name of the executive director or by and in the name of any person authorised in that behalf of the executive director. (4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
(4) There is a separation of powers and functions between the executive arm of government and the administration of prosecution functions. It is inappropriate for me to intervene in a properly established and exercised legal process.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.