Indian Ocean Territories (Administration of Laws) Act 1992

"Arrangement" is the central mechanism. Section 3 defines it as an arrangement entered into by the State or a State authority with the Commonwealth under Part 2. Such arrangements can cover the exercise of any power, performance of any function or duty, provision of any service, or any other purpose related to the application or administration of a law in force in the Territory (s 4(1)). The arrangement may contain any provisions the parties think fit, including funding and indemnification (s 4(2)). It may be varied or revoked in the manner provided in the arrangement (s 4(3)). Critically, the arrangement is not required to be tabled in Parliament or published, beyond any requirements that might apply under general administrative law or the Commonwealth's own processes. This gives the Executive considerable discretion to contract with the Commonwealth without legislative oversight of the terms.

"State authority" is defined broadly in section 3 to include the Governor in Executive Council, a Minister, a department of the Public Service, any agency, authority or instrumentality established under a written law of the State, a person holding an office established under a written law, officers and employees of such bodies, and any other person or entity prescribed. This covers almost any arm of the Western Australian government.

"State court" means a court or other tribunal of this State. "State judicial officer" includes a Judge, master, registrar, magistrate, justice, coroner or other member or officer of a State court (s 3). The Act gives these persons jurisdiction to act in the Territories.

"Law in force in the Territory" incorporates by reference the definitions in Commonwealth Acts: for Christmas Island, any law that forms part of the "laws in force in the Territory" as defined in the Christmas Island Act 1958 (Cth); for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the equivalent under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 (Cth). This means the applicable law includes Commonwealth Acts, Ordinances made under those Acts, and any applied laws of Western Australia (which is the typical pattern for these Territories). The Act does not specify which Western Australian laws apply; that is determined by the Commonwealth laws.

"Territory court" is defined only in Part 4 (s 10) for the purposes of that Part. For Christmas Island it means the Supreme Court, the Magistrate's Court, and the Children's Court established under Commonwealth laws. For the Cocos (Keeling) Islands it means the Supreme Court and the Magistrate's Court (including the former Singapore Courts Ordinance applied to the Territory). The Act allows proceedings to be transferred from these Territory courts to Western Australian State courts under Commonwealth law (s 11(b)).

Jurisdiction under Part 4 is defined to include powers and functions (s 10). Law of the Commonwealth includes any law in force in the Territory (s 10). This ensures that State courts can exercise jurisdiction under both Commonwealth Acts and Territory Ordinances.

The Act does not confer any new substantive rights on individuals. It is purely machinery: a bridge that allows Western Australian State institutions to act in the Territories, subject to arrangements and Commonwealth laws.

The Act directly affects three main categories of persons and bodies: Western Australian State authorities, State courts and judicial officers, and the Commonwealth. It also indirectly affects residents of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and legal practitioners appearing in proceedings connected to the Territories.

State authorities - every department, agency, instrumentality, and public officer of Western Australia - can be bound to exercise powers, perform functions, or provide services in the Territories if the State or the authority enters an arrangement with the Commonwealth (s 4, s 6). This includes police, environmental regulators, transport agencies, health departments, education bodies, and any other entity that the Commonwealth asks to administer its laws in the Territories. The Act overrides any contrary State written law (s 6(2)), so a State authority cannot refuse to act on the ground that its enabling Act limits it to Western Australia. The compliance burden on State authorities includes the need to keep records (s 7), use funds and accounts (s 8), and comply with possible modifications or exemptions ordered under s 9. The Act does not impose any duty on State authorities to act; it only authorises them if an arrangement is in place.

State courts and judicial officers are authorised to exercise jurisdiction in or in relation to the Territories (s 11). This likely includes hearing criminal and civil matters under Territory laws, conducting coronial inquests, and dealing with transferred proceedings. The court may sit either in Western Australia or in the Territory (s 13(1)), and the usual rules of evidence, practice and procedure of the Western Australian court apply unless a Commonwealth law says otherwise (s 12). This means that litigants and practitioners must be familiar with Western Australian procedural law when a State court exercises Territory jurisdiction. The Act also allows costs orders for pre-transfer stages (s 15). Court documents from Territory courts may be kept with Western Australian court records (s 16).

