Legislative Assembly Hansard 19681942 Rabbit Acts, &c., Bill
[ASSEMBLY] Questions
FRIDAY, 29 NOVEMBER, 1968
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) read prayers and took
the chair at 11 a.m.
QUESTIONS
MINISTERIAL VISIT TO ABORIGINAL CoMMUNITIES, NoRTH QuEENSLAND
Mr. P. Wood, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for
Lands,-
With reference to his announced visit to Aboriginal and other
settlements in North Queensland in December, what are the names and
positions of all persons who will accompany him for all or part of
his tour and what places will be visited?
Answer:- "Included in my party will be-Mr. G. E.
McDowell, Chief Commissioner of Lands. Mr. P. J. Killoran, Director
of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. Invitations to accom pany me on
parts of this visit have been extended to----The Member for
Tablelands, Mr. E. Wallis-Smith; The Member for Cook, Mr. H. A.
Adair; Mr. Dick Palk, Courier-Mail Journalist; and the following
endorsed Party Candidates-Mr. J. Bidner, Country Party; Mr. M.
Borzi, Country Party; Mr. W. Wood, Australian Labour Party. In
extending these invitations, I believe I have acted fairly in the
interests of all concerned. I propose visiting Yarrabah, Hope Vale,
Cooktown, Lockhart River (new site), Bamaga, Thursday Island,
Weipa, Aurukun, Edward River, Mitchell River, Mornington Island,
Doomadgee and Normanton."
SUGGESTED EXPORT OF BUDGERIGARS
Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Primary
Industries,-
( 1) Is he aware that Queensland is losing a considerable sum each
year because it is not possible to export budgerigars?
(2) Prior to 1960, when it was per missible to export budgerigars
for commer cial purposes, was there a big demand over seas for
Australian panicum, setaria, millet and canary seed?
(3) Is there any reason why budgerigars should not be exported
overseas?
( 4) As exported budgerigars could instil healthy life-blood into
the overseas trade balance, will he consider making suitable
representations to the appropriate Federal authorities to restore
the right to export budgerigars?
(5) Is the loss to Australian trade in the sale of birds and the
necessary grain in excess of $10 million a year?
Questions [29 NOVEMBER] Questions 1943
Answers:- (1) "No."
(2) "Yes, but varying considerably from year to year."
(3) "For several years prior to 1959, fauna conservationists,
naturalists and many members of the general public had become
perturbed about the increasing extent of trapping native birds
throughout Australia for overseas commercial export. It was alleged
that this trafficking was decimating bird populations and in many
cases cruelty to the birds was occurring as large numbers died
during trapping and transportation. In August 1959 the Com
monwealth Government took action and called a conference of State
and Common wealth officials to discuss principally con trols on
the export of fauna from Aus tralia. The conference clearly showed
that because of a number of differing factors completely common
policies and rules between the various States and the Com
monwealth were not practicable. The con ference also demonstrated
the need for centralised control over the export traffic in fauna,
but no decision was reached to impose a prohibition. Subsequently
the Commonwealth Government considered the matter and the Prime
Minister's Depart ment, Canberra, advised this State that after
considering all aspects of the export trade in native fauna they
had decided, in the public interest, to assume full control over
fauna export transactions under powers provided by the Commonwealth
Department of Customs and Excise Regu lations. Permits to export
are given by Customs for zoo to zoo transfers of budgerigars or for
scientific purposes, subject to agreement of the State fauna
controlling authority."
( 4) "I feel it can be accepted that the Commonwealth has given
careful con sideration to all the relevant issues before deciding
on its present policy. In the circumstances I would not be prepared
to make the representations sought. There is no evidence to show
that re-introduction of export of budgerigars would materially
effect the overseas trade balance. In fact, the value of export of
bird seed (canary seed, panicum and millet) has increased over the
years. For example: 1960-61, $515,900; 1966-67, $1,500,000."
(5) "I have no ready access to figures covering the approximate
value to Aus tralia of the previous unsavoury trafficking in cage
birds. There is no evidence, how ever, of any loss in grain
trade."
INJURY OF POLICEMAN, SARINA
Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-
Did a policeman fracture his ankle in Sarina recently? If so, where
and under what circumstances did he fracture it?
Answer:- "No. However, on March 15, 1967, a
police officer sustained injuries including a fractured bone
(fibula) in his right ankle when he was unlawfully assaulted after
he and another police officer (who was also unlawfuliy assaulted)
had arrested a person in Central Street, Sarina, in the vicinity of
the Tandara Hotel. On March 16, 1967, Ronald Bernard J ames Mizzen
appeared at the Magistrates Court, Sarina, on sum monses charging
him with having unlaw fully assaulted each of the police officers
concerned. On pleading 'guilty' to those charges that person was
convicted and fined $130 on each of the two charges, in default one
month's imprisonment."
ALLEGED USE OF POLICE AS GATE KEEPERS ON VVHARVES
Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-
( 1) Did police officers recently take over the jobs of the
gate-keepers on the wharves during a period of industrial
unrest?
(2) Was the appropriate union consulted about the matter?
( 3) Did the water police refuse to do the job?
( 4) Did the city police refuse to do the job?
(5) Was it performed by the Valley special police?
( 6) Why are special police employed on tasks of this nature when
there is a record amount of unsolved crime in the State?
(7) If police are to be employed on this type of work, why were
special police employed at a special rate of pay?
Answers: (!) "No." (2 to 7) "See Answer to (1)."
COURSE FOR GOVERNESSES, KELVIN GROVE HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. N. T. E. Hewitt, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for
Education,-
( 1) What are the qualifications needed for eligibility to train as
governesses in the governesses' course being conducted at Kelvin
Grove State High School?
( 2) If at present it is only open to governesses employed as such,
will con sideration be given to making the training available to
mothers teaching their own children?
( 3) Is there any limitation on districts from which trainees can
be drawn or are to serve after receiving tuition?
1944 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions
Answers:-
( 1) "The course is open to all governesses or persons desirous of
becom ing governesses. Applicants are required to have completed a
course of junior studies."
(2) "Mothers who are home supervisors of the correspondence tuition
of their children will be eligible for enrolment in future courses.
It might be stated, however that Regional Directors in eo-operatic~
with the Primary Correspondence School and the Country Women's
Association have, during 1967 and 1968, conducted special seminars
for home supervisors in many country centres. Further assistance in
thil; direction will be considered on request."
(3) "No."
Mr. Dean, pursuant to notice asked The Minister for Education,-
'
Will he give a general outline of the system used in religious
instruction in Queensland State schools?
Answer:-
"Religious instruction in State Schools is given in accordance with
Section 20 of "The Education Act of 1964"."
ALLEGED AssAULTS BY YOUTHS AT MT. TAMBORINE
Mr. Lee, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-
(!) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Courier-Mail
of November 28 regarding a group of abusive youths who on Sunday
attacked a party of stu dents from the Wynnum High School and
later a married man and his pregnant wife?
(2) Will he inform the House of the action taken by the police in
the matter?
Answers:
(!) "Yes."
(2) "Police investigations in these matters are presently
continuing. Should sufficient evidence be obtained upon which to
prefer a charge against any person appropriate action will be
taken." '
COMMONWEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO MAJOR POWER-HOUSE PROPOSAL,
CENTRAL QUEENSLAND
Mr. Hanson, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-
( 1) Has he noted an answer given by the Prime Minister in Federal
Parliament on November 27 concerning power-house pro posals in
Central Queensland wherein he stated that preliminary
investigations were
being undertaken by various Federal departments to ascertain what
companies were prepared to establish themselves in the proposed
power-house area?
(2) In the submission made to the Federal Government, did he name
the companies interested in establishing them selves following
erection of the power house?
(3) As the Prime Minister stated that the Government also was
interested in exploring the idea of a power plant, has he received
any further word from the Prime Minister in recent weeks concerning
early submissions for Federal aid in the matter?
Answers:-
(!) "No. I saw a Press report of t.he Answer to a Question asked on
November 26 but that report did not mention the matter of the
investigation to which the Honourable Member refers. I am arranging
to obtain a copy of the relevant Hansard."
(2) "A most comprehensive submission was made by the State covering
the resources and existing industry in Central Queensland, the
industries which the Government hoped to attract with large scale
power resources and the local natural resources which could be used
by such industries. The submission fully set out the potential
output of each proposed new industry and its value. It emphasised
the huge contribution which the project could make on a continuing
basis to Australia's balance of external payments position and
calculated the approximate benefit. In practically every class of
industry men tioned in the submission there had been negotiations
by the State with local and overseas companies interested in estab
lishing the particular industry concerned. These negotiations were
conducted before the submission was made and included certain
organisations with whom I had discussions on my trip overseas
earlier this year. Because the Government regards such negotiations
as highly confidential and respects the confidence of the parties
con cerned, the names of the companies involved have not been
submitted to the Commonwealth, or made public to any other
source."
