PrionsReprt. (2 SETEMER,190.] Land Bill. 1807

expression of opinion which has beengiven utterance to. [ feel convinced thatthe regulations would never have beenenforced, and that probably in the Educa-lion Circular submitted to teachers eachmouth some mention will be made of thefact that the regulations are suspendedpending a complete scheme which theGovernment intends to Submit to thisHouse and the country. I hope thatwhen niext it makes an excursion intothe realms of education it will be with adetermination to take a step forwardins;tead of a step backward. Havingolitained an expression of opiaion and Ithin k unanimous opinion from the Houseon this question. f beg, with permissionof the House, to withdraw the motion.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.

The House adjourned at 8-46 o'clock,until the next day.

1heesd014 26th September, 1906.

Police Offenees Bill Inquiry. Extension......... 18D7Bills: Stock Diseases Act Amendment, Council's

Atmenduient....................1807land Act Amendment. Uoin. mrned ; Limit

to size of holding. Mr. Baths proposal asto laso renewnl. progrcss.............1.80

mines Regulation, Coin, resumed ; height ofstopes dicussed, progress......... ... 191.7

THE SPEAKER took the Chair at4'30 o'clock P.M.

PRERS .

PAPER PRESENTED.Byv the Pann zE: Report of the Comp-

troller General of Prisons for 1905.

POLICE OFFENCES BILL INQUIRY,EXTENSION.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Ron.N. Keenan) moved that the time forbringing up the report of the select com-mittee aponted to inquire into thePolice Ofences Bill be extended for fourweeks.

M-R. JOHNSON, before agreeing tothe extension, asked for assurance thatthe report would be forthcoming at theend of this term. How mnany sittings ofthe committee had been held, and whatnumber of witnesses were examined, sincethe previous extension of the time wasgranted ?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thecommittee had one meeting every weekexcept last week, when he was absent.There was a meeting fixed for this week.No witnesses had been examined so far,because the committee had not completedthe Bill itself. When the Bill wits comn-completed, they would be prepared toexamine witnesses if necessary.

Question passed.

BILL-STOCK DISEASES ACTAMENDMENT.

COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT.

One amrendment made by the LegislativeCouncil was now cons~idered in Comnmittee,and agreed to; a message accord inglyreturned to the Council.

'BTLb-LAND ACT AMENDMENT.IN COMMITTEE.

Resumed from the previous Thursday;MR. ILLINGWORTH in the Chair, thePREMIfER in charge of the Bill.

Clause 16- Amendment of Section 3:THE PREMIER: The section in the

principal Act provided that if any lease,license, or occupation certificate wider theAct was lodged, a duplicate might beissued on payment of 5s. In some casesit entailed great expense to mike out aduplicate parchment. The Governmentasked that powe-r might he given to theMinister to provide for the charge byregulation instead of a fixed charge. Insome cases it was not worth more thanIs. to give a certificate; in another caseit might be worth a pound.

prieons Report. (25 SEPTFwwli, 1906.]

1808 Land Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] in Committee.

Mu. TAYLOR: What would be themaximum?

TnE PREMIER: In no ordinary casecould it exceed £1, and that chargewould be made where a. duplicate certifi-cate was issued. Possibly where a planwould have to be prepared in relation toan irregular-shaped block there would bea considerable amount of drafting en-tailed in the preparation of a new certifi-cate, and in a case like that a fee wouldbe charged in proportion to the amountof time taken by the draftsmen in pre-paring the certificate, and also tbe priceof the parchment. In some cases theremight be a most irivial amendment, andpractically it might not be just to makeany charge; in which cases the Ministershould have power to make a fixedcharge.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 17, I8, 19-agreed to.

Clause 20 -Power to Minister to trans-fer holdings of a deceased. person whereno adminstration:

MR. BUTCHER: What section did thisclause amend ?

THE PREMIER: The section relatingto relatives of deceased settlers takingpossession of land. The clause providedfor the transmission of the title withoutprobate. In some cases the estate -was ofso small a value that the cost of thetaking out probate would exceed the valueof the estate. The clause would enablethe relatives of deceased settlers to takeout letters of administration. It waspractically a, copy of the section of theQueensland Act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21, 22-agreed to.

Clause 29--Amendment of Section 35:Tns PREMIER: This clause wvould

enable youths of 16 to take up land. Theage was now limited to 18. The clausewould enable song of farmers to take upland immediately on leaving school,' sothat they would have an opportunity ofsettling on their own blocks when theyarrived at man's estate. Apparently asimilar prvson had worked successfullyin New=Sut Wales and Queensland.

MR. TAYLOR: Had the existing pro-vision worked anyv hardship.

THE PREMIER: It was urged byfarmers that it would be advantageous tothe younger generation if the boys hadthe opportunity, on turning 16, to acquireland within a radius of the familyhdrnestead, in order that latter ontheyv might take up these blocks. InVictoria it was necessary for the sonsof farmers to take up blocks a consider-able distance from their families' homes.It was better that our own youths shouldhave the land.

MR. TAYLOR: Rather than Mr. James'sItalians.

Clause passed.

MAXIMUM AREA, TO REDUCE.

Clause 24-Restriction as to area:MR. STONE: This clause made it im-

possible for one person to hold more than2,000 acres. It would affect banking andother securities to a great extent.

Tau PREMIER: This was a mostimportant clause. At present one adultperson could hold 1,000 acres underClause 55 with residence, 1,000 acresunder Clause 56 without residence,1,000 acres direct purchase uinder Clause57, with 160 acres of a homestead blockand 3,000 acres of second-class land or5,000 acres of third-class land, a total of4,000 acres of grazing lease. Thus theone settler could hold 7,160 acres, in addi-tion to which 10,000 acres could he takenup on poison lease; and if aeting jointlywith others there would practically be nolimit to which one individual could acquireland. It was considered advisable tostop the accumulation Of large estates,and this ameniding clause would limit thearea one person could bold to 2,000 acresof cultivable land, or 5,000 acres ofgrazing land, in the proportion of two tofive. For instance, the settler could bold1,000 acres of cultivable land and 2,500acres of grazing land. At present NewSouth Wales was spending large sums ofmoney in repurchasing estates which inthe early days were alienated withoutrestriction. From a gentleman well ac-quainted with New South Wales he hadreceived the following lettor;-

Under the administration of the land Actof 1861 in New South Wales, a number of

1practices were resorted to to enable pastoralI lessees to alienate Crown lands which were

not contemplated by the Act. These weredummy selections, improvement purchases,

LandBil: £6 SPTEBER 196.] in Committee. 1809

auction sales, volunteer land orders, etc.,under which so early as 1881 more than four-fifths of thme alienated lands had been acquiredby less than 5,000 persons, who thus securedlarge landed monopolies, and in dning sohemmed in and surrounded the great bulk ofthe small settlers. In that year, after 20years' operation of the Act, 33 million of acreswere alienated, of which 35,755 persona heldfive millions of acres; 4,237 persons held 20taillions of acres and 96 persons held eightmillions. In mry recent visit to New SouthWales I examined into the figures with which20 years ago I was thoroughly conversant,and find that, although the areas alienatedhave very largely increased, the great hulk ofthe increase has gone to augment the alreadylarge estates acquired by the 4.333 personswho already held more than 28 millions ofAcres, while the number of small holders hasonly increased by about 7,000 persons. Thelarge landed proprietors are now letting outtheir lands to the small holders on clearingand cultivation leass-the terms of one estateof 80,000 acres, through which I passed, athat the lessee gets a lease of three to fiveyears and has to clear and cultivate the land,giving half the crop as rental.

This matter of restricting the area shouldbe well considered. He (the Premier)was not wedded exactly to any particulararea as a limit, for it was recognised thatan area. which might be sufficient in oneportion of the State would not besufficient in another portion. Ratherthan adhere to the existing terms of firstand second-class land, the term "cultivableland " was adopted in the Bill. Recentlya considerable area of second-class landhail been alienated for grazing pur-poses, but that process would be stopped.It was questionable whether it mightnot be wise to provide that in addi-tion to the cultivable land a personmight hold grazing land; but 2,000 acreswas quite sufficient of cultivable landfor one person to hold. In heavily tim-bered country it would be quite sufficientfor one person; but about Kellerberrinit might be reasonable for a person crop-ping 2,000 acres to acquire an extra areafor grazing purposes within reasonabledistance of his cultivable land. Whatwas known as third-class land was de-scribed in the Bill as "grazing land."The section dealing with poison leaseswas also amended to provide that infuture poison land must be taken up asgrazing land at 3a. 6d. per acre.