The Commonwealth is the counterparty to arrangements under Part 2. It pays for the services (s 4(2)(a)) and may indemnify the State (s 4(2)(b)). The Commonwealth also passes the laws that confer jurisdiction on State courts (s 11(a)) and that allow transfers of proceedings (s 11(b)). The Act does not bind the Commonwealth directly; it is a State Act that permits Western Australia to extend its administrative and judicial apparatus to the Territories at the Commonwealth's request and cost.

Residents and businesses in the Indian Ocean Territories are affected because they become subject to the exercise of powers by Western Australian authorities and courts. A person disputing a parking fine, seeking a building permit, or facing criminal charges may encounter Western Australian police, magistrates, and bureaucrats acting under Territory laws. This creates a mixture of legal regimes: the substantive law is that of the Territory (which incorporates some Western Australian laws), but the administrative and procedural machinery is often Western Australian. The practical result may be greater efficiency and familiarity for officials, but potentially less local accountability.

Legal practitioners need to understand which court has jurisdiction and which procedural rules apply. Transferred proceedings (s 11(b), s 14, s 15) create complex transitional issues. The Act itself does not create any private rights of action.

The Act is almost entirely permissive. It grants powers and authorities; it does not impose duties on State authorities or courts to act in the Territories. The key duties that do exist are ancillary: keeping of records (s 7), handling of funds and accounts (s 8), and compliance with orders made under s 9 (exemptions or modifications). These are not duties to act, but duties in how the authority acts if it does exercise the power.

For State authorities: The only obligation is, when exercising a power or providing a service involving record-keeping, to keep those records as part of the authority's existing State records system unless a Territory law or the arrangement says otherwise (s 7). Similarly, if a fund or account is involved, the authority may use a corresponding State fund or account unless otherwise provided (s 8). There is no duty to maintain separate Territory records or accounts; the default is integration.

For State courts and judicial officers: The rights to exercise jurisdiction, to sit in Western Australia or the Territory, to apply State procedural rules, and to handle transferred proceedings are all expressed as powers ("may" in ss 11, 12, 13, 15, 16). There is no duty to accept a transfer, though if a Commonwealth law confers jurisdiction, the court must exercise it if the conditions are met (the Act does not provide a mechanism to decline). The court has the right to make costs orders for pre-transfer stages (s 15). Transferred proceedings are deemed to have been filed, with money lodged and everything done in the Territory court treated as done in the State court (s 14). This gives automatic legal effect to prior steps, protecting the continuity of proceedings.

For the State and State authorities entering arrangements: The Act grants a right to enter arrangements with the Commonwealth (s 4(1), s 5(1)). The State authority must have the approval of the Minister (s 4(1): "with the approval of the Minister"). The Minister's approval is a condition precedent: an arrangement entered without it may be unauthorised. The arrangement may be varied or revoked in the manner provided (s 4(3), s 5(3)). There is no requirement for an arrangement to be published, tabled, or subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

For the Governor: The right to make orders exempting or modifying State written laws (s 9(1)). This is a broad power, subject only to the requirement that the order be published as subsidiary legislation and potentially disallowed under the Interpretation Act 1984. The Governor may use this power to adjust licensing requirements, financial management rules, procurement obligations, or any other State law that would otherwise apply to the authority's actions in the Territories. This creates a risk of differential treatment between activities in Western Australia and in the Territories, potentially creating arbitrage opportunities or compliance confusion.

There are no duties on the Commonwealth under this Act. The Commonwealth's obligations arise under the arrangement itself, which is a contractual or administrative agreement, not under the Act. The Act does not give any private individual a right to enforce an arrangement.

There are no rights for individuals conferred by this Act. It does not create a cause of action, a freedom of information right, or a mechanism to challenge the arrangements or orders. The Act is purely about the capacity of State authorities to act; private rights arise under the substantive laws that those authorities administer.

This Act contains no offence provisions, no penalty units, no infringement notices, and no enforcement mechanisms. It does not create any criminal or civil liability for non-compliance. The only consequence of acting outside the Act's authority would be under general law: an act by a State authority in the Territory without an arrangement or without the relevant power being vested under a Territory law would be ultra vires and potentially void. However, that is not a penalty under the Act itself.