(3) "No, although I understand that a reply should be received
shortly."
EXTENSION OF METHODS OF DROUGHT RELIEF ASSISTANCE
Mr. Dean for Mr. WaUis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The
Minister for Primary Industries,-
( 1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Queensland
Graingrower of November 27 concerning New South Wales drought
aid?
Questions [29 NOVEMBER) Questions 1945
(2) As Queensland suffers drought losses in some areas every year,
will he have a list prepared of the various methods of assistance
available, including those from New South Wales, which are
applicable?
( 3) Will he consider setting up the necessary machinery to enable
the Govern ment to buy fodder from farmers for distribution, in
addition to grain and molasses purchases as was the case during the
last drought?
Answers:-
( 1) "The article in the Queensland Graingrower details the drought
relief assistance provided by the New South Wales Government with
Commonwealth financial support as the result of the severe drought
which commenced in 1965. The Queensland Government has a similar
series of schemes for assistance."
(2) A leaflet entitled 'Drought Aid for the Grazier' was prepared
in June, 1967 with the objective of making graziers fully aware of
our drought relief measures. A copy of this leaflet is tabled and
further copies are available from my Department."
(3) "During the 1965 drought, Drought Relief Fund moneys, donated
by public subscription, were used for the purchase .of grain and
molasses for distribution to needy graziers. The Committee
administering that Fund was careful to husband the moneys as much
as possible and purchase fodders which were readily available, were
at a fixed price and which .offered the best return for the
expenditure. They were careful not to enter into competition with
the private individual and so artificially inflate prices. Other
than the use of the Drought Relief Fund for fodder purchases, there
has not been any scheme for the purchase of fodder by the
Government for distribution to stockowners and I would certainly
not favour one."
Paper.-Whereupon Mr. Row laid upon the Table of the House the
leaflet referred to.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, MT. SURPRISE
Mr. Davies for Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The
Minister for Mines,-
In view of the increasing importance of Mt. Surprise as a cattle
railing centre and as six small generating plants are necessary for
the post office and workshop, will he have an early investigation
made into the possibility of supplying Mt. Sur prise with
electricity either by land line or generating plant?
Answer:-
"A preliminary investigation into the possibility of providing a
public electricity supply in Mount Surprise was made by the Cairns
Regional Electricity Board earlier this year. The annual cost is
high
in relation to anticipated revenue and more economic extensions
have been given preference for immediate consideration in current
programmes. The Board will review the position from time to time
particularly in relation to augmenting power generating facilities
at Georgetown."
REPORT OF GULF OF CARPENTARIA PRAWN SURVEY
J\1r. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-
Have reports and recommendations of the Gulf of Carpentaria prawn
survey completed in 1966 been received? If so, will they be made
available to Parliament?
Answer:-
"Yes. I understand that it is being edited by the Commonwealth
Department of Primary Industry for publication purposes. I will let
the Honourable Member have a copy as soon as it is
available."
ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES FOR PRAWNING INDUSTRY AT NORTHERN
PORTS
Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-
( 1 ) In relation to the Fisheries Develop ment Conference at
Canberra in February, 1967, was it recommended that develop mental
plans for fisheries should make full use of prawn resources by
establishing facilities at local northern ports?
(2) Has any fund for prawn resources research and development of
facilities been established? If so, has an approach been made to
the Commonwealth Government for matching grants? If not, why
not?
(3) Is it the Government's intention to accept conference
recommendations to par ticipate in actual developmental projects
with 50 per cent. interest by Government and by joint industry
enterprises?
Answers:-
( 1) "It is my understanding that the conference recommended that
the plan should make full use of facilities at local ports,
especially of those established to facilitate the exploitation of
mineral resources."
(2 and 3) "My Government participated in partnership with
C.S.I.R.O. in substantial research into the prawn resources of the
Gulf of Carpentaria. Again in partnership with C.S.I.R.O. it is
participating in a full scale prawn research programme at Scar
borough. In both projects costs have been shared by the State and
Commonwealth Governments without industry contribution.
Consideration has been given to ways and means of financing prawn
resources
1946 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Wheat Industry, &c., Bill
research and other work of significance to fisheries. It would
appear that the most appropriate method of industry contribu tion
would be through the licensing of prawn processing establishments
with an appropriate licence fee preferably based on throughput. The
Government has experienced a number of constitutional difficulties
in trying to implement such a scheme. All processing plants being
estab lished are conducted for the export trade and the
Commonwealth Government has copious Regulations governing licensing
of these plants for that purpose. I am advised that the State's
legislative powers are extremely doubtful in this field. The
question resolves itself down to the legal issue whether the
Commonwealth Regula tions 'cover the field'. The Regulations are
so copious that there seems to be little doubt in the minds of our
legal advisers that they do cover the field and, if this be so, the
State has no constitutional power to legislate. For some months now
I have been endeavouring to get this matter resolved and I had
suggested to the Com monwealth Fisheries Minister that our legal
advisers should confer in this matter in an endeavour to find a
solution. I believe that there is one sure approach to the problem
and that is for the Common wealth Government to vacate some of the
field under its own export Regulations and make it very clear that
the State has legislative power. I am still awaiting advice from
the Commonwealth Government. I can see no other ready means of
obtaining a fair industry contribution other than by this approach
and until the difficulty is resolved with Commonwealth
co-operation, I can get no further in the matter. How ever, I want
to emphasise that the prawn research work at Scarborough is
pressing ahead with total costs being met by the two
Governments."
ADMINISTRATION OF NEW HARBOUR AT HAY POINT
Mr. Davies for Mr. Graham, pursuant to notice, asked The
Premier,-
( I) Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the Chairman,
Mackay Harbour Board, in The Daily Mercury of November 23 that he
had no doubt that his board would administer the port at Hay
Point?
(2) Why is his Answer to my Question on November 27 at variance
with the chairman's statement?
Answers: (!) "No."
(2) "I take it that the Board Chairman was expressing the hopes of
the Mackay Harbour Board in the matter."
PAPER
FORM OF QUESTION
Mr. BENNETT (South Brisbane) having given notice of a
question-
Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question is out of order. It is
hypothetical.
Mr. BENNETT: It is a fair question. I want an answer to it.
Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question is out of order.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. NEWBERY (Mirani) (11.27 a.m.), by leave: During the Supply
debate on 24 October I made the following statement, which appears
at page 948 of "Hansard"-
"I won the council election in Sarina last year against my
opponent, who was an A.L.P. man."
During the past week I have been assured by the gentleman in
question that he is not an A.L.P. man, and I am now saying that I
accept his denial.
TRUSTEE COMPANIES BILL
INITIATION
Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and
Electricity): I move-
"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to
consolidate the law relating to trustee companies and for purposes
connected therewith."
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Primary Industries): I
move-
"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill relating to
the marketing of wheat and the stabilisation of the wheat
industry."
Motion agreed to.
HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL
Hon. S. D. TOOTH (Ashgrove-Minister for Health): I move-
"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the
Health Acts 1937 to 1968 in a certain particular." Motion agreed
to.
MINING BILL
(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the
chair)
Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and
Electricity) (11.29 a.m.) : I move-
"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the encouragement and
regulation of mining within the State of Queensland."
The present Mining Acts are the Mining Acts 1898 to 1967. Since
1898 no attempt has been made to rewrite the Acts, but necessary
alterations have been made by way of amendments. There have been
many amendments since 1932, when the Act was last consolidated, and
at present a person buying a copy of the Act receives almost as
~any pages of amendments as there are pages m the actual Act. This
situation did not appear to me to be right, and I considered an
early consolidation.
Many of the provisions in the Act are based on a gold-mining
philosophy and do not accord with present-day mineral economy which
is almost totally dependent on bas~ metals. I believe that the old
gold-rush days when people travelled for miles to win gold from
easily worked alluvial deposits, are gone. Perhaps some day we may
see some other gold rushes-I hope so but I feel that it is
unlikely. The deep lode gold mines which followed the rushes have
also gone. At present in Queensland most of our gold comes from Mt.
Morgan ~here it . is virtually a by-product. Coppe; 1s the pnmary
mineral, and the mine is an open-cut mine. There is only one other
major gold producer, namely, the Golden Plateau mine at Cracow,
which is a deep lode mine.