Ma., GULL: Sandplain was classed asgrazing land. If a man held 5,000 acresof sandplain as well as 2,000 acres of

cultivable land, and the saudplain provedcultivable, how would it affect theposition? If he found he could growcrops on grazing land, there was nothingto prevent his doing so.

MR. STONE: Would the clause affectsecurities? If a farmer wanted an -ad-vance on his holdings, would the bankbe at liberty to make it?

Tan. PREMIER: The title would beequally as good as under the present Act;practically the same.

MAR.. BUTCHER: Whilst agreeingwith the Premier in desiring to preventin the future the building up of largeestates in our principal agricultural dis-tricts, he asked the hon. gentleman to beparticularly cautious not to err in theother direction. Throughout our agri-cultural areas there was really only a verysmall proportion of the country, speakingbroadly, that was capable of beingbrought wider cultivation. There wasan enormous amount of waste land inevery instance which had to he includedin the areas which were applied for, andwhich would be applied for under themeasure. If the Premier was not carefulhe would so reduce the area that it wouldbe almost impossible for a man with afamily to make a living out of it.

MR. FOULKES: The clause said thatno person should be competent to acquire,under Part V., more than 2,000 acres.He took it that the clause was intendedto mean that no person should acquiredirect from the Crown ; but according tothe way the clans was framed, it wasopen to the interpretation that no personshould be able to purchase from any pri-vate individual if by so doing he wouldhave more than 2,000 acres. If thewords "from the Crown" were insertedafter "acquire," that would remove alldoubt.

Tan PREmiER: The clause containedthe words "either as lessee or trnsferee."

MR. FOULKES: The words "ortransferee " might be left out. The hon.gentleman himself realised it was advis-able to consider whether opportunityshould not be given to a man to take upsome grazing land in addition to the2,000 acres. During the last two orthree years none of these grazing leaseshad been granted, and the result wasthat people went through the countryand picked out the eyes of the land. It

[25 SE:VrFMRER, 1906.1Land Bill:

1810 Lanad Bill:[A EML.MaiuAr.

was not a good bargain for the Ministerany more thtan for a private individualto let the eyes of property be picked out,and to have the tag ends of pieces nottaken up. He was speaking particularlyof tbe South-Western district. Therethe good land was situated in the valleys,and the poor land on the hills. TheGovernment should try to get rid of thepoor land as well as the good land.

Mu. BUTCHER: Survey before selec-tion would overcome that.

MR. FOULKES: It was not a questionof survey before selection. It was muostnecessary' that full facilities and everyencouragement sbould he given to peopleto take up grazing leases. He washoping that the Minister would comeforward with some proposal to the effectthat if a man took up a. thousand acresof agricultural land, he should as amatter of right be entitled to take upsay a certain quantity of grazing land.

Tan PEMIER: One person wasentitled to take up 2,500 acres. Sub-clause 2 contained the words "or theequivalent area of grazing land."

MR. FOULKES was glad to see that aperson could take up a certain amount;but the Minister knew it was difficult todraw at hard-and-fast line in regard tothe quantity of land a man should beentitled to take up, the conditions beingso different. As to agricultural land, agreat deal of cultivable land was reallyvery poor. In many districts the returnswere only nine bushels per acre. Perhapsit. would have been better if the Govern-ment had framed certain regulationsthat should apply to the various partsof the State instead of having a cast-iron rule for all. For the purposesof discussion he moved an amendment:

That after the word" "acquire." in line one,"from the Crown " be added.

MR. GU~LjL: If the word "acquire"meant that a man should not be able topurchase a neighbouring freehold whenthe conditions had been fulfilled, heobjected to the proposal. The limitstated in the clause was 2,000 acres. Wehad to realise that the system of cultiva-tion extended into the third year. whichwas the most advantageous; so muchin fallow, so much under grass, andso much under Crop. There wouldbe from 600 to 700 acres under crop.Were the Government going to restrict

*the l-and to 600 or 700 acres under cropPIf a farmer advanced money to hisneighbour, and the mortgage fell in.what was the mortgagee to do with theland? To restrict the are to 2,000acres might Sometimes be justifiable toencourage settlement; but much laud,after being cropped for a number ofYears, was fit for grazing only. To limtita man to 6,000 or 7,000 acres under cropwas unreasonable.

THE PREMIER: By Subclause 2 amarried juan could take up 1,000 acresand its equivalent in grazing land; sothat he could acquire :3,000 acres ofcultivable hand, or 2,000 acres of cul-tivable land and 2,500 acres of grazingland. The mortgagee referred to by thepreceding speaker could, after foreclosure,auction the land and recover his money.There might be a difficulty when at settlerreceived land as a legacy. We mightprovide that be must, withino two or threeYears, reduce his holding to the maximumi

araallowed.MR. FOULKES: The legatee might wish

to hold the land till his eldest son cameof age.

THE PREMIER: There was nothingto prevent his holding- it upon trust. Tomake a law to suit all the exceptionalcases cited would be difficult; and thehardships foretold were not likely to beexperienced. By Clause 25, when landwas granted in the joint names of twoperson, each person would, for the pur-poses of Clause 24, be deemed to be theholder of an area equal to half theholding; in the case of three such per-sons, each would be deemed to hold one-third; and so on with any larger number.Members might express opinions as towhether, in addition to the 2,000 acres ofcultivable land to be allowed to one person.

*an additional area, Of grazing land Shouldbe permitted. The Government realisedthat lands in this State varied consider-ably in quality; and in the Eastern Dis-triet, at places like Kellerberrin, it mightb e advisable to allow a. man to hold asmall area of grazing land as well as thecultivable land mentioned in the clause.* Mn. STONE: Would financial insti-tuticus which advanced money on thesecurity of farm land be properly pro-tected ? If this clause passed here itwould uot pass in another place. If the

*point were not properly explained, he

[ASSENIBLY.] Maximum Area.

Land Bill: f25 SEPTEMBER, 1906.] Maxi mum Area. 1811

would move that the clause lbe struckout.

MR. TAYLOR: This vigorous dis-cussion was refreshing, and the paucityof amendments from the Governmentside surprising, considering that thePremier, every time he rose, asked hissupporters to alter the Bill to suit them.What a difference lbetween the Premier'sgenerosity to agricultural members andthe attitude of the Minister for Mineswhen dealing with the Mining Bill,towards muining members who bad apractical knowledge of that subject.

THE CHAIRMAN: The bon. membercould not discuss the main question, butmust confine himself to the amendment.

MR. TAYLOR opposed the amendment.and regretted the disorganised conditionof the party supposed to represent agri-culturists and pastoralists. Several ofthose members had expressed sorrow, atthe absence of the boss-cocky and farm-ing Hm, the member for Katanning(Hon. F. H. Piesse). The Committeeshould not pass legislation to encouragethe mortgagee. Here and in the EasternStates hundreds of struggling farmershad, in spite of liberal land laws, beensqueezed off the land by money-lenders,who thus secured agricultural and pas-toral areas which they never did any-thing to develop.

MRs. BUTCHER: Give One instance.Mu. TAYLOR: In all parts of Aus-

tralia were instances galore. In theearly days he had seen the goldfieldsdotted with cookies jammed out of theirselections, moving off with swags on theirbacks. In his pocket was a letter from aman who complained that an hon. memberbad squeezed him out of his property.The money-lender was not so virtuous asto refrain from squeezing the debtor.We should do all in our power to dis-courage the person who pressed oix theselector by lending money. We wantedto discourage the lending of money. Hadnot the State initiated the AgriculturalHank to protect settlers from personswhom members desired to assist? Hesupported the clause practically as itstood.

ME. BUTCHER: Some alterationshould be made in the clause. No in-dustry' could be developed without money.If the clause was allowed to pass in itspresent state it would prohibit anyone

with money from lending it on agricul-tural or pastoral areas, and it wouldput a stop to business in land, which wasnot a desirable state of affairs to. bringabout. It was a mistake in a countrylike Western Australia, where we badh'uge areas of unused and unoccupiedagricultural land, and when we wereadvertising to induce people to come here[u settle, to prevent people holdingareas on which a person could make adecent living. In some districts it was;impossible to make a living out of theareas stipulated. Under certain con-ditions 3,600 acres were uo use to anyman. If a man were allowed to pick outthe eyes of the country, then 3,500 acreswould be sufficient. Farming in WesternAustralia was different from farming inainy other part of the Common-wealth.It was impossible for a man to make aliving out of farming unless he carriedstock. If a an. wished to farm in asuccessful way in Western Australia,with the high freights on the railwaysand the condition of the markets andthe prices of produce, 3,000 acres werelittle use to him. The Committee shouldapprove of the amendment.