The absence of penalties is consistent with the Act's character as an enabling statute. The legislative technique is to grant capacity, not to regulate conduct. If a State authority fails to keep records as required by s 7, that might be a breach of the arrangement or of State law, but the Act does not specify any consequence. The Governor's order under s 9 is subsidiary legislation and could theoretically be disallowed by Parliament, but that is a legislative check, not a penalty. Part 4 similarly lacks any sanction for a court that fails to follow procedural rules; the court's acts might be set aside on appeal or review, but not fined or punished under this Act.

The regulations power (s 17) could be used to create offences. The Governor may make regulations for matters required or permitted to be prescribed, or necessary for carrying out the Act. It is possible that future regulations might prescribe penalties for specific obligations (e.g., failure to keep records under s 7), but none exist in the current text. As at the reprint date (2004), no such regulations are referenced.

Enforcement of any obligations under an arrangement would be a matter of contract or administrative law between the State and the Commonwealth, not under this Act. If the Commonwealth fails to pay agreed funding, the State's recourse is through the terms of the arrangement, not statutory enforcement. Conversely, if a State authority fails to provide agreed services, the Commonwealth's remedies are similarly extra-statutory.

For judicial proceedings: if a State court exercises jurisdiction without proper conferral under a Commonwealth law or without compliance with the Act (e.g., sitting in the Territory despite a contrary direction), the resulting orders could be challenged for want of jurisdiction. But that is a defence, not a penalty. The Act does not impose liability on judicial officers for acting beyond jurisdiction.

The lack of penalties may be seen as a gap in accountability. There is no statutory mechanism to ensure State authorities comply with record-keeping or financial management requirements when operating in the Territories. Reliance is placed on the arrangement, on State administrative law, and on Commonwealth oversight. This creates a potential compliance risk: if the arrangement is vague or unenforceable, or if the Commonwealth does not monitor performance, there may be no effective sanction for poor administration. The Act's structure assumes good faith cooperation, which is not always a safe assumption in large-scale outsourcing.

The Act interacts with several layers of law: Western Australian legislation, Commonwealth legislation, Territory law, and general principles of extraterritoriality and intergovernmental cooperation.

Override of State written laws: Section 6(2) provides that the authorisation in s 6(1) has effect "notwithstanding any other provision in a written law of the State to the contrary." This means that if a State authority's enabling Act restricts its operations to Western Australia, that restriction is overridden. Similarly, s 13(2) overrides any State law that would prevent a State court from sitting in the Territory. This is a powerful clause; it effectively amends all other Western Australian Acts to the extent necessary to allow the authority to act in the Territories under this Act. The Governor's order power under s 9(1) can further exempt or modify any provision of a written law of the State. The interaction is thus one of supremacy: this Act prevails over inconsistent State laws.

Territory laws and Commonwealth laws: The Act does not override Commonwealth or Territory laws. Instead, it relies on them. Section 6(1)(a) requires the power to be vested in or delegated to the State authority "under a law in force in the Territory." The Territory law (which is Commonwealth-made) must actually confer the power. Section 11(a) requires jurisdiction to be conferred on the State court under a "law of the Commonwealth" (defined to include Territory laws). So the Act is subsidiary to the grant of power from the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth amends its laws to remove the conferral, the State authority loses the power. This creates a dependency: the Western Australian machinery can be switched on or off by Commonwealth decisions.

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA): Orders under s 9 are subsidiary legislation and subject to s 42 of the Interpretation Act (which deals with publication, tabling, and disallowance). This provides a degree of parliamentary oversight, though limited. The regulations power under s 17 is also subject to the Interpretation Act.

Financial management and records laws: The Act permits integration of Territory records and accounts with State ones (ss 7, 8). This means that State record-keeping laws (e.g., State Records Act 2000 if applicable) would apply to those records unless an exemption is granted under s 9. Similarly, the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) might apply to the funds used for Territory activities, again subject to exemption. The interaction is permissive: the authority may integrate, but is not required to. The default is integration, which reduces administrative burden but may blur accountability for Territory-specific matters.