Apart from the present Act's relation ship to gold-mining, in some
ways its pro visions relate to the pick-and-shovel days and the
modes of mining and transport in those days. Amendments to cover
all mat ters requiring attention were possible, but I considered
that the most sensible approach to the problem was to repeal the
previous Acts and substitute a new Act in their place. The Bill has
been prepared on those lines. I believe it will provide an Act that
will 'cater adequately for present methods of mining and will
provide for more efficient mining procedures in the future.
The main provisions in the Bill are that gold will be placed on the
same level as all other minerals, and, instead of having ,five
separate titles, namely, mineral leases, special mineral leases,
gold mining leases, special gold mining leases and dredging leases,
there will be one lease-a mining lease. The maximum area will be
320 acres, but if the Governor in Council considers that a larger
area should' be granted, a lease of any area can be granted. This
is similar to the present provisions relative to special mineral
leases and special gold mining leases.
Labour conditions and/or expenditure pro visions are based on the
method of mining. In reef-mining mines, values exist to great
depths and many men are employed within a small surface area. When
the mineral is being obtained by dredging, the values exist only to
shallow depths and large surface areas are required with a small
number of men employed per unit area of surface. Consequently, in
deep mining, one man will be required by the Act for each 10 acres,
and, in dredging, three men plus machinery to the value of $6,000,
will be required per 100 acres.
In all cases provision is made for expendi ture in lieu of men. As
will be realised, most mining today is mechanised and one machine
does the work of many men. It would be wrong to force people to
employ men who cannot be gainfully and economic ally
employed.
At present, leases have to be contiguous for the labour or
expenditure provisions to be amalgamated. Present-day methods are
to erect large, efficient plants, costing thous ands or millions
of dollars in a central position, and to bring the ore: to tJ:e
plant. To justify the capital expenditure mvolved, large reserves
of ore are required. In many cases the ore is obtained from a
number of leases widely separated. All the leases form part of one
mining complex and it is considered that the total labour and/ or
expenditure provisions should apply to. t~e leases as if they were
one lease, not mdt vidual leases. Provision is made in the Bill to
cover this.
In certain cases the total number of men required and expenditure
to be incurred would be more than required to work the leases in an
efficient manner. In such cases the total labour and expenditure
pro visio~s can be reduced.
As at present, the term of a mining lease under normal
circumstances will be 21 years, with the right of renewal for
further terms, if the holder complies with the conditions of the
lease. However, provision has been made for the granting of leases
for fixed terms. These will be granted when the land is required
for other purposes at a later date. Even though a lease may have
the automatic right of renewal, when the term is renewed, if the
land is required for the development of the State, the lease or
part of it can be made a fixed-term lease.
1948 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill
Previously there was some doubt about whether the department could
grant leases or other titles over tailings dumps, as it was
considered in some quarters that they should be dealt with as
improvements and sold by auction. This position has been clarified,
and, if the dumps are not removed within a time permitted by the
Minister, they vest in the Crown and titles can be granted over
them.
Adequate provisions have been made in the covenants to be contained
in leases to provide for rehabilitation of mined areas. The con
ditions that can be imposed are not restricted in any way, and can
be tailored to meet the conditions applicable in individual
cases.
Provision is made for the issue of a mining lease immediately it
has been recommended by the warden and any special conditions have
been formulated, even though the area is not surveyed or the
boundaries definitely defined. The document will be endorsed to
that effect. Owing to the location of many tenements and delays in
surveys at present, no document may be issued for many years. This
proposal will give the lessee a document showing that he has a
right and title to an area which he can produce to intending
financiers or other interested parties. Upon survey, the
description in the document will be amended, if necessary.
Licences for the construction of pipelines and conveyor apparatus
over land not held by the lessee of the mine are instituted. Modern
practice is to transport ore or minerals by pipeline, where
practicable, and I can envisage pipelines being used to transport
some of our recently discovered minerals from the mines to
treatment plants or har bours.
Under the proposed Act the State will be divided into mining
districts, with a warden for each district. Instead of people
having to go to the nearest warden, which meant the nearest as the
crow flies, the divisions will be based on the most convenient
warden, having regard to modern methods of transport and the normal
business centre for each district.
The sludge-abatement provisions have been revised and, although not
changed to any great extent, they have been set out more clearly.
They are considered to provide sufficient powers to condition
leases ade quately and prevent pollution.
Protection of the sea from pollution is included in this revised
part.
The prov!Sions relating to wardens, wardens' courts, and appeals
from such courts have been brought into line with present-day legal
practices and procedures, and should satisfy complaints by legal
men about some of the Act's archaic provisions.
Many of the sections of the Aot were inserted in recent times, and
no major altera tions to these were considered necessary. However,
all sections have been carefully re-examined and they, with the new
sections,
have been incorporated in a Bill that I con sider is simple and
concise. As I have said before, I consider that this new Mining Act
should cater for present and future mining, and I commend the Bill
to the Committee.
Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (11.38 a.m.): The Minister told the
Committee that there are just about as many amendments in the Bill
as there are pages in the Mining Act. I remind the Committee that
today is Friday, 29 November, and that Parliament will be sitting
for possibly next week and the week after that. The Mining Act is a
book of considerable size, and the Bill now introduced means that
the Act is to be completely rewritten. As I understood the
Minister, some very vital parts of the legislation are to be
amended.
The Opposition's committee that will have to examine the Act piece
by piece has approximately a week or 10 days to carry out that
task, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I enter a strong protest
against the cavalier way in which the Government introduces Bills
of this type in the dying stages of the session. That is completely
and utterly wrong. It is all very well for Government back
benchers to interject. I will guarantee that the great majority of
them will never look through the Bill; they are not forced to do
so. However, the role of the Opposition is to go through the
legislation word by word and page by page to see exactly what is
being done. We will do that as best we can, but we most certainly
have not been given time to do it properly when one takes into
consideration what is left on the Business Paper and what will come
forward during the next week for Opposition committees to
consider.
On behalf of the Opposition, I protest against the introduction of
such an important measure almost at the beginning of December when
this Parliament i.s in its dying stages and when it probably will
not meet again till August, 1969. Time and time again measures of
vital importance are introduced at this stage of a parliamentary
session, and it is obvious that the Minister intends next Tuesday
to bring down a Bill relating to the Goonyella-Hay Point project,
which the Opposition's mining committee will have to study in great
detail. When a Bill to provide for the encouragement and regulation
of mining in Queensland, which contains many hundreds of pages and
hun. dreds of amendments, is brought down at this late stage and
other amending Bills have yet to be introduced, I think it is very
unfair to the Opposition and very wrong.
I am well aware that there has been an alteration in the methods of
mining in Queensland. Every hon. member is con scious of the fact
that gold-mining has been phased out, and it is probable that, as a
result, many sections of the Act have become redundant. Recently
hon. members discussed a Bill to establish a Law Reform Commission
in this State to consider the statutes and to
Mining Bill [29 NOVEMBER) Mining Bill 1949
recommend the removal of what might be described as dead wood or
redundant sections. I agree with the Minister that something
similar has happened under the Mining Act and that there could well
be a need to remove from it sections that have become
redundant.
Much of the alluvial gold has been taken from this State and,
certainly, mining of that type is no longer carried on in Queens
land. In fact, gold is now only a by-product of other mining
activities. It has been said that the State has moved from the
pick-and-shovel era to an era of high mech anisation in the mining
industry. I agree that it has. Anyone who has been to the open-cut
mines at Moura and other places knows how the great draglines win
minerals at the rate of hundreds of tons an hour. That was never
envisaged years ago. There has been a similar increase in
production at Mt. Morgan and other places. In many instances the
days of the pick and shovel have gone for ever, and there is a need
to repeal certain sections of the Act as a result.
It is not only at open-cut mines that mechanisation has been
introduced. I was at Collinsville some months ago, as were some of
my colleagues, and I saw the mechanisa tion that has taken place
in that mine. Only a very small number of men are needed on each
shift to operate machinery that can rip tons of coal from the coal
face every minute and transport it through the machine and along
belts to the surface.
The Minister touched briefly on the question of redundancy. The
Opposition is very much aware of this and has brought to the notice
of the Minister and the Gov ernment on every possible occasion the
point that, because of increased mechanisation of mines, many men
who previously earned their living in this field have become
redundant and have been forced onto the labour market. At times,
the Miners' Union has made protests on behalf of those men-and
rightly so.
I believe that there is an obligation on the Government to see that
men who have been made redundant by increased mechanisation in
mines are looked after and retrained, and then put into some other
class of work that will enable them to receive as near to their
previous earnings in mining as is possible.