Mg. BATH: The proposal to insertthe words "from the Crown " would limitthe total area, to be held by a land-holder in Western Australia, thereforethe total area held, whether acquiredfrom the Crown, by mortgagees, or asfreeholders, should be discussed. Themember for Gascoyne had spoken aboutWestern Australian land in a way thatmade one wonder what was the qualityof land in Western Australia. We haddiscussed at various times the question ofexpending considerable sums in bringingimmigrants to Westen' kustralia, and wehad heard members representing farm-ing constituencies speaking in the mostglowing terms of the land we had inWestern Australia, and the splendidopportunities that awaited those whoarrived here with a certain amount ofcapital; but when it came to the questionof discussing a Land Bill and limitingthe area which a person should hold, wehad a different picture drawn. He wouldlike to know which side of the picturewas correct; whether we bad thissplendid land, or whether it was, asmembers had stated, absolutely imnpos-sible except on enormous areas for

1812 .Land Bill:[ASML. aimAra

people to obtain a living on WesternAustralian laud? The Minister had takena very wise step in attempting to limitthe area that might be held. There wasroom for argument as to what that areashould be-the total are of grazing landand cultivable laud. Members had quot~dNew South Wales, but the latest returnsof the Government Statistician of NewSouth Wales showed that half tim landin that State was held by 722 persons;the total number of moderately sizedhoLdings was stationary, while the num-ber of large sized holdings was increas-

ing. The Agricultural Bank was anexcllent institution, because in lendingmoney to the farmer on the land it haddone so at a reduced rate of interest; butif it were possible for the farmer to dowithout the assistance of the Agricul-tural Bank it would ho better for him.Did the mewmber for Gascoyne say thatthere was no farmer in Western Aus-tralia who did not owe money either tothe Agricultural Bank or to privatepersons ? If the member said that, thenhe (Mr. Bath) did not agree with him,for there were farmers who did not owemoney to the Agricultural Bank or to ay-one else and who were getting on very well.In Western Australia., eveu although werecognised that at times assistance wasnecessary, the more a farmer was ableto dispense with such assistance thebetter it would be for him. Weshould support such an institution as theAgricultural Bank in order that onemight get assistance at a reasonable rate.In New South Wales many people hadbeen squeezed out owing to the heavyinterest they had to pay. The memberfor Claremont proposed to limit theoperation of this clause to lands acquiredfrom the Crown, When once a personhad secured a freehold, so far as our pre-sent law was concerned no one could pre-vent him from holding anything over themaximum amountapecified; but the inser-tion in this clause of the words proposedby the member for Claremont wasunnecessary and would tend to destroythe object sought to he gained.

MR. GULL: Western Australian laud,more particularly in the South-West,was in its original state practicallyworthless for farming purposes, and itonly became valuable as farming landAfter it had been worked and treated

with phosphate manures. The reasonmen had been making money in farmingin Western Australia was that they hadhad good markets, that the country badnot been producing a sufficiency forrequirements, and they had heen get-ting good prices. E'very year, how-ever, the production was increasingand the price was going down, andit must go down. When one wereached the normnal level it wouldbe more necessary than ever thatprovision should he made for men to havestock on their farms. The natural coun-try was very poor. On an average itscarr r ing capacity would he supposedbe one sheep to ten acres. That did notapply to the South-West, hut where landhad not been brought into cultivation.If we restricted a man to an area of 2,000acres, that man would have no chance ofmaking a living off it.

TuE HONORARY IIINISTER (Hou.Jas. Mitchell): The amendment shouldbe rejected. for if it were adopted itwould lend itself to dummying of theworst order. A man might acquire 2,000acres from the Crown and immediatelytransfer it to some person already holdingland, and then go on indefinitely. Theclause as it stood was a good one. Anarea. of 2,000 acres was quite sufficientfor a man to start on, and when heacquired the freehold it would be open tohim to make Farther selection. Tbetrouble had not been to sell land. Webad been able to sell land very readily inthe past, but we hA experienced con-siderable difficulty in getting it improved.He supposed we had sold every acre oflaud within easy reach of a railway, andalso a great deal that was a considerabledistance from a railway. Land had beensol1d in large areas, and1 that was againstthe best interests of the country. As afarmer he said that 2,000 acres werequite sufficient. He welcomed the re-marks of the Premier that he would con-sider the Ldvisablenesti of granting anarea of grazing land in addition to the2,000 acres- If the Premier would acceptan amendment which would enable him todo that, the position would be very satisfac-tory.- The wemberfor Swan had wade somewild statements about the acreage neces-sary to stipport sheep. One should netexpect to find a Garden of Eden when hegot into the wilderness, but he could

[ASSEMBLY.] Maximum Area.

land Bill: [25 SEnSiH3iER 1906.] M2fan Area. 1813

certainly get land and make it into avery nice garden. Land here was equalto that in any other State, and certainlywith our splendid climate it was notnecessary to have a greater acreage inour wet districts than the 2,000 acresmentioned in the clause.

MR. BUTCHER: Did the HonoraryMinister pracise what he preached, andwas he satisfied when he had 2,000acres? Was he satisfied with the areahe at present held? Would this clausehave the effect of preventing any personfrom purchasing or transferring anythingover 2,000 acres of freehold ?

THE PREMIER: This measure wouldnot interfere with the transfer of free-hold in any case, but it would preventpersons from taking up land for specu-lative purposes and immediately sellingit to the first man who came along,and then repeating the operation. Aconsiderable amount of land had beentaken up under those conditions. Therewas a stipulation regarding conditionalpurchaselands that £50 should be spentin improvements on a 500-acre blockbefore any transfer was allowed at thepresent time. The object of that rulewas to prevent the transfer of land toany great extent. A tremendous lot ofblocks had been taken up, and disposedof at very enhanced values two monthsafterwards. Under this Bill improve.ments were a good dea] more severe thanunder the existing Act, consequently itwould not be to any man's interest to takeup more laud than he could possibly work,because by the system of progressiveimprovements he would in ten years havehad to spend on actual improvements anamount equal to the total of the purchasemoney. As to the area a man couldmake a living on, he bad an opportunityquite recently to make enquiries as towhat could be done. In the EasternDistricts there were any number of menmaking a very good living from 500 to1,000 acres. In the South-Western por-tion a man could make a good living ona smaller area. In regard to the cuttingup of land for selection after survey,whilst in the Eastern Districts blocksvaried from 500 acres to 1,000 acres, inthe South- Western District round Bridge-town and other places the area variedfrom 200 acres to 500 or 600 acres. Inthe Eastern Districts the laud could be

Icleared for £1 an acre, whereas inBridgetown and other places clearingcost from £10 to .£25 an acre. Therewas no hardship in restricting a man tothe area he could actually work. Theobject of the Bill was to get the best. wepossibly could out of the land, and as faras; possible to restrict the building up oflarge estates.

Ma. BARNETT supported the clauseas it stood. If any mistake was made itwas in making the area too large. Theobject of our legislation at present wasto settle people on the land, and the onlyway to do so was to limit the size ofholdings. It would not be the slightestuse borrowing money to build agriculturalrailways if the holdings along the rail-ways were even up to the limit imoposedby the clause. Some members spoke ofthe poor quality of the land in the State,but many of them were large owners ofland. One would like to hear what theywould say if one offered to purchase theirland at the nominal price of 10s. per acre.The surveying of laud along agriculturalrailways before settlement, and the cuttingup of the land into suitable areas accord-ing to the quality of the soil, would bethe best system to adopt, the one by whichthe best interests of the State would beserved.

Alit. FOULKES: It was necessary toplace a reasonable limit on the area oflaud a wan could hold, because we shouldnot allow the large estates to increase innumber; but the man who held up to5,000 acr-es and complied with the con-ditions of improvement should he en-couraged. Attention should be paid toenforcing the conditions. In the pastthe fault was the slackness of the LandsDepartment in allowing people to holdlands without complying with the con-ditions, the greatest culprits in thatrespect being the small holders;, personsholding from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres,though these people were not to beblamed, because to some extent it wasowingto want of capital; andnowsuddenlythe Lands Department swung round, hutiinstead of seeing that the conditions wereto be carried out, they brought in thepresent drastic proposal. In New Zea-land, where they had very stringent landlaws, the latest proposal was that noindividual should hold more than Y,50,000worth of land.

1814 Land Bill: [SEBY) .~zwmAta

MR. BATH: But there were otherrestrictions in the laws.