Jurisdiction of courts: Part 4 provides that State courts apply their own rules of evidence, practice and procedure when exercising Territory jurisdiction, unless a Commonwealth law says otherwise (s 12). This interacts with the substantive law of the Territory, which may have different evidentiary or procedural rules. The result could be a hybrid: substantive liability is determined under Territory law, but process is Western Australian. This may cause confusion for litigants and practitioners who must be familiar with two procedural regimes. The Act also allows the State court to sit in the Territory (s 13), which interacts with the court's own jurisdiction: a Supreme Court judge sitting in Christmas Island is still the Supreme Court of Western Australia, not a local court. Appeals lie to the Western Australian Court of Appeal, not to the High Court of Australia directly from the Territory court? Possibly; the Act does not address appellate mechanisms. The interaction with the appellate structure is left to Commonwealth law and the ordinary hierarchy.

Commonwealth arrangements: The arrangements under Part 2 are not themselves legislative. They are executive agreements. They interact with the Act by defining the scope of services, funding, and indemnities. The Act does not incorporate the terms of arrangements; it merely allows them to be made. The practical effect is that the specifics of the relationship between Western Australia and the Commonwealth are hidden in unpublished agreements, making parliamentary and public scrutiny difficult.

No interaction with private law: The Act does not create rights of action, so it does not interact with contract, tort, or property law in the usual sense. However, if a State authority commits a tort while acting in the Territory, the Act does not provide any immunity. The Commonwealth may indemnify under s 4(2)(b), but that is a contractual matter. The Act does not exclude liability.

The Act as reproduced is Reprint 1, current as at 7 May 2004. The compilation table shows the original Act was passed as number 54 of 1992, received Royal Assent on 10 December 1992. The whole Act, other than Part 4, commenced on that day (s 2(1)). Part 4 commenced on 29 June 1993, fixed by proclamation published in the Government Gazette on 25 June 1993 (p 3067). There have been no amendments to the Act between its enactment and the reprint date. The reprint consolidates the Act as originally passed, with no amendments incorporated. The defined terms list and table are editorial, not part of the law.

The absence of amendments over more than a decade suggests the Act has worked as intended without need for legislative adjustment. However, it may also indicate that the Act is rarely used or that the arrangements with the Commonwealth have been stable. Alternatively, it may reflect that the substantive changes in the administration of the Territories have been effected through Commonwealth amendments to the Christmas Island Act and Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act, rather than through amendments to this enabling statute. Since the Act is essentially machinery, it does not need frequent updating.

The commencement proclamation for Part 4 indicates a deliberate delay of about six months to allow the Commonwealth and Western Australia to put in place the necessary arrangements and jurisdiction-conferring laws before State courts could exercise jurisdiction.

No subsequent reprints or amendments are noted in the provided text. Readers should check the current Western Australian legislation database for any amendments after 2004, but this reprint is the only one shown.

The lack of amendment history means the Act has not been subject to any policy-driven changes, such as extending its operation to other Territories, modifying the Governor's order-making power, or adding accountability mechanisms. This stability reduces compliance uncertainty for users, but also means that any gaps or deficiencies in the original design persist.

The provided text does not mention any cases. There is no litigation history included in the reprint notes or elsewhere. This does not mean the Act has never been considered by a court; rather, the source as provided contains no judicial consideration. The Act is a procedural enabling statute, and it is less likely to be directly litigated than substantive laws. However, several potential areas of litigation could arise:

Validity of orders under s 9: If the Governor exempts a State authority from a procedural requirement such as public consultation under a State Act, that order could be challenged as beyond power or procedurally defective. The order must be subsidiary legislation and subject to disallowance; a court could review its lawfulness.

Jurisdictional challenges: A party in a proceeding before a Western Australian court sitting in the Territories could argue that the court lacks jurisdiction because the Commonwealth law conferring jurisdiction is invalid, or because the transfer under s 11(b) was not properly effected. The Act itself does not confer jurisdiction; it only permits the court to act if jurisdiction is conferred under a law of the Commonwealth. Challenges to the conferring Commonwealth law would be more likely than challenges to this Act.

Ultra vires actions by State authorities: If a State authority purports to exercise a power under s 6 but no arrangement exists or the power has not been vested under a Territory law, its actions could be challenged. The Act provides no immunity for such errors.

Arrangement disputes: The Act does not make arrangements justiciable in the ordinary sense, but if the State or Commonwealth relies on an arrangement to justify a compulsory acquisition or a restriction on liberty, the terms of the arrangement would be relevant. Litigation might test whether the arrangement was properly entered with ministerial approval (s 4(1)).