This question of redundancy has been prominent over the last couple
of years because of increased mechanisation. We are very conscious
of it, and we ask that the Government continue to watch the
position and to plan ahead so that those who have been pushed out
of industry in one place may be readily absorbed in another. We do
not want these men to be left out of work and become completely
redundant.
It is not my intention this morning to go into all the details
mentioned by the Minister. I believe it will require a good deal of
time to go into all these matters in detail before we can speak on
them with any authority. The Minister has mentioned that
the five separate titles previously associated with gold-mining
will now become one, and that it will now be called a "mining
lease." I do not see that the Opposition will have any argument
with that proposal. There is also to be a maximum area of 320 acres
over which a mining lease will apply, except that in certain
circumstances the Governor in Council can extend it. I can well see
that this could be necessary on occasions, but, generally speaking,
we could not have any argument with that because we know many of
the conditions that apply today.
The Minister said that the duration of a mining lease will be 21
years, but provision has been made for the granting of leases for
certain fixed terms when the land is required for State
development. That makes sense to me, and I believe it will to the
Opposition generally. Where there could be a need for development,
it would be quite silly to issue leases that would continue for a
long period of years when it is known when the lease is granted
that the development is to take place within a certain time. It is
very obvious that there will be need for this fixed term on
occasions.
One of the points that particularly struck me this morning, while
the Minister was speaking-it sounded to me to be an amend· ment-was
the provision to allow for the rehabilitation of mined areas. I
think this is a very necessary amendment-if in fact it is an
amendment. Many of us have been in areas that have been mined. I
believe that many hon. members have been to Moura, and most of us
have been struck by the way the overburden has been turned over and
piled into high mounds, sometimes as high as 40 to 50 feet, leaving
huge stones projecting from the ground for hundreds of yards and
sometimes almost as far as the eye can see. The land has been
churned up and the whole scene rather gives one the impression of
standing on the surface of the moon.
I have also been in northern areas where tin dredges have operated
and the land left behind them as they have moved forward is in a
similar state-country with very sharp rocks, on which it is quite
obvious that, at this stage anyhow, no grass o.r tree will grow. It
is barren, chopped-up country, and is certainly an eyesore.
When one sees these things as the result of mining one feels
impelled to ask, "Is this to be left here for all time? Is this the
kind of heritage that will be left as the result of our activities
in mining?" Many people believe, as I do, that it would be a
tragedy to leave areas that have been mined in a devastated state,
and so I am very pleased that the Minister has included in this
measure power to the Government to demand mining operators to
rehabilitate areas in which they have carried out their
operations.
It is essential that these areas should be restored to something
approaching their natural state. Of course, it would not be
possible to carry out a complete restoration scheme, because a
great number of trees and
1950 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill
much foliage would have disappeared during the mining operations.
Of course, it is neces sary to mine our mineral resources, but I
believe that each one of us has an obliga tion to see that mining
areas are restored to something like their natural state so that
trees and foliage can again grow on them and topsoil can once again
form. In a num ber of the mining areas that I have visited it is
not possible for anybody to move over the land, and it is much less
possible for trees and foliage to grow on it.
I have visited a number of areas in which sand-mining operations
are conducted, and I know that the sand-mining companies have
planted trees and foliage in an endeavour to restore those areas of
land, and they should be commended for doing that. But I know that
in areas of open cuts and tin-mining the mine operators have done
nothing to restore the land to its former state. I ask the Minister
to direct his attention .to those areas and ensure that they are
not left to give the appearance of some churned-up porridge, and
that they are good for nothing.
The Minister referred to mining districts and said that a warden
would be appointed in each mining district and stationed close to
transport. I think that is a good scheme. Once everybody is aware
of a warden's whereabouts in a particular district, only good could
come from his appointment. I have no real argument with this
provision, unless it contains something that has escaped my
attention.
I turn now to the matter of pollution. I believe that the Minister
has received many protests about the pollution that occurs in a
great number of our streams from the opera tions of mining
companies. This problem is one that must worry all thinking Queens
landers. I believe that many measures have been .taken to prevent
pollution of our streams. However, recently I observed that the
Herbert River was polluted right from its source and down to the
sea. When rivers and streams become polluted from the activities of
mining companies all life in and adjacent to them is placed' in
jeopardy. I welcome any attempt by the Minister to prevent
pollution not only in our rivers but also in the sea. On many
occasions large areas of polluted water can be seen in the sea
adjacent to river mouths. Members of the Opposition will not oppose
any measure that is designed to protect our streams and rivers from
pollution.
I think that I have covered the most per tinent points that the
Minister has raised, but I wish to emphasise the fact that mem
bers of the Opposition are very annoyed that this vital measure has
been introduced at this very late stage of the session. Our
committee will certainly have to spend many hours studying the
contents of the Bill so I register a protest on that committee's
behalf, and on behalf of all members of the Opposi tion, about the
delay in presenting this vital measure.
Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (11.55 a.m.): I join with the Deputy
Leader of the Opposition in voicing the Opposition's resent ment
at the somewhat late appearance of this Bill. I do so, because in
the years that I have been in this Chamber we have quite frequently
drawn attention to the undesira bility of introducing important
legislation in the dying stages of a parliamentary session. While
the introduction of legislation must, for various reasons, be
delayed from time to time. I believe that the introduction of this
measure at this late stage is inexcusable.
When His Excellency the Governor opened Parliament in August of
this year, he detailed the legislative pro gramme of the
Government for this session and specifically mentioned that a Bill
would be introduced to consolidate the Mining Act. Although he
forecast that on the opening day of Parliament as part of the
Government's legislative programme, the Opposition has had to
twiddle its thumbs all this time, knowing that a Bill would be
intro duced. This morning, as the Deputy Leader has pointed out,
this very important measure has been introduced in the dying stages
of the session. This is inexcusable. Knowing that the Governor
announced that this Bill would be part of the legislative
programme, I can see no reason why it could not have been
introduced earlier to give the Opposition an opportunity to study
it in detail.
The Opposition's task is made so much more difficult because the
Mining Act-a copy of which I have here-to say the least, contains a
hotchpotch of amendments. Many weeks of research would be entailed
by a competent person in piecing the Act together so that it could
be understood. The Opposi tion, with inadequate secretarial
assistance, has to examine all Bills introduced into the Chamber,
and it will be denied an oppor tunity to make a thorough study of
what is contemplated in this legislation. The Opposi tion has a
very responsible role to play, but how can it deal with the
consolidation of this Act unless it can carry out an adequate
study?
Mr. Carum: How many pages are there to study in the existing
Act?
Mr. SHERRINGTON: There are some thing like 500 pages in it.
Mr. Camm: In the Mining Act?
Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am referring to the Mining Acts.
Mr. Camm: You said there were 500 pages.
Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am talking about the Mining Acts.
Mr. Carum: You said there were 500 pages in the Mining Act.
Mr. SHERRINGTON: The Minister should not be petty and stupid. On
the spur of the moment he asked me to indicate how many pages there
are in the Act. He is being infantile in his approach.
However,
Mining Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1951
that does not worry me greatly. Like the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition, I believe that we have a responsible part to play in
this matter and, because of this, I reinforce his argument in this
regard.
In detailing his submissions, the Minister indicated that the Act
dates back to 1898 and is couched more or less in the terms used in
the days of pick-and-shovel mining. The Opposition could not agree
more that the time is long overdue when this Act should be brought
up to date and a modern approach adopted to mining in this
State.
The Minister said that gold is not now on the same level of
importance as other minerals, and that there will be only one
lease, known as a mining lease, the area of which will be 320
acres. On a superficial examination of that proposal, the
Opposition has no real quarrel with it. Today there are many small,
individual miners making a living out of mining, so it is vitally
important that consideration be given to ensuring that these
persons are not completely excluded from those areas in which
profitable mining might be undertaken.
I know from my colleague the hon. member for Barcoo that only
recently, an application, based on a fairly large area of land, was
made for a mining lease in the mineral fields in the Anakie
district. This area has become attractive to tourists and small
professional miners, and there is a great future in encouraging
tourism in this area. Many people on touring holidays take out a
miner's right to do a little scratching there. They usually come
home with blistered hands and sore backs, and little reward for
their efforts apart from having enjoyed a thoroughly pleasant and
different type of holiday. The hon. member for Barcoo made several
representations in this matter, and J understand that areas have
been set aside specifically for this purpose. Because there is an
interest in different forms of tourism, this was an essential and
necessary step.
Mr. Hanson: This is the only such area in the world that tourists
can go onto.
Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is so. Mr. Hanson: You have to pay to
go
onto the sapphire fields in New South Wales.
Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is so. It would have been a tragedy for
the
tourist industry if an application to exclude tourists from going
onto this area had been granted. It is vitally important that the
livelihood and the future of the small miner-and there are many of
them operating in the northern area, including the Atherton
Tableland-be considered in the granting of mineral leases.
In referring to the proposed consolidation of the Act, the Minister
mentioned the part that dredging has played in mining. This applies
particularly to the mining of mineral sands and tin-mining, and
many years ago I know that the floating-dredge principle
was first used in North Queensland on the Atherton Tableland. With
the modernisa tion of plant and mining methods, it has become
vitally necessary to bring our think ing into line with present
mining conditions. That is one thing that I am sure the Opposi
tion will scrutinise closely when we receive the Bill.
I understood the Minister to say that it is proposed to establish
five mining districts in the State, with a mining warden in charge
of each, and applications will be made to the warden who is the
closest having regard to normal methods of transport and what is
the normal business centre for each district. If there is one
aspect of the administration of mining under the Mining Act with
which I quarrel it is the way in which applica tions are made to,
and heard in, mining wardens' courts. There are several things in
the present set-up with whioh I dis agree. One that I feel is most
pertinent is the placing on the public of the onus to protest when
it is felt that mining could destroy natural features that should
be preserved in the interests of the people. Briefly, at present if
an application for a mining lease is to be made to a warden's court
it must be advertised in the Press, and the responsibility is then
thrust upon the people or organisations involved to lodge
objections.
Without going deeply into the problem of ensuring the wisest
possible use of land, I do not think that most of this
responsibility should be thrown onto the public. When an
application was made to mine Bllison Reef, it was through the
efforts of John Busst and Eddie Hegerl, from the university, that
the mining warden decided that the wisest thing to do was to refuse
the application.
The plain truth of the matter is that some times the required
notifications appear in obscure newspapers, and they can be
inserted at inappropriate times of the year, such as during the
Christmas holidays, when most people would be away and would not
see them. I therefore do not think that, in the public interest,
such a method is desirable. Certain recommendations have now been
made, and the Leader of the Opposition will deal with them at a
later stage.
Mounting public interest in these matters was shown when an
application was lodged for a mining lease on Moreton Island. In the
main, public bodies and public-spirited individuals carried the
banner in opposition to what they thought was an undesirable lease.
In my opinion, this is a very fertile area in which thought could
be given to devising a correct approach to land usage.
People who have taken an interest in and lodged objections to
mining developments such as the one proposed on Ellison Reef have
become aware of a lack of sketch maps of the areas proposed to be
developed. I have received many complaints that, when applications
for leases are made to wardens' courts, it is very difficult to
obtain from the
1952 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill
warden copies of sketch maps of the area that is the subject of the
application. If the responsibility is to be thrown on the public to
lodge objections to applications for mining leases, I believe that
every facility should be afforded to enable them to present the
best possible case.
While I am dealing with the subject of applications for mining
leases, I mention that I am at a loss to understand why the Gov
ernment should set up an interdepartmental committee to consider
the granting of mining leases on Moreton Island. Some time ago the
Minister for Labour and Tourism made a very profound statement
about the future of Moreton Island. An article that appeared in
"The Courier-Mail" of 17 August, 1968, said-
"The Tourist Minister (Mr. Herbert) said last night the State
Government would not allow Brisbane's 'unspoiled paradise' Moreton
Island-to be used for 'get rich quick schemes'.
'We might leave it as it is ... when I think of some of the
developments we have allowed I am sorry we permitted them; now we
are conservation-conscious', Mr. Herbert said."
Later, the article said- "The island is subject to a sand
mining
lease and major activities in this regard are planned by Associated
Minerals Con solidated Limited, which plans to bring massive
equipment from South Stradbroke Island where it is now
operating."
The Minister for Labour and Tourism mentioned also that the
Government had set up a committee to consider the question of the
protection of Moreton Island. As a matter of fact, in "The
Courier-Mail" of 7 August, 1968, this report appeared-
"An official expert committee will soon make recommendations to the
State Gov ernment on its ideas for the future develop ment of
Moreton Island."
lt mentioned the various members of the Committee, who, speaking
generally, re presented forestry, mines, tourist services and so
on. '
I do not know whether the Government has received the report of
that committee. If a report has been prepared, it certainly has not
been made available, to my know ledge, to members of the
Opposition. How ever, I am completely at a loss to understand why,
having adopted the approach that it was desirable that the whole
question of the development of Moreton Island be looked at in a
very serious light to ascertain, first of all, whether it was
desirable that it be left untouched, used as a tourist area or
possibly developed for water or for~stry purposes, the Government
should agree to the granting of an application for a mining lease
in the area.
I understand from the report in "The Courier-Mail" that the hearing
took place last Thursday and it was recommended that
the application of a sand-mining company to mine 2,950 acres on
Moreton Island be granted. The article states that one of the
recommendations was that the applica tion be referred to the
interdepartmental com mittee and also to the Beach Protection
Authority. I am at a loss to understand why this application should
have been pro ceeded with before the Government had made a final
decision on the future of Moreton Island.
I am inclined to go along with the idea of having such a
magnificent island, so close to the capital city, developed as a
tourist resort, and I think the future use of Moreton Island must
be given v,ery careful considera tion. If, after serious study, it
is decided that the best use for it is as a tourist resort, this
would be a sensible approach to land usage. However, I am at a loss
to understand why an application for a min ing lease should have
been proceeded with before the Government had made a firm decision
following the report of the expert committee that was appointed to
inquire into and report on the future use of Moreton Island. I
seriously question whether the granting of this lease should be
approved before we are aware of the recommenda tion of the
committee.
Unfortunately, on a very interesting sub ject such as this the
time allotted for spea~ ing is altogether too short. However, m
his remarks on the consolidation of the Act the Minister said that
pollution of streams and beaches will be taken care of. I think
every one of us would agree that there is little room to quanel
with such a proposal.
It is regrettable that from time to time, as a result of mining and
other industrial activities, we see such things as we did last
week, when large numbers of fish in the Brisbane River were
destroyed as a result of pollution. In the mining of minerals and
beach sands, it is up to all of us to see that in these mining
processes we do not destroy the ecological significances of the
surrounding areas. I believe that Opposition members will be having
a very close look at this part of the Bill to satisfy ourselves
that it provides adequate safeguards against pollution as a result
of mining operations.
Mr. SMITH (Windsor) (12.20 p.m.): It is only 12 months since
certain headlines appeared in the local Press. In "The
Courier-Mail" of 20 November 1967 the fol lowing headline
appeared:-
"Simplify Law for People-M.L.A." Under that headline appeared a
report of a request of mine for the establishment of a law reform
commission.
On the following day the leader in "The Courier-Mail" read-
"Review of laws is needed here. The proposal by Mr. P. R. Smith,
M.L.~. ~or Windsor, that a law reform commissiOn
Mining Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1953
be set up in Queensland to review the State's laws should be
adopted by the State Government."
Then two days later a Press statement by the then Acting Premier
said that, following my statement, he had undertaken to set aside
the necessary money for the establishment of that commission.
That reform was necessary in November of last yea~, and in November
of this year we are advised of the consolidation of some of the
mining Acts.
From a review of Volume 12 of the St.atutes, which has recently
been printed, it Will be seen that some consolidation of the Mining
Acts has already occurred; however, I feel that there has not been
as complete a consolidation as might have been desirable or that
there has not been a complete realignment of legislative enactment.
Remem ber that the measure before the Committee at the moment is
to introduce a Bill to provide for the encouragement and regulation
of mining within the State of Queensland. If we look at the index
to Volume 12 of the Statutes, we will realise that we should look
at the provisions in our law that relate to mining. The index to
Volume 12 extends from page 3 31 to page 346, whereas the index to
Volume 13, which has not yet been printed, extends from page 347 to
page 359, which is a total of 28 pages devoted to index
alone.
. l_\'lr. Davies: Don't you think that this pro VISion should have
been introduced earlier in the session?
Mr. SMITH: I do not mind when it is introduced, so long as we have
plenty of time to consider it. I would not be con cerned if !t was
introduced on the last day of the sessiOn. I can recall an occasion
when the Companies Act was being amended. At one stage we were
provided with a first-read ing copy with an explanatory note
attached to it, and I think the Bill lay on the table of the House
for months. If I remember rightly, we re-enacted it when we came
back as another Parliament.
Mr. Tucker: You know that there will not he a session next
year.
Mr. SMITH: Of course there will be a ses sion next year.