MR. FOULKES. It'was recognisedthat the Premier's supporters in thismatter were the Opposition. One effectof the clause if passed would be thatpersons holding land could. not purchaseconditional purchase land put up) forauction. Only persons without landwould be allowed to buy conditionalpurchase land sold by auction; thus theman. who complied with the labour con-ditions on a conditional purchase blockwould be deprived of the opportunity ofselling his land.

THE PREMIER: The land would befreehold by that time..

Ma. FOULK ES: Yes; in twentyyears.

Tiar PREMIER: Not necessarily.Mu. FOULKES: It was not every

man who could pay for the land beforethe twenty years expired. The Stateallowed no discounit for payment beforethe expiration of twenty years. TheHonorary Minister believed that 2,000acres of cultivable laud was sufficient.No doubt it was at Nortbam, but it wvasnot sufficient in other districts. Many-of the agricultural members were notpresent in the Chamber. The Premiershould accept the amendment, and after-wards the clause might be recommitted.

MR. HOLMAN; Why' was the bon.member stonewalling?-

MR.. BOLTON. For the member forKatanning.

THE CHAIRMAN: Order!MR.. FOULKES: When the agricul-

tural members arrived in the Chambersteps would be taken to have the clauserecommitted if the amendment werenow rejected.

THE PREMIER: The member forKatanning would reduce the area,.

MR. FOULKES: The member forKatanning was not referred to, thoughthat hen. member no doubt loomedlargely in the sight of the Premier. Thisclause required farther consideration.

Mu. WALKER: Members on the Op-position side of the House were fightingfor those farmers who had to make thebest use of a small piece of land, asagainst large owners holding 2,000 up to6,000 acres of land, and working it in amore economical way by using up-to-datemachinery, thus practically preventing

I small men from competing against themin the sale of produce. The great evilof farming in America was caused by%enormously large areas being worked bymien who could afford to use the mostexpensive machinery, and thus make itall the harder for small farmers to get aliving out of what they could Bell oiff theirsmall holdings. The member for Clare-mont had been. arguing that it would hiea hardship to prevent i nert having 2,000acres of land in this State from beingallowed to take up more land. It was atendency of large estates to grow stilllarger, the owners buyinir up small hold-ings near them because the smaller men

1could not get a living in competition withthe larger inecA. The same evil was seenin Ireland as in the United States; theowners of large estates working themn insuch a way as to mnake the condition ofthe smuall farmers worse than it need be.A better examlple had been set in NewZealand under the policy of the late Mr.Seddon, adopted from his predecessorMr. Hallance; and the result was that afamily could get a good living and enjoyconsiderable comfort from the produce ofa 40-acre farm. It was the duty of mem-bers to prevent agricultural land in thiscountry from being monopolised in a fewlarge estates. No man could properlycultivate to advantage inore than 2,000acres of land in this State, for if he dlidmore than that he would be making itimpossible for small farmers to obtain aliving by competing againsat h is system ofworking the larger area with expensivemachinery. The agitation was growingdaily against anr farther alienation ofland; and though we could not stop itat present, we should try to check itand thereby minimise the evil. Seeingthat the object of this clause was tominimise the amount of land which oneperson could lawfully hold in this State,he would vote for it.

THE PREMIER: As to the inspec-torsof conditional purchase leases in this

IState neglecting their duty and allowingland to be held without the improvementconditions being duly complied with, themew her for Claremon t was w rong in hisacontention; for the fault lay miainly in thefact that for eight years after taking tip atconditional purchase area, the holderneed not do more than merely fence theland. His intention as Minaister for

[ASSEMBLY.) Maximunt Area.

Land Dili: [25 SEEmBsR, 1906.] Maximumi Area. I8I5

Lands was to require that all future

lithographs issued by the department forthe use of persons intending to take uplaud should have inserted on each hold-ing the date when it was taken upl, sothat at person going about the countrywith lithographs of conditional purchaseareas held would be able to see for him-self by the date on each area whether theimprovement conditions were being car-ried out. As far as New Zealand wasconcerned, the limit to which personscould acquire land from the Crown was640 acres. The provision in the clausenow under discussion limited the amountto 2,000; but even with this limit, atmarried man with a family and having oneson say over 16ySears of age could acquirein his own name 2,000 ares of cultivableland, another 1,000 acres could be takenup in the name of his wife, and the sonover 16 years could take up 2,000 inure,mating 5,0)00 acres that could be heldpractically by one family. The clause asit stood should be passed in the bestinterests of the State.

MR. H. BROWN: In thle case0 Of a.muortgagee who lent money on conditionalpurchase areas and might in this wayhold 2,000 acres of such land, would heas a mortgagee be precluded from takingup more land under the Clause? Thesame would apply to a bank holding con-ditional purchase land held as securityfor money advanced.

THE PREMIER: As soon as thetransfer of a. conditional purchase areawas ap)proved, the mortgagee holding itwould become the actual owner.

MR. H. BROWN: Banks held securi-ties of this kind, and the question *waswhether at bank or a mortgagee couldhold more than 2,000 acres of land uuderthe clause. There were many casesknown to hin in which conditional pu-chase land was held without the improve-ment conditions being complied with.As to the tendency for small estates to bebought up, he knew that in the Yorkdistrict, for instance, holders of largeestates had in many instances bought tipsmall raring in the same locality, and thereason was that the holder of a smallfarm of say 400 acres found it was notsufficient to keep him occupied all theyear round after he had once cleared itfor cultivation, and so he would beinduced to sell to some larger owner for

ready money- , in order that he might goout farther back and take up fresh landso as to occupy his -whole time in clear-in~g and improving it.

At 6-32, the CuAiRm&K left the Chair.At 7830, Chair resumed.

Amendment put, and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes ... ..-. ... 9Noes ... ... . 22

Majority against . 13AYES.

Mr. Butcher.Mr. DaviesMr. FoulkesMY: GullMr. Me.Wr. Mongrer

M~r. SmnithMr..StoneMr. Brown (Telter).

Noe.Mr. BathMr. HoltonMr. BrebberMr. CarsonMT. collier

Br DglishMrY. HrwckMr. Hay7wardMr. IleitnianMr. HudsonMr. Kewn.Mr. MitchellMr. N. J. M..rMr. priceMr. TaylorMr. flog

Dir. VeryardMr. WalkerMr. A. J. WilsonMr. F. wilsoMr. Latyma (Teller).

Amendment thus negatived.On formal motion b-y the PREMIER, the

word " agricultural," wherever it ap3-lpeared in the clause, was struck out, and"cultivable " inserted in lieu.

MR. Hf BROWN: On inquiry duringthe tea adjournment he had learnt thatbanks and other mortgagees held thou-sands upon thousands of ac~res of con-ditional purchase lands in their own namesas transferees. If by a windfall a manreceived as a legacy a, large area of con-ditional purchase land, it was idiotic toforce him to sell it; and in view of the

Iland tax few people would care to buyit, even if that were allowed by thisclause. Thus financial institutions wouldabsolutelyv re~fuse to lend on conditionalpurchase holdings, and the larger holderscould not borrow from the AgriculturalBank. The clause would prevent theimprovement of conditional purchaselands. Would any Oppositionist refusea legacy of 5,000 or 6,000 acres of con-ditional purchase landP The clausewould p~revent them from accepting thegift.

THE HONORARY MINISTER (Hon.J. Mitc'hell) : To protect the mortgagee

1816 Land Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] Price per Acre.

was necessary' , and he was protected.The last speaker stated that banks tooksecurity by way of transfer; but for someYears they had taken mortgages, andwere sufficiently protected by Section140 of the principal Act.

MR. H. BROWN: Some thousands ofacres were still held in the names of banksas transferees.

THE MINISTER: Under the existingAct it was impossible for any person tohold many thousands of acres. The areawas limited, as in this Bill.

MR. FOULKESs: Was Section 140 stiltin force ?

THn MINISTER: Yes; and it affordedsufficient protection. There was no reasonto fear that any financial institutionwould suffer through the clause.

MR. GULL: Would the banks lendmoney under the clause ?

Tan MlISTER: Just as freely as theyever did.

THE PREMIER: The member forPerth (Mr. Brown) should look upSection 140 of the parent Act. The onlyamendment of that section was in Clause60 of the Bill, which would add thewords "or private sale" after "auction,"in Subsection 2. In clauses 76 onwardfull provision was made for conveyanc-ing. No transfers were approved at thepresent time; but mortgages could beapproved under the Bill as under theexisting Act. The only difference wasthat this clause reduced the maximumholding from 7,000 to 2,000 acres.

MRs. H. BROWN: What about alegateeP

THE PREMIER: A clause would bedrafted to enable the legatee to hold landfor a certain time, within which he mustdispose of it, so as not to exceed hismaxlim area.