Interaction with federal jurisdiction: Section 11 allows State courts to exercise jurisdiction under Commonwealth laws. This is a form of investiture of federal jurisdiction. The High Court has considered the validity of such investiture under Chapter III of the Constitution. The Act could be part of a constitutional challenge if a party argues that the investiture of Territory jurisdiction on a State court infringes the Kable principle or limits federal judicial power. The Act is silent on the constitutional basis; it assumes the Commonwealth can validly confer jurisdiction.

Costs orders: Section 15 allows costs orders for pre-transfer stages. This could be litigated in appeals concerning the proper exercise of that discretion.

In summary, while there is no reported litigation in the provided text, the Act's operation creates several potential legal issues. Users should not assume the Act has been tested; it is a low-profile administrative statute.

Several less obvious features of the Act can trap the unwary practitioner, government officer, or litigant.

1. Ministerial approval for arrangements is binding. Section 4(1) requires State authorities to obtain the approval of the Minister before entering an arrangement. If an authority enters an arrangement without that approval, the arrangement may be void or unenforceable against the State, and the authority may have acted ultra vires. The Act does not define which Minister; presumably it is the Minister administering the Act. This creates a compliance step that may be overlooked by agencies dealing directly with the Commonwealth.

2. The Governor's order power under s 9 is extremely broad. The Governor may exempt a State authority from "any provision of a written law of the State" or modify its effect. There is no limit on the types of provisions that can be exempted. This could include provisions about financial accountability, freedom of information, procurement, environmental assessment, or whistleblower protection. The order is subsidiary legislation, but the disallowance process is reactive and may not catch all orders. Practitioners advising on a project in the Territories must check whether any such order is in force.

3. No requirement for arrangements to be published. The Act does not require an arrangement to be tabled in Parliament, published in the Gazette, or made available to the public. The only transparency comes from the possibility that the arrangement's terms may be disclosed under freedom of information or voluntarily. This creates a hidden legal regime where the actual obligations and funding are unknown to the public.

4. Default integration of records and funds (ss 7, 8). The default is to keep Territory records and accounts together with State records and accounts. This may cause confusion if a specific Territory law requires separate handling, unless the arrangement or Territory law provides otherwise. The authority must check each Territory law and each arrangement to see if the contrary intention appears. If not, integration is mandatory. This could complicate later audits, especially if Territory funds are commingled.

5. State procedural rules apply to Territory proceedings (s 12). The Act applies Western Australian rules of evidence, practice and procedure to proceedings in State courts exercising Territory jurisdiction. This may be unexpected for litigants who expect the procedural law of the Territory (which might differ). For example, time limits for filing documents, discovery rules, or cost scales may be different. The provision is subject to Commonwealth law to the contrary, but unless a contrary rule is specifically made, State rules apply.

6. State courts may sit in Western Australia or the Territory (s 13). This means a criminal trial for an offence committed on Christmas Island could be held in Perth, Western Australia, without any territorial connection. The accused may be required to attend trial far from the place of the alleged offence, potentially increasing costs and inconvenience. The Act does not require the court to sit in the Territory; it is permissive. There is no right to have the trial conducted in the Territory.

7. Transferred proceedings are deemed to have always been in the State court (s 14). Everything done in the Territory court is taken to have been done in the State court. This avoids duplication but may cause problems if the Territory court had a procedural defect that would have been cured by the transfer. The deeming provision may prevent a party from challenging the validity of steps taken in the Territory court on the ground that they were in the wrong court. The only remedy is to challenge the transfer itself.

8. Part 4 commenced later. Part 4 (courts) commenced on 29 June 1993, six months after the rest of the Act. Any purported exercise of judicial jurisdiction by State courts between 10 December 1992 and 29 June 1993 could have been invalid. The proclamation is critical to understanding when the court provisions applied.

9. No sunset or review clause. The Act has no provision for automatic expiry or periodic review. It continues indefinitely. There is no mechanism to assess whether the arrangements are efficient or whether the Territories would be better served by their own independent administration.

10. The Act does not create any private rights. A resident of the Territories who suffers from poor administration by a State authority cannot sue under this Act. The only recourse is through the substantive law under which the authority acted, or through the arrangement (which the resident is not a party to). This limits accountability.