Mr. Tucker: I mean in the early part of the year.
Mr. SMITH: I sympathise with the hon. member for Townsville North
if he feels that he will be defeated-! believe that he will be-but
some of us will be re-elected. so we will be meeting, all
right.
Mr. Tucker: If I am defeated, I am; but surely that is not
pertinent to this measure.
Mr. SMITH: What is pertinent is that there is a considerable mass
of legislation relative to mining, and that legislation requires
reviewing.
62
In his introductory remarks, the Minister pointed out that this is
to be a consolidation. But when I look at the Business Paper I am
concerned to see that immediately following this notice there
appears one to amend the Mines Regulation Act of 1964. It is my
keenness to have consolidation and review that prompted me to speak
this morning. It is implicit in the statements that I made last
year, which led to the establishment of a Law Reform Commission,
that we endeavour to make our laws easily ascer tainable. The
"Regulation of mining" that is referred to in Order of the Day No.
1 appears also in Order No. 2. I take it that a Bill designed to
provide for the encourage ment and regulation of mining within
this State must cover some of the fields covered by the Mines
Regulation Act of 1964, because that Act, in its preamble, is
stated to be an Act designed to provide for the regular inspection
of mines and the safety and health of' persons employed
therein.
I hope that any Act dealing with the encouragement and regulation
of mining within the State of Queensland will cover these topics. I
hope that the Mining Act, as far as possible, will cover all
aspects of mining and will provide, shall I say, the skeleton of
the legislative structure for min ing in this State. Admittedly,
agreements like the Alcan or Comalco agreements require particular
Acts, because they are Acts brought down to ratify agreements
entered into. No-one could write those into the prin cipal Act.
One has only to look at the old Mining Act of 1924-I think that was
when it started in its present form-to see that it has grown like
Topsy. It is particularlv difficult to find out anything about a
particu lar mining topic because the definitions hl'vo been
amended and amended. The Mining on Private Land Act, in my
submission, is again only one part of mining. I do not see any need
to continue it as a separate Act. Yet, on examining the index in
Volume 12 I find reprints of Acts like this: the Drainage of Mines
Act of 1912 (to be read with the Min ing Act). The Mining Act was
amended in 1967, and I should have thought that if we have to read
an Act of 1912 with the Mining Act, which was amended in 1967, we
would have taken advantage of that opportunity to put the Drainage
of Mines Act into the head Act.
Mr. Davies: Are you on the Government's mining committee?
Mr. SMITH: No.
Mr. Bennett: Incidentally, the original Mining Act was the Act of
1898.
Mr. SMITH: I am talking about the Min ing Act that we are using at
the moment.
Then, I see the Mines Regulation Act of 1964 and the Mining Act of
1898 to 1967. I feel that they could be put into the one Act
without any difficulty. We also have the Coal Mining Acts of 1925
to 1964 and the Mining for Coal and Mineral Oil Acts of
1954 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill • 1912 to 1941. I assume
that the Coal Min- ing Act deals with coal because that word
appears in the title, but I should think that the Mining for Coal
and Mineral Oil Act also deals with coal. I fail to see why the two
measures could not be combined in one Act. I have already dealt
with mining on private land, which I consider to be simply an
adjunct to mining. Whether it is on private land, Crown land, or
under the sea, it is still mining in my book.
When we have an Act called "The Mining Act", it should tell us
about mining, about safety precautions to be taken in mines, and
about various permits and so on to be obtained. These regulatnry
matters are matters which I feel could well be contained in the
Mining Act.
This Bill provides for the encouragement and regulation of mining.
In those circum stances I am at a loss to understand why we should
subsequently consider a Bill to amend the Mines Regulation Act of
1964, because I would have hoped that the Act of 1964 would have
been sucked into the Act that we are considering.
I concede that we must look at mining from different aspects. Sand
mining and dredge mining are certainly different from pit mining.
We also have alluvial mining. Despite the fact that they are
different types of mining, despite the fact that they employ
different techniques and expertise, they are still parts of mining
operations. My plea a year ago, 10 years ago and 11 years ago was
to get our law simplified so that when anyone wanted to know the
law on a topic he would have to go to only one place for it.
Mr. Chinchen: What you are suggesting will probably be the
recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.
Mr. SMITH: I sincerely hope so because I believe that my
suggestions make sound common sense. I am concerned-! was con
cerned about this for years while I was agitating for law reform,
or a law review commission-in that we are going ahead with a
reprint of our statutes, making the law available to the people in
a garbled fashion, because we have all these unconsoli dated
piecemeal Acts, that are fairly hard to find at times.
If a person who is not skilled in law read the Mines Regulation
Act, he could be forgiven for thinking that it covered the field of
regulations for mining. But he would be mistaken. When we consoli
date 2m Act we should not do it in a piecemeal fashion or part by
part, but should set about it so that the legislation when
introduced is comprehensive. I do not see how we can possibly have
that in mind with what is on the Business Paper. We should be
aiming at that goal.
I sincerely hope that this Bill will be considered for some time.
We need time because the effect mining leases have on people and
their property is considerable.
I am in sympathy with a good deal of what the hon. member for
Salisbury said about some of these applications. He was quite
right. Anybody who has had much experience in the mining field
realises this. I have had a fair amount to do with mining in years
gone by, particularly with mining on private land.
Surely safety measures should be contained in the Mining Act. We
have the safety measures for coal mines in one Act and those for
other mines in other Acts. Safety regulations should apply to the
spudding-in of wells because even in surface work certain shoring
work has to be done, and dif ferent forms of trenching have to be
rein forced. It should be possible, without any difficulty at all,
to draw up one Act for mining.
Mr. Bennett: Can you suggest any reason why they are not doing
that?
Mr. SMITH: No, I can't. Because it has been my continual plea for
11 years to have some sort of review of these mat ters, I am
concerned that we have not entered into such a review in the way we
should have. We have gone ahead with this consolidation of our
statutes in such a way that we have produced an inelegant result,
and apparently we will perpetuate that by bringing down this sort
of legislation and then, in the next breath, amending what I
consider should be in this Bill.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why Vvc cannot
incorporate, in the Mining Act, the Mines Regulation Act, the
provisions relating to miners' homesteads and the provisions
relating to coal-mining and petroleum-mining. I do not for one
moment suggest that we can necessarily cope with off-shore mining
in this Act, although that is only because certain sections of our
law are unsettled at this stage. I am not at all sure~I do not
think the State is either -how far our jurisdiction extends in this
matter.
What we are certain of is that these provisions have stood for
years in many cases, and my request is that if this Bill is
approved, and no doubt it will be, it will be allowed to lie on the
table of the House so that people can examine it. It is a very
important matter and time should be given to everybody
concerned-not just the Government, but all parties and persons
interested and concerned in mining-to con sider the import of
these provisions so that they can make suggestions. We are now
moving into an era of review, and I hope, because the Law Reform
Commission Bill was read a third time yesterday, that we can look
for some substantial review of our higgledy piggledly laws.
Mr. Bennett: When do you think the commission will start?
Mr. SMITH: I do not know, but I hope that the procedure I suggest
can be a pre lude to it. I hope that we can do this
Mining Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1955
job thoroughly and then allow time for those p:.orties and persons
interested to look at it and make suggestions. Then, having the
benefit of those suggestions, we will be able to enact
comprehensive mining legislation similar to the Companies Act which
was passed years ago. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959 was, in
effect, a consolidation of the matrimonial legislation of all the
States, and it was left alive for suggestion. We can only gain by
taking this action; we cannot lose. We should never be too proud to
allow the people to make suggestions for the improvement of laws.
If we turn a deaf ear to suggestions for improve ments, we are not
legislating well. My ambi tion is to see that the laws that pass
through here are as good as they can be made, and that attitude
could well start with this Bill.
Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and
Electricity) (12.36 p.m.), in reply: I listened with great interest
to the submissions made by members on both sides of the Chamber. I
assure the hon. member for Salisbury that I was not being facetious
when I asked him how many pages were in the Mining Act. The tenor
of the remarks of the hon. member for Salis bury, and also the
hon. member for Towns ville North, suggested that they were con
fused as to which Act was being consolidated. The volumes that they
brandished contain not merely the Mining Act but all Acts
associated with mining. The Act that is in fact being consolidated
occupies 54 pages in this little book I have here, plus some
amendments that have been made over the years.
The claim has been made by hon. members opposite that they are not
being given sufficient time to study the Bill. To my knowledge, no
date has been fixed for the rising of the House.
Mr. Sherrington: Why couldn't you have introduced it earlier?