MR. TAYLOR: Earlier in the eveningbe stated that certain mortgagees squeezedsmall farmers, and Government membersdenied the statement. Now the memberfor Perth (Mr. Brown) had just provedhiscs by showing that banks as mod-.gagees held " thousands upon thousandsof acres." The Bill sought to minimisethat evil.

MD. FOULK ES: This was a con-venient stage to introduce an amendmentgiving power to a person holding agIcultural laud to take up grazing lad.He moved that in line four, Of paragraph

on e, the words ",and grazing land notexceeding 2,000 acres in area " be inserted.If we did not give a man the right totake up grazing land he might pick outthe eyes of the country.

THE PREmiER: If 2.000 acres of cultiv-able laud and 2,000 acres of grazingland were stipulated, then there was to bean equivalent in grazing landP

Ma. FOULKES: An amendmentwould be moved later on to -alter that,but if this was not a convenient stage tointroduce the amendment he would post-pone it, but he hoped the Minister wouldsee the necessity of making provisionenabling a man to take up grazing landas well as agricultural land.

THE PREMIER: Such an amendmentwould be considered.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.MR. TROY: This clause was inserted

because the land in some localities mighthe richer than in others.

THE PREMIER: Land in proximityto a railway station might be richer thanland in oth~er localities, and it would beadvisa ble to cut that land up into smallerholdings.

Clause as amended agreed to.Clause 25-agreed to.

Clause 26-Amendment of Section 38:THE PREMIER moved-That in line 4, "Central Division," the

words," thence east of the 120th meridian ofeast longitude " he struck out.

Amendment passed; theamended agreed to.

Clause 27-agreed to.

clause as

Clause 28-A mendment of Section 55:THE PREMIER moved that after

"aforesaid " in Subelause 5 the followingbe inserted:-

Vrovided also that if the purchase moneyexceeds Y1 an acre, the purchase shall for thepurposes of this subsection be deemed to beX1 an. acre if the Minister in his discretion sodirects.

Where property was in close proximityto a railway station it was possible that aman might have to pay £210 an acre forland, and it would be impossible to spendmore than X1 per acre in improvementson the block, which was double theamount specified under existing condi-tions.

aS crvi t±4 .-st A ~ ~ ' 1

Land Bill. [25 SEPTLEMBER, 1906.]

Amendment passed; the clauses asamended agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 37-agreed to.

GRAZING LEASES.

Clause 38- -Repeal of Section 68;Governor may declare certain lands openfor selection as grazinge leases.

MR. BATH moved: That all thewords after " open " in line 10 be struckout and the following inserted in lieu:-

The term of lease shiall be 21 years, withright of renewal or the valuation of improve-ments As hereinafter prodided.In a State such as Western Australiawhere development in land settlementwas going on, it was preferable, so far asgrazing land was concerned, not to tiethe hands of the State togrant the feesimple as provided by the clause, but toadopt something after the same principleas was adopted in Queensland in whatwere known as scrub ]eases, or in NewZealand in what were known as smallgrazing runs, giving prs~ons a lease of21 years and the right of renewal,or the right of securing compensationfor improvements, to be settled byHome equitable system of arbitration.Under the NIew Zealand grazing runsprovision a lease was given for 21 years,subject to certain conditions as to resi.deuce and improvements, but the holderhad the right on these grazing runs tocarry on agricultural work. The resultwas they had an excellent system oftenure, but the hands of the Governmentwere not tied, seeing that if settlementdeveloped, and by the development ofagricultural science these lands becamevaluable for closer settlement, the Gov-ernment would be able to pay for theimprovements fired by arbitration, andto secure the land and allot small areasaccording to the new demand as it arose.There were big areas of land in this Statewhich could be leased in even larger areastham provided for in this measure. Itwould be advisable so far as concernedour eastern land contiguous to the rabbit-proof fence to lease it for stock purposes,at the same time not denying the rightto lessees to carry on agricultural work.To the eastward there was a limit beyondwhich it would be unwise for the Govern-ment to induce people to go purely foragricultural purposes. In relation to

Mtines Regulation. 1817

small grazing runs in New Zealand itwas provided that a portion of the laudcould be used for agricultural purposes.if such a provision were made here inrelation to the same class of land, withperhaps i. higher maximum, there would,he thought, be no difficulty in indicating aline in the eastern land so that in theone case there should be one form oftenure as provided in this Bill, and inthe other the form of tenure to which hesreferred. With that object, and with aview of having the power to lease insteadlof granting conditional purchase,, be wouldmove another amendment.

THE PREMIER: In view of theproposal by the hon. member it would bewell to report progress, to give the hon.member an opportunity of having hisamendment on the paper, and at thesame time to consider what would be asuitable line to draw in order to adopthis suggestion in regard to the differenttenures. Most of us were aware thatheyond Nangeenan practically it was notadvisable for anyone to go for agri-cultural laud, on account of the smallrainfall, there being only about nineinches. If the amendment were put onthe Notice Paper, and progress reported,we could discuss the thing at a greaterlength and we should know exactly thehon. member's ideas on the subject.

Progress reported and leave given to sitagaiL.

BILL--MINES REGULATION.

IN COMMIrEE:

Resumed from theMR. ILLINGWORTH inMINISTER FOR MINESBill.

13th September ;the Chair, the

in charge of the

Clause 33-General Rides.

New suhiclause-Height of stope:AIR. SCADDAN: The following had

been moved by him as a new subelauseto limit the height of stopes:

A stope shall not be worked to a greaterheight from the filling than twelve feet, orsuch lesser height that the inspector mayorder.

Hie understood that the Minister was notIprepared to accept the amnendment,

1818 'Mines Regulation: ASML..nCmite

holding that it was not practicable. Butthose who considered it impracticable werethose. who had not been working stopes;whereas men who had been workingstopes all their lives contended that theamfenlzuent wasnecessary. The Chamberof Mfines and the mining managers onthe Belt in particular, in their desire toavoid any unnecessary friction, madethemselves very obnoxious in. the pastWeek by taking an extended trip toPerth and. doing a fair amount of

lobbying "-m he would not say withthose on the 'Treasury bench, but thoseon the Ministerial side of the Hlouse-forthe purpose of knocking out this amend-nieat and others. On a previous Occasionlie read to the Committee a report of aninspector of mines in Kalgoorlie statingthat lie hadt issued certain instructionsto managers with a view of having theheight of stopes down to within reach,to make them safe ; but the Mlinister thenasserted that this was not correct. lie(MAr. Scaddan) had now a copy of it. Inhis report dated November 1904, theinspector stated in relation to the takeView Consols that he gave orders inNovember 1903 to limit the height ofstopes to 10 feet, and that in Mlarch 1904the stepes were still over 10 feet, and stilldangerous. In the Great Boulder, inJuly 1.903 he gave orders to limit theheight of stopes to 14 feet, but in November1903 they were over 14 feet. In.November 1904 he again visited themine and found stopes worked to a heightaInywhere between '20 and 30 feet, inspite of the order given somec eighteenmtonths previously.

MR. GULL:- Did he prosecute 7Ma. SCAD DAN: No; because he con-

tended that at that time he had no powerto prosecute. In the Golden Horseshoe,in 190-1 stays were ordered, and theorders were ignored. le (Mr. Seaddan)learned too that at the time there camea change in the management, and as tosome stopes that had been worked by theprevious management the working wasordered to be stopped until made safe.Those stopes were considered absolutelyunsafe. In the Associated, in February19041 stays were ordered; in March,attention was drawn to the stope, also in

I July and November, and it was found.that the orders had been disobeyed. In

Ifrannan's Star, in 1903 orders were givento lower the height of stopes. On. the

*Boulder Mlain Reef Mline, in 1902 orderswere given to Stop Work in the mainstopes; but in December 1903 theinspector reported that the stopes werehighly dangerous and unsafe. Men werestill working in them. In August 19J04attention was again drawn to thedangerous height of stopes. In theIvanhoe mine, in 1904 special orderswere given to limit the height of thevarious stopes to 14 feet; but these orderswere absolutely ignored. In the OroyaBrown Hull mine, orders were ignoredon several occasions. On the Persever-ance, mine,. in December 1 903 orderswere given to reduce the height of stopesto 14 feet, but in February 1904 thelimit was still. exceeded, also in May 1904.In view of these facts it was useless forthe Minister to urge that it was desirableto leave the matter in the hands of the

I inspectors. To inspect one mine inIKalgoorlie and visit every part where

men were working would take an inspectora week; so it was essential to make thisprovision ahard and fast rule, to be postedon the mines. One could not understandwhy the managers wore so anxious thatthis amendment should be dropped.Their only argument could be the redue-

Ition of costs, to produce good balancesheets for their directors in London ;but ouir first consideration should be thelives and welfare of the miners workingin the mines. Members had been button-lioled by a recent deputation from theChamber of Mines in regard to this Bill.He (Mfr. Seaddan) in bringing these

I amendments forward had consulted no*body of men. They were placed on theNotice Paper from his practical know-

*ledge, and because he knew something ofthe dangers of working in mines. Hiepreferred to see the whole Bill dropped

*rather than have this amendment re-jected, because the carrying of stopes todangerous heights was the cause of agreat many accidents in mines.