Compliance with this Act is primarily a matter for Western Australian State authorities, the State government, and to a lesser extent State courts and judicial officers. There are no obligations on the general public. The steps for each affected entity are as follows:

For State authorities intending to exercise powers in the Territories:

1. Identify the source of power. Before acting, confirm that the power, function, or duty is vested in or delegated to the authority under a law in force in the Territory (s 6(1)(a)). This will usually be a Commonwealth Ordinance or applied Western Australian law. If the proposed action is a service to be provided under an arrangement, verify that an arrangement exists and that it covers the service.

2. Obtain ministerial approval if entering an arrangement. If the authority wishes to enter an arrangement with the Commonwealth (or the State enters on its behalf), it must obtain the approval of the Minister (s 4(1)). The approval should be in writing and recorded. The authority should not begin negotiations or commit to terms without this approval.

3. Check for any Governor's orders under s 9. The Governor may have exempted or modified certain State laws for activities in the Territories. The authority must search the WA Gazette and the subsidiary legislation register for any such orders. If an order exists, the authority must comply with the modified requirements. The order may reduce compliance burdens (e.g., exempt from mandatory consultation), but the authority must know the scope of the exemption.

4. Manage records. When performing functions that involve keeping records, the authority may integrate those records with State records under s 7. However, the authority must first check whether the Territory law or the arrangement specifies a contrary intention. If the Territory law requires separate records (e.g., under a privacy regime), that requirement must be followed. The authority should document its decision on record-keeping.

5. Manage funds and accounts. Similarly, if the activity involves a fund or account, the authority may use a State fund or account unless otherwise required (s 8). The authority should establish clear accounting to ensure Commonwealth funding is properly tracked and can be audited separately if needed. The default integration may cause mingling of Commonwealth and State money; the authority should consider a separate ledger or subaccount to avoid confusion.

6. Liaise with the Commonwealth. The arrangement will specify reporting, funding, and indemnity terms. The authority must comply with these contractual obligations. The Act does not provide a remedy for non-compliance by the Commonwealth; the authority should ensure the arrangement includes dispute resolution mechanisms.

For State courts and judicial officers:

1. Verify jurisdiction. Before exercising jurisdiction in a Territory matter, confirm that the jurisdiction is conferred under a law of the Commonwealth (s 11(a)). This may be by a specific Commonwealth Act or by a transfer under s 11(b). The court should ensure that any transfer is in accordance with the relevant Commonwealth law.

2. Apply State procedural rules. Under s 12, unless a Commonwealth law provides otherwise, the court must apply its own rules of evidence, practice and procedure. The court should not assume that Territory procedural rules apply. If the matter was transferred from a Territory court, steps already taken are deemed to have been done in the State court (s 14), but ongoing procedure is Western Australian.

3. Decide where to sit. The court may sit in Western Australia or in the Territory (s 13). This is a discretionary matter. The court should consider the convenience of parties, the nature of the proceeding, and any directions in the arrangement or Commonwealth law. The court cannot be compelled to sit in the Territory by a party; it is the court's choice.

4. Handle costs. If the proceeding is transferred, the court may make costs orders for pre-transfer stages if those costs have not already been dealt with by the Territory court (s 15). The court should request information from the Territory court about any costs orders already made.

5. Manage court records. Documents transferred from a Territory court may be kept together with State court records (s 16). The court should maintain a clear index linking Territory matters to avoid confusion.

For the Western Australian government:

1. Enter arrangements carefully. Each arrangement should specify scope, funding, duration, termination, and dispute resolution. The arrangement should also address applicable law, indemnities, and liability. The Minister's approval is mandatory for any State authority entering an arrangement.

2. Consider s 9 exemptions. The government may decide to use the Governor's order power to streamline administration. Any such order must be made as subsidiary legislation and published. The government should assess the costs and benefits of exempting State laws. Overuse could reduce transparency.

3. Coordinate with the Commonwealth. The Act is a tool for cooperation. The government should maintain a central register of all arrangements entered under Part 2 to ensure oversight and avoid conflicts.

4. Monitor and review. Although the Act has no review clause, responsible departments should periodically evaluate whether the arrangements remain efficient and whether the Territories' interests are being served. Without such review, compliance becomes purely mechanical.