Mr. CAMM: To my knowledge, the House has been busy ever since it
assembled. The hon. member said, to quote his words, that the
Opposition has been sitting there twiddling !heir thumbs waiting
for this Bill. My opinion ts that at least some members on the
Opposi tion side have endeavoured to make intelli gent
contributions on other matters that have come before Parliament
since last August. I do not think that all members opposite have
merely been sitting there twiddling their thumbs.
Mr. Sherrington: We have not been on the Barrier Reef lying in the
sun.
Mr. CAMM: That is right. I go home to my electorate whenever the
people require me there in an official capacity.
The hon. member for Townsville North referred to the spoiling of
the landscape by open-cut mining. I, too, feel concerned when I see
how some land is left after
mining operations have been carried out, but that is associated
with mining wherever one goes. It is a fact that after dredging
opera· tions in the Herberton area some of the land has been
improved for grazing, because the run-offs from the little heaps
induce the growth of couch grass and other succulent grasses for
cattle. In some open-cut coal mine areas, it is true that for a
while the land looks most unattractive, but I observed when I was
overseas that after a number of years the heaps weather down, and,
when they are flattened somewhat by bulldozers, the land is brought
into production again, mainly for grazing and not for
agriculture.
The hon. member for Salisbury had some thing to say about the gem
fields at Anakie and Sapphire. He was not courteous enough to give
me any thanks _or expre.ss any appreciation of my action m declanng
thts area of 150 square miles open only to tourists and people
interested in collecting gems. I know that he has been very
critical of me in my capacity as Minister for Mines. He claims that
I am a great exploiter of Queens land· that I am selling the
Barrier Reef and 'everything else. I say to him that if he goes
back into the history of mu;mg in this State and the records of the
vanous Ministers that the State has had, he will find that no other
Minister for Mines ever did as much for conservation in Queensland
as I have done. I was instrumental in reserving 30 square miles of
the A.gate Creek fi~ld when it was being explmted. I remmd him that
it was an A.L.P. government which issued the only dredging leases
that have ever been issued in perpetuity. They were for the mining
of mineral sands on the Queensland Coast, and they cannot now be
repudiated. That has never b~en done by this Government. Not only
drd I support the rejection of the application for per mission to
mine Ellison Reef; I also refused an application for the mining of
what was reputedly a very rich body of copper ore on Pentecost
Island.
As Minister for Mines, I have a responsi bility to see that mining
is carried out in this State. If the hon. member for Salis bury
thinks that too much mining is being carried out under my
jurisdiction, I say to him that I think great credit is due to me
for encouraging companies to mine in Queensland. Do not let me hear
anyone accuse me of being the great exploiter, some one who is
prepared to sell Queensland's natural assets.
I know that there has been a great deal of controversy about the
damage that mining could cause to the Great Barrier Reef. No one
is more consciou3 than I am of the value of the Great Barrier Reef.
I have spent a lifetime in the area, and my electorate takes in
some of the best parts of the Great Bar rier Reef.
Mention was made of the use of coral for the production of lime. I
remind. hon. mei? bers opposite that the cement mdustry m
1956 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mines Regulation, &c., Bill
South Queensland is dependent upon the mining of coral in Moreton
Bay. One does not hear any objections from them to that mining. As
there is so much dead coral in Moreton Bay and the Great Barrier
Reef is so hu~e, is it not possible that tremendous depo·sits of
coral may have been washed up onto different banks and shoals? I
know that some exist on the outside of the islands.
Mr. Tucker: That was not the argument.
Mr. CAMM: I have never granted a lease that will in any way
jeopardise the Great Barrier Reef; to the contrary, I have done
everything in my power to ensure that the beauty of the reef will
not be damaged.
I did not indicate the number of mining districts that will be
formed. What I did say was that mining districts will be allotted
to wardens, taking into consideration the transport that is
available. At present, diffi culties occur in hearing applications
in w-ardens' districts, and those applications can be transferred
to another warden's court. Mining districts will be formed in
various r'lrts of the State, but I do not know what the number will
be.
The mining lease on Moreton Island will eventually come to me for
approval, but I point out to the Committee that no objections were
received from members of the special committee that was formed to
investigate the al-nlication and to consider the desirabilitv of
preserving any natural resources affected by it.
The hon. member for Windsor has much more legal knowledge than I
will ever have. However, speaking from a layman's point of view and
having the advice of my officers, I should say that it would be
very cumbersome to have one Mining Act covering all mining
activities in this State and there may be difficulties associated
with its compilation. Many different methods of mining are used in
Queensland-dredging, drilling for oil, open-cut, underground, coal,
and metallifer ous-and the Mining Act refers specifically to
metalliferous mining and is not associated with coal-mining or
drilling for oil. There are separate Acts covering those specific
mining operations.
I know that the hon. member for Windsor has made many worth-while
suggestions in this Chamber, and his submissions in this debate
will be taken into consideration.
Motion (Mr. Camm) agreed to.
Resolution reported.
FIRST READING
Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Camm, read a first time.
MINES REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL
INITIATION IN COMMITTEE
(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the
chair)
Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-_M_in ister for Mines, Main Roads and
Electricity) (12.46 p.m.): I move-
"That a Bill be introduced to ~mend t~e Mines Regulation Act of
1964 m certam particulars."
The Bill I am about to introduce _is to some degree complementa;y
to. the Bill I .h~ve just introduced dealmg w1th a new mmmg
Act.
Since the Mines Regulation Act deals wit!t the .yeaulation and
inspection of metalli ferous ~ines which obtair: t.itles _under
the .terms of the Mining Acts, It 1s desirable that the terms
"mine" and "mineral" be defined in similar terms in both
Acts.
Members will recollect . that prior . to the introduction of the
Mmes RegulatJ_on Act of 1964, there had been ex:ensive discussions
both with ind?stry and Wit~. the unions concerned regardmg the
prov1s10ns of such Act and regulations. The Act as then formulated
had taken due cognisance of the views then expressed to the
departme~t. It was also indicated at that stage that ~n ~ue course
there would be further exammatlon of the legislation. T~is is.
l!ecessary because of the rapid advance m mmmg technology.
It is anticipated that discussio~s wi!h industry and the unions
along these hues w1ll be held within the next year or so.
Generally speaking, d~ring the . four. years that the Act has been
m operatlc;m, 1t J:as been found to work reasonably sat1sfa~tonly.
However, the Act as existing deals. With .the regulation and
inspection of operatmg mmes and places which have be~n n:ined. I!
does not deal with mines :;ommg ll!to bemg or plants under
constructwn on mmes.
This limitation has caused problems, since it is desirable that
mines being devel?ped and plants being constructed should be
mspected and regulated by the Act.
After a careful study of the positio~, it _is proposed to amend the
Act so that 1t will provide, firstly, for m_ines being p~ospected
and developed, includmg plants b~mg con structed for mines;
secondly, m1nes and mining plants actually in operation; ~nd
finally, for the protection. of old mme workings and abandoned
mmes.
These aspects have been provided for by amendments to section 5 and
section ~4. of the existing Act. In section 5 the ex1stmg
definitions of "mine' and "mineral" h~~e been deleted and in their
stead the defimtwns .of "mine" and "mineral" used in the n~v:' Mm
ing Act are oroposed. Such defim~wn of "mine" includes, as hon.
members w1ll have noted, operations. with ~ view to, or for the
purpose of, winnmg n:merals and the place where such is occurnng.
To ensure that
Mines Regulation, &c., Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Agricultural,
&c., Bill 1957
parts of an operating mine which are tem porarily disused or
abandoned are included in the term "mine", words to this effect
have been added to the definition of "mine".
The matter of protection of the shafts and workings of abandoned
mines is covered by an amendment of section 54 which ensures that
regulations may be made dealing with such matter. Already there are
in existence two regulations, Nos. 45 and 46, which make ce;tain
provisions concerning the pro tection of abandoned shafts and
excavations--
Mr. Tucker: In what way?
Mr. CAMM: Under Regulations 45 and 46 the Mines Department has
power to require that these shafts be fenced and pro tected.
However, it is possible that upon careful examination further
regulations will be necessary.
As advised, this is a simple amending Bill to complement our new
Mining Act and to clarify the situation concerning develop ing
mines and mining plants under construc tion.
Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (12.51 p.m.): Obviously the Bill is a
small one, and members of the Opposition will not oppose its
introduction, unless, of course, it contains provisions that the
Minister has not yet spelt out.