'NP MINISER FOR AuINES : Therewas no justification for the remarks ofthe hen, member with regard to the

[ASSEMBLY.3 in Committee.

ifins Rgu~tio: (5 SP~hBER 196.1 Height of Stapes. 1819

mission of the mine managers to inter-view members. These mine managershad so much responsibility thrown uponthem by the Bill that they were entitledto place their views before members inregard to any amendments which theyconsidered impracticable.

MR. SCADDAN: Then why did theynot do it in the daylight I

Tm: MIN1ISThE: Probably it they hadconsulted the hon. member it wouldhave been no use. Ile (&he Minister)was pleased to see thorn and to obtaintheir advice on many inatters. Ile wouldrather go to them f or advice than to manywho prated so much about their miningknowledge. One could not point to anymember on the Opposition side. exceptperhaps the member for lvanbo-, whohad been in any responsible position.The member for Murehison had hadexperience underground, and others mighthave had experience underground, butmanagers were responsiblc persons; theslightest mistake on their part might leadto a prosecution for manslaughter.

Mit, TAYLOR: And a fine of ;610.MR. ScADDAN:- But the managers

only interviewed a small section of mem-bers. Why did they not see their represen-tatives T

'THE MINISTER: The lion. memberwas not worried with interjections.

Ma. SCADDAN: The reporters werenot there.

THE CHAIRMAN: Order!I'NER M11NISTER: The lion. member

had referred to a report by an inspectorof mines produced in the previous I'arlia-meat by a former Minister; but the hon.miember in the previous Parliament hadnot said so much about it ; while lie (theMinister) had thought at the time thatthe inspector wvas exceedingly weak notto see that the managers carried outinstructions, or to prosecute if they didnot do so. Taunts were made on accountof a prosecution for manslaughter havingfailed. Tfle facts were that the depart-ment had prosecuted on one point, andthe manager had been fined £10; andthen when the more serious charge wasbrought on, the court properly held thatthe man could not be convicted twice forthe same offence. That was a blunder

on the part of the Mines Departmentwhich was then controlled by a LabourMinister. Clause 37 of this Bill wouldgive an inspector every power to stopwork in any part of a mine he considereddangerous or unsafe. The clause wasperfectly clear, though it might be im-proved by the addition of the word" forthwith"' as suggested on the NoticePaper.

MR. SVA.DDAN: What about Suhelause:3 of that cIluse I

'M' MINISTER : It provided that theinspector Could withdraw a man fromthe (dangerous part of the mine until thematter was determined by arbitration.If the wording was not sufficiently clearWe Could make it clearer. The accidentsthat occurred in mines were, to a greatextent, not in mines where the stopes.were high. Hie could prove it. He hada long list of the accidents that hadoccurred in mines during the last 18months.

MR. SCInUAN : The list was drawn upfor the Minister's own purpose, not forthe opposition's purpose. The Oppositoncould draw up a list for their purpose.

TH-E MIN16ER: The hon. membershould not believe that the officers of thedepartment, when asked to prepare areturn, would have a false return made.

TirE CHAIRMAN : The member forIvanhoe should withdraw. It was areflection, on the Minister.

MaI. SUADDAN : It was not to hisknowledge that the list was prepared bythe departmental officers. He hadthought it came from the Chamber ofMines, seeing that it had been supplyingso much copy. As the list was preparedby the departmental officers, there wasno reason for his making the statement,and he withdrew.

rdHE IIILISTER: A long list of acci-dents of various kinds occurring in theyear 1004 showed that most of themoccurred in mines where the stopes werelow, and comparatively only a few acci-dents occurred in mines where the stopeswere high. 'This was evident again in thereturn of accidents occurring in 1905 '-most of the accidents occurring in placeswhere the stopes were not high. Theamendment proposed for a maximum

Mines Regulation: (25 SPPTExftzFt, 1906.1

1820 -mines Regulationa: [ASM L.Hegto ep.

height of stopes would not apply to thevarying coalitions under which miningwas carried on. Where the groanl wasdangerous or treacherous, it wouldmanifestly be necessary to work with alow stope. A maximum height of 12feet might be suitable for the big mines,but would not be suitable for many ofthe smaller mines. For example, if theheight of a stope were 1 1 feet, and it wasf ound necessary to remove some dangerousground, the height of that stope mightbe increased to over 12 feet in places;and so the management would be com-mnitting a breach of the Act in removingthe dangerous ground, although neces-sary to do that for safe working. As aninstance of stopes in a large mine, takethe Kalgurli mine, in regard to whichthe return of accidents occurring showedthat only one accident occurredl therethrough a fail of roof. The stopes in thatmine were very wide, one being 100 feethigh; so if we fixed a maximum heightof stopes for all mines, that would not bea practical way of providing for safeworking. The Mintes Department recog-nised that high stopes were dangerous,that it was essential the managers ofmines should not be allowed too muchlatitude in regard to stopes; but therewere circumstances in which high stopescould be worked without anything likethe same risk as in cases where stopeswere low. The mining inspectors hadin fact been trying for some time to arriveat a certain limit to which various minescould safely go in working stopes; butit was founld that while in one mine theman might he able to work safely with aheight of 15 feet, in another mnineinspectors would have to refuse to allowmen to work even at a height of six feet.A hard and fast rule could not be applied.Under Clause 37 of the Bill, power wasgiven to inspectors to prevent anydangerous part of a mine from beingworked; and if when that clause wasbeing dealt with it was found that thepower wats not sufficient or the intentionwas not clear, the intention could bemade more clear. Inspectors must havepower to close down any part of a minethat was dangerous. No one could bemore sympathetic in trying to provide for

the safety of meztworking in mines than theState Mfining Engineer, who had beenframing elaborate regulations dealingwith the ventilation and sanitation ofmines, the testing of ropes, and the pro-viding of proper signalling apparatus.The State Mining Engineer stated as hisopinion, " It is not reasonably practicalto provide a maximum height of stopes."The amendinent now before the Commnitteeshould not be pressed.

M1R. BATH: Although the Ministerassurred members that the saeguards inthe Bill Would be a sufficient deterrentagainst any dangerous practice in theworking of mines, yet the fact remainedthat judging by results from the existingprovisions they had not deterred miningmanagers from working under da~ngerousconditions. The return of accidents for1905 showed a total of 270 serious accidents, of whIch 651 were due to falls ofground. There were 34 fatal accidents,and of these no less than 12 weredue so the same cause. Therefore thepresent provision3 of safeguards werepowerless to deter managers from workingthe mines in a manner dangerous to lifeor dangerous to the safety of workers.

THE MINISTER: All those accidents didnot occur in stopes. Only two fatalaccidents occurred in stopes last year,according to the return furnished by thedepartment.

11a. BATH:- There woul~d be many fallsof ground in places other than stopes.Among the cases of serious accidentsmentioned by the Minister, seven of themwere mn high stopes and four in low st opes ;showing that the majority of serious acci-dents occurred in high stopes, accordingto the Minister's figures. The fact of amine having its filling within a reason-ably safe distance of the back of the stopsmeant that men could work with greatereffect, because they need not erect stages.The former Minister for Mines, whenintroducing the Bill referred to by themember for Ivanhoe, said that for thelast few years all the inspectors had beeninstructed to stop the dangerous practicereferred to ;- that in some cases the instruc-Lions had not been carried out, becausethe inspectors had been unable under theAct to enforce the instructions, the Crown

[ASSEMBLY.) Height of Stopee.

Mins Rgultio: [5 SPTEBER 196.] Height of Stopes. 1821

law authorities being of opinion that thepower did not exist ; hence the intro-duction of a short amending measure.Yet the present Minister said the otherevening that this amendmuent was un-necessary, and might, by involving ex-pense, limit the work done in some mines.Unfortunately, the most powerful argu-ment for the amendment was that almostat the time we were last discussing thisclause a man was killed in the OroyaSouth mine, Kalgoorlie, and anotherman seriously injured. The deceasedhad thought tile ground unsafe, but,having been induced to go back to work,he was killed by a fall of ground. Thenumber of such accidents showed that theexisting safeguards were insufficient. 'TheMinister said, give more power to theinspectors; h ut the best safeguard was toprevent the working of stopes to unsafeheights. With the height of thle stopospecified in the Act the inspectors had amuch better chance to enforce the law.

Mat. EDDY opposed the amendment.The statement of the member for Ivanhoethat 75 per cent. of accidents occurredwhere the stopes were more than 12 feethigh was incorrect. Mlost accidentsoccurred in stopes from 4 feet to 5 feet6 inches. In the East Coolgardie Goldfielud,according to the departmental report for1905, three out of 13 fatal accidents weredue to falls of ground. Whether thesewere in stopes did not appear. Therewere fewer fatal accidents in 1906 thanin 1904, though the number of accidentshad increased, the chief increase beingprobably due to the more general recog-nition of the fact that all serious accidentsmust be reported. The State MiningEngineer reported that the exigenciesof work did not permit of strict insistenceon a rule that no stopes should be higherthan 10 feet above the filling, and thatsuch a rule would undoubtedly hamperthe ms in keeping up supplies of ore tothe mill, and would largely increase theworking cost; that to require by regu-lation that filling must be used in, allmines involved the proposition thatworkings could not be maintained insafety by any other method-a contentionwhich was quite untenable; that the

practice that was safe in one place mightnot be permissile in an adjoining one.Seeing that moat accidents occurred instopes of low height, and knowing thatstopes were worked up to a height of 100feet, the hard-anld-fast. rule proposed inthe amendment was not practicable. Thestatement of the mover that the manage-meat took an extra risk when gettingtowards the end nf a stope of high-gradeore was merely suppositional. The amend-ment would obstruct progress, and be ablow to ruining development.

MR. TAYLOR;- Anyone hearing thelast speaker could judge of his knowledgeof mining. He said that the greaternumber of accidents -occurred where stopeswere low, and that some stopes Couldsafely be left open for lO0ft., presumablywith no filling and little timber. Accord-ing to that argument, the more groundleft open, the safer the workers. A comn-pany which did not use mullock in a highstope would not buy timber.

MR. GULL: That would not apply tobig mines.

MR. TAYLOR: The interjector exposedhis ignorance. Repeated complaints weremade against big mines for using cyanidetailings for mullocking up, thus endanger-ing tire health of the men, as appearedby tile report of the Royal Commissionon the Ventilation of Mines. Anymanager who would work a ine witha stope looft. high should be taken upfor attempted murder. What safety wasthere in timbering up?7 Timber wasScarce on Many mining Camps. frNR.HLOLMIAN:- And dearer than men.] Thenumber of accidents amply justified thestatement that timber was dearer thanmen. There was a marked diff erencebetween the attitude of the Ministerto-night and his attitude on the lastoccasion when the clause was under dis-cussion. On the last occasion, theMinister desired to place the responsi-bility on the mlanagement, but presumablythe Minister had in the meantime beenadvised upon the point by the Chamberof Mines, and now desired the respon-sibility to be placed on the inspectors.Probably the Minister had received asevere chascisimtnt fromy the Chiamber

Minea Regulation : [25 SEVrEMBER, 1906.]

1822 Mims. Regulation: rASML. egto hpu

of Mines for adopting his previous attitude.In view of the lobbying chat had beenindulged in, it was fair to say so. Whatwould the present Ministry say if theywere in Opposition. had members of theLabour Party. being in power, broughtsecretaries of labour organisations intothe dining room of the House duiring adebate on a subject in which workmenwere interested ? TVhe present Ministershad secretaries of the Chamber of Minesand the Chamber of Commerce diningin this House during the debate on thisBill.

TuE CHAIRMAkN: What had this todo with the clause?7

Mn. TAYLOR: The Bill, in a largemeasure, was moulded by that class ofindividual,

THE MINISTER: That was absolutelyuntrue.

MR. HIOLMAN: Was the Minister allowedto make that statement I On other occa-sions members saying that a statementwas absolutely untrue had been calledto order. The MNinister should withdraw.

THE CHAIMAN : Ithe Minister re-ferrod to the remark of the hion. member,the statement should be withdrawn.

THE MINISTER. withdrew.MR. TAYLOR: Ministers invited sec-

taries of the Chamber of Mines to dinewith them.

TE CHAIRM AN: How did this affectthe clause ?

Ma. TAYLOR: It was from that sourcethat these regulations were ink the Bill.We would not have had the Bill if Itwere not for these meetings. It w-astalked of all over Perth that half of thislegislation emanated from the PalaceHotel; in fact, he (Mr. Taylor) thoughtof going to board at that hotel in orderto, get in the " know " and so as to beable to enlighten his fellow-members twoor three months beforehand as to whatlegislation would be brought down. Itwas idle saying that the first considera-tion. of the employer was the health andsafety of the employee. What had beenthe cause of all the big fights in the Legis-live halls of the English speaking countriesbut the interests of those employed IWe had in the early dlays most humaneemployers standing up in cthe House of

Commons and event in the House of Lordsin the interests of the employees. LordShaftsbury year after year fought to stopthe employ meat of children in mines;but employers were no better to-day than

thywere in days past. Competitionbrought about this state of affairs. Anyhumane mnager must do as his neigh-bours did; must make his dividends ashigh as lie possibly could in the interestsof holding his position as manager; andinust cut down working expenses which,in many eases, meant the neglecting ofthe safety Qf those working undergroundin the miine.

THfE MINISqTER: Would the hon. membertell the House why lie was so sient in1004 when the same clause was beforethe HouseI

MR. TAYLOR. When the Mines Flegii-lation Bill was under diSCLS.sion in 1904,there was no necessity for him (Mr. Taylor)to speak upon the subject. ft was abettermeasure than this. This measure wastaken from it, but the best part of- thep'revious measure, that in the interestsof the workers, was left out. The Ministerknew that his (Mr. Taylor's) advocacy

I was not required when the previousImeasure was being discussed, because theBill was in the hands of a Mfinister ade-quately capable of piloting it throughCommittee, but now that the Labourparty was so small, it becamne necessaryfor him, as a goldflelds representative,to raise his voice and try to point outto members n~ot possessing a knowledgeof mining affairs how this clause wouldaffect the safety of men working in mines.All members were agreed that this shouldnot be treated as a party question.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Onegave the member for Ivanhoe credit forbeing influenced solely by a desire to pro-mote the safety of miners; but the ques-tion was whether the amendment wouldtend to that desirable result. one couldnot live on the goldfields for a few yearswithout knowing that there was thegreatest possible variance in the legitimateheight to which stopes could be carriedini different mines. If the ground wasgood standing ground, the stops couldbe carried to a height which in othercases would he absolutely dangerous at

CAMEMBLY.] Height of Slopes.

Mins Rgultio: [b SPTEHER 196.] Height of Slopes. 1823

a very much lower height. WVhere thevein was narrow and the ground hard,the stopo could be carried probably 30or 'tO feet high, without the same riskas where the stope was 7ft. or 8f1t highin bad ground.

MR. ScADDAN: What was the advantageof carrying it that height I

Tum ATTOIRNE 'Y GENERAL was; notarguing as to the advantage of carryingit that height, but he wished to show thata general rule would be practicallyinoperative and of no avail ink a numberof instances. What the Minister said wasthis. The true position to take up wasto give control to those placed in authorityto fix for each particular mine theheight to which stopes should be carried.If a mine had bad ground, let the heightbe fixed at less than 12 feet ; if on. the otherhand the ground was beyond questiongood standing ground, there was nio riskin carrying the stops higher than 12f eet.

MRt. SCADD"N: There was always arisk.

TKE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Ofcourse there was a risk in a stopu six feetor seven feet high. The meniber had re-ferred to an accident which occurredoniy lately, and what was the height ofthe stops in that case ? only six feet. 'No.matter what the height, there: was a risk,and the greater the height the risk wouldbe greater in the same pround. Theadvice given by the Minister was abso-lutely sound, when he said the proper pro-cedure was to give ample powers to thoseplaced in authority to dictate to those whohad the management of mines what wasto be the ligitimate height for carryingstopes in a particular mine. If that wereadlopted we eliminated the danger in allow-ing too excessive a height in a dangerousmine, and avoided interfering undulywhere the ground was safe. It had beensaid the Minister had changed his groundin asking that the responsibility be placedin the hands of the inspectors of mines.The Minister had not taken up thatposition;. he had asked that power begiven to inspectors of mines, and that theresponsibility should rest with themnanager. To adopt the methods suggestedby the niember for Ivanhoe, so far from

leading to the largest measure of safety.would by the mecre fact of making astatutory limit, make a dangerous elementin a muine. We shiould suggest no height,but leave it open, and say it should bedecided by the mian on the spot. Theinspectors of mines were men carefullyselected for these duties, and hie was pre-pared to trust to an expression of opinionOn their part rather than to an expressionof opinion on the part of members.