The matter of protecting the public from the danger of abandoned
mine workings and shafts is of great importance. For a very long
time the residents of Charters Towers, in particular, have been
very worried about open shafts and abandoned workings in that area,
and it was only in the last few years that some of them were fenced
and pre cautions were taken to ensure that unwary people did not
fall into them. I am sure that members of the Opposition will not
oppose this measure; in fact, we welcome it.
As the Minister has said, the clause relative to the definition of
mines and minerals is complementary to the one contained in the
Bill that will provide for the encourage ment and regulation of
mining within the State of Queensland. I can see that it is
necessary to embody de.finitions of various mines and minerals in
the Bill because at present we are dealing, in the main, with
metalliferous mines.
As the Minister and I have said, the State is experiencing a rapid
advance in mining technology, and it is sometimes necessary to
introduce further regulati.ons to bring the mining Acts into line
with the advances that have been made in mining.
As I see the Bill, the points that I have raised are its most
pertinent ones. The Opposition will certainly allow the introduc
tion of this Bill.
Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and
Electricity) (12.54 p.m.), in reply: When members of the
Opposition have an opportunity of per~s~ng the Bill they will find
that the ex1stmg provisions of the Act will be extended to a mine
that is not yet in production but is really at the exploratory
stage. In addi tion, it covers a mine that has gone out of
production. The definition of "mine" win include those two
categories.
Motion (Mr. Camm) agreed to.
Resolution reported.
FIRST READING
Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Camm, read a first time.
[Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2.15 p.m.J
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTION CONTROL AGT
AMENDMENT BILL
SECOND READING
Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook~Minister for Primary Industries) (2.15
p.m.): I move-
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
I dealt with this measure in some detail when introducing the Bill.
Now that hon. members have had an opportunity to study it, I think
they will agree that there is little more that I need add. It was
apparent during the introductory debate that the pro posed
amendments have general support.
Although I dealt at the introductory stage with most of the matters
raised during that debate, there are still one or two points that I
should like to clear up and to reiterate. Quite a deal of stress
was laid on the need for the adequate qualification of operators,
both aerial and ground. I am in full agreement with this. These
people will all have to pass an examination. They will have manuals
available to study. The aerial operator's chemical rating manual is
already available, and the manual for ground spraying will soon be
ready. The examina tions will be based on these manuals, and they
will be designed to ensure that every applicant has a thorough
knowledge of the subject before he gets a licence. The avail
ability of these manuals in itself should contribute very markedly
to a better under standing of spraying problems.
There was one point raised by the hon. member for Landsborough on
which I might amplify my remarks in the earlier debate. This
concerns ground-spraying operations. What will actually constitute
one ground spraying operation for insurance cover pur poses has
not yet been fully worked out. Our present thinking is that it
should be related to the carrying out of a particular spraying
operation on one farm. If the operator moves to another farm, that
would be another operation. The finer details are being worked out
in consultation with the underwriters. Matters such as spraying
along roadways also have to be considered.
1958 Agricultural Chemicals [ASSEMBLY] Distribution Control,
&c., Bill
The hon. member for Tablelands raised the question of possible
indiscriminate use of chemicals by local authorities. I stress that
persons employed on this work by local authorities or Government
institutions will have to be licensed. This does not mean that
every person in every gang will need to be licensed. Provision is
made for the licence to be held by a person such as a foreman or
ganger immediately in charge of a gang. He need not necessarily be
the person carrying out the operation. A person will need to have
an insurance policy before he can be in charge of the opera tion.
The basic principle is that thel'e should be someone in charge who
has a thorough knowledge of the subject.
.The hon. member for Warwick, along w1th other hon. members, raised
the question of assessment of damage in terms of money. I repeat
that this will remain the function of the insurance companies and
the courts. It will not be taken over by my department. The
department's job is concerned only winh physical damage. We will
investigate com plaints, determine whether damage has occurred and
endeavour to ascertain the nature, cause and source of damage.
Factual reports will be provided, and any claim Will then be a
matter for negotiation between th.e pa_rties concerned. Any injured
party Will still have normal recourse to litiaation if he so
chooses. "'
Concern was expressed by a number of hon. members regarding the
value of insur ance and the cost of premiums. I have already
indicated that the terms of the insurance for aerial operators have
been developed in association with the underwriters and the
operators. There should be no problems in this regard. As to the
premiums, these were expected to cost somewhere in the vicinity of
$200 for the minimum policy of $30,000 for each aircraft. Inquiries
in the last few days suggest that at the very worst the figure
should not exceed $300. We do know that some aerial operators al
ready have chemical liability policies against accident for amounts
well in excess of the $30,000 specified in the Act.
Regarding policies and premiums for ground operators, this question
has been dis cussed with underwriters in Queensland and will be
the subject of further discussion in more detail in the near
future. Satis factory arrangements are expected to be made.
The hon. member for Warwick made the point that the whole question
of premiums in the future must depend on experience with regard to
the number and size of claims. This is certainly the case, as it is
in all forms of insurance. It is just not predictable at this
stage.
As I indicated at the time of the passing of the principal Act in
1966, the legislation is not expected to solve all the problems
associated with aerial and ground spraying, but it will facilitate
investigations into damage
and the resolution of differences between those suffering damage
and the spraying operators. It will also ensure that funds are
available to meet claims. The present amendments will assist in
getting the scheme into operation.
As I pointed out before, the Agricultural Chemicals Distribution
Control Board con sists of a number of very reliable and re
sponsible people. Its members are Mr. S. Marriott, Deputy Director
of the Division of Plant Industry, as chairman; Mr. Selwyn Everist,
Government Botanist; Mr. T. J. Beckmann, Chief Chemist, Mr. F. W.
Berrill, Chief Horticulturist; Mr. A. C. Peel, Director of
Agricultural Standards, who is the secretary; Mr. J. Mann, Director
of the Biological Research Laboratory of the Department of Lands;
Mr. D. Hunter, head of the Development Branch of the Lands
Department; Mr. T. Drury, of the Depart ment of Civil Aviation;
and Mr. J. Jones, of the Council of Agriculture. It will there
fore be seen that the board comprises quite a comprehensive array
of responsible people who, I am certain, will do a particularly
good job.
Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo) (2.23 p.m.): The amendment before the House
is rather interesting. Unfortunately, I was not here when the Bill
was introduced, but I do recall the interesting debate that took
place when this legislation was before Parliament in 1966. At that
stage I suppose it can be said that there were two approaches to
aerial and ground spraying. There was the approach of the man on
the land who sought to use spraying for his protection, and there
was the approach of those in a section of the community who felt
that there was a certain amount of risk in spraying, perhaps
greater in the case of aerial spraying than in the c :se of ground
operations about which complaints have been made from time to
time.
As the Minister said today, local authorities have become involved
in this matter. The Committee will have noted that the Minister
stressed that local authorities would carry out ground spraying
under the supervision of qualified officers. He went to a great
deal of trouble to point out that adequate provision is being made
for people to obtain qualifications in spraying, whether they be
aerial or ground operators.
Stress was laid on the manual and its availability and on the
examinations that will be provided so that operators who are
licensed will be well versed in the dangers of their occupation and
their responsibilities as operators, not only to the people with
whom they contract to carry out work but also to the people in the
immediate environs of the property that is to be sprayed from the
air or from the gound. In addition, governmental or
semi-governmental instrumentalities will be cognisant of the
importance of being careful and will at all
Agricultural Chemicals [29 NOVEMBER] Distribution Control, &c.,
Bill 1959
times seek to protect persons who are in the immediate area in
which operators are working.
The amendments that have been outlined by the Minister are very
simple indeed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his
appreciation of the Minister's introductory remarks, said that at
that stage he could see very little that would hinder the
Opposition from giving a favourable opinion on what would be before
the House. I have had a quick look through the Bill, and I was very
interested in it because I was associated with the debate on the
original Bill in 1966. I realised at that time that the
responsibility was great, and it was stressed in this Chamber-the
Minister will recall this-that many further experiments would have
to be carried out. Although aerial distribution had been covered
adequately by the legisla tion, it was intended to cover the modus
operandi of ground distribution by a series of regulations.
The amendments proposed by the Minister have now been put before
hon. members. Examination discloses that they are definitely
designed to assist and promote a better understanding of the Alct
and of the purpose of its provisions. They have been arrived at
through consultation between the States, between underwriters and
operators, and, no doubt, between departmental officers.
The definitions have been tightened. The first one brings out the
important fact that dispersal could or could not be intended. That
is important because, as the Minister said, a deliberate action 1s
not clearly defined in the original Act.
Mr. Row: It could be accidental.
Mr. O'DONNELL: That is correct. In these modern days, when people
have the alternative of leasing equipment and vehicles instead of
owning them, the Bill must include provisions