Ma. UNDERWOOD: There were mem-bers in the House who had had experienceas managers. He had never had theresponsibility of being a manager, but hehad certainly had at coutpie of very narrowescapes from being k illed ; and he f elt s urethat a man who took risks and had narrowescapes was equally as well able to seewherc the danger was, as the main whotook all the responsibility and remainedon the top. It was essential for the safetyof miners that a limit should be placedon the height of stopes. lie would notsay that 1 2 feet should be fixed as theheight;- it might be a foot or two more;but he urged on the Minister the desir-ability of fixing a height. It was said theinspector could examine the stopes, andif he found danger could stop work; butan inspector could not detect danger ina high stops, because there was a deal ofground lie could not get near to inspect.The danger was not only of the reef orthe [ode faing, but there was danger ofparticles of the wall giving way. Thechief danger in the high stopes was theflakes faling oif the wall. Thle longer astope was open the greater the danger.A stops, might be safe this week but nextweek might become winded and conieaway. The oust dangerous ground w~asthe apparently safe ground. But whereground was known to be dangerous in-spectors could see that it was properlymullocked up. There was no greatcost in keeping a stope mullocked up.It was impossible for anl inspector tofairly examine stopes 30 feet high, muchless 100 feet high. If an inspector gotup 12 or 15 feot and thoroughlyexamined a stops he was doing very wellindeed.

Mai. HOLIMAN,: '[he 'Minister handstated that he was Willing to take adv ice

mines -BeguWi0a: [25 SEvrEsiBER, 1906.]

1824 Mines Regultion: [SE BY egto tps

tendered by members, but it seemed tlhatthe only advice he was willing to take wasthat offered by the Chamber of Mines ;not one suggestion of importance putforward by the workers had been acceptedby the Minister. It would he foolish foranyone to say that stopos in all mines weresimilar. This measure wxas brought for-ward, not to encourage in a direct waythe mining industry but to protect thelives of those engaged in the industry,and he did not see why the Minister shouldbe so unreasonable as to refuse to acceptsuggestions made by members on theOpposition side. Some provision shou1ldbe made to limit the height to whichstopes should be worked. If we madeprovision in this Bill we should be ableto take action against the mining com-panies, and compe them to see that theirstopes were kept safe. At Broken luillthere was no stope of a greater heightthan six or seven feet, because as soon asthey reached that height timber was putin. A somewhat similar system shouldbe adopted in the big mines on tile Belt.The Minister had said that no memberon that (Opposition) side of the House hadhad any practical experience as regardedmining. It was, however, a great pitythat some members on the (4overamentside had not ha te same experience ashad some on the Opposition side. Severalmembers on the Opposition side had beenbrought up in mining from boyhood.He himself managed mines in WesternAustralia over ten years ago, and couldshow his credentials. lie had workedin the Great Fingall Mine 11 or 12 yearsago, and he put in the first hundred feetof timber in the main shaft. Hlis work,had stood the test of time. Where therewas any doubt as to the safety of the minethe manager should be compelled to keephis stopes timbered up. We heard of anaccident last week at Kalgoorlie where aman lost his life owing to the fact that hiewas comnpelled to work in a. stope. not safe.The Minister appeared quite willing toadmit every recommendation made bythe Chamber of Minues, but not one sug-gestion made by workers in mines hadbeen adopted and brought forward bythe hon, gentleman. How was it possiblefor an inspector on the Murchison who

had to travel 2,000 miles in a buggy anda thousand miles by train to satisfactorilycarry out the necessary work I

M.GULL,: The men in charge of themines were as competent to give a soundand good opinion as were members onthe Opposition side of the Hiouse. lieregretted that there should be alwaysthis; one upbraiding from the Oppositionside that the Minister was being guidedsolely by the views of the Chamber of

Mi na.MaR. H-OLMrAN: That was beyond all

doubt.MA R. GULL: 'SuIch was not his opinion.MR, HOLMAN:- The Minister had not

accepted one suggest ion of the workers.MR. GULL: That was a mistaken idea.

The last time the Bill was before theCommittee amendment after amendmentby the member for Ivanhoe was accepted

bythe .~finister. and agreed to by both1sides.THE MINISTER. FOR WORKS: The Opposi-

tion members wanted the Governmenttbe guided entirely by the unions.Ma. GULL: From experience he knew

that the ground in one mine was verydifferent from that in another, and he hiadcome to the conclusion that the placing ofthe fullest power in the hands of inspectorswould meet the case. He admitted thatinspectors had a great many more minesto look after than they could possiblyattend to properly, and if necessary fartherinspectors should be appointed, but weshould leave to the inspectors the powerto say whether the stopes were dangerousor not. He could not see why memberson the Opposition side of the House shouldalmost throw out the suggestion that minemanagers liked to see accidents now andagain. That was the suggestion thrownout, that they were goin to do all sorts ofthings, that they were going to force mento go into a dangerous stope. [Mmuzs;.'fhey had done so.] He did not thinkthey had. Where accidents had happenedthey had been purely unforeseen, andit should be borne in mind that miningwas a dangerous occupation.

MR. HEMANN:; Accidents should beprovided against.

MR. GULL: He regretted the amountof ground left open. It depended a good

[ASSEMBLY.) H*ht of Stopea.

Mines Regulation: [25 SEPTEMBER, 1906.] Height of .Stapes. 1825

deal upon the size of the lode. In manycases they' had not the filling.

MR. JOHNSON: The main reason hehad for desiring to see the height of stopeslimited was that he did not think it possibleto expect inspectors of mines to visit -allthe slopes and decide when a stopebecame dangerous. A stope might beperfectly safe to-day and unsafe to-morrow, and the inspector could niot visitthe mine every day ;yet the minlisterasked us to leave it to the inspector tosay whether thle stepe was safe. TheMinister maintained that according tothe departmental report the majority ofaccidents occurred in stopes less than 12feet high. That the report proved thiswas denied ; but if it did, then the ameond-menit was dlearly necessary ;for if acci-dents occurred when the men could reachthe top of the stope, surely accidents wveremore likely when the stope was 12 feethigh and the top out of reach. TileMinister argued that because mien werenot killed in stopes 12 feet high we shouldnot limit the height. According to theevidence of the shift boss, the unfortunateaccident that occurred almost ait the timewhen this clause was last under considera,tion happened in a stope from 10 to 12feet high. The deceased had expressedhis dissatisfaction with the surroundings,and a few minutes afterwards lie waskilled.

MR. EDDY: That might have happenedin a four feet stope.

MR. JOH-NSON : But there the mnancould have examined and tested theground. Men knew that if they refusedto work in a dangerous place they wouldbe sent up the shaft. It was idle to saythat a miner who drew attention to unsafeground was thanked by the manager andmoved to a place of safety. Speak of thisBill to miners on the Hannan's Belt, and

they would urge, first, that the height ofstopes be limited, and second, that thecontract system be put down. Thesewere the two main causes of fatal accidentsand partial disablements.

TE MI1NISTER FOR MINES: Againto-night it was Maid that the State MliningEngineer had a private interview with theChamber of Mines in January last as tothe height of stopes. Members forgot to

state that the officer interviewed theMiners' Association also, the object beingto have a proper understanding as to thisclause. To0 say that the Bill was the out-come of suggestions by the Chamber ofMines was unfair. Last year he (thleMinister) met the Chamber of Mines inconference, and the Miner's Associationalso. Thig year- Ike again interviewed bothsides, to hear their Suggestions regardingthe Bill which had then been draftedand was now before us. Tile Chamberof Mlines asked for more amendmentsthan the member for Ivanhoe (Mr.Scaddan) required. He (the Minister)had tried to stick closely to the Bill asdrafted. The consistency of certain mem-bers opposite was admirable. Two yearsago the Labour Government brought inand passed a similar Bill ; and the thenMinister for Mines said that instructionswere not carried out because inspectorswere unable to enforce them, thoughaware of the dangerous height of stopes'Ihe memiber for Ivanhoe was in theHouse at thle time, and no argument forspecial legislation as to the height of stopesappeared in his speech.

,MR. SOADDAN : That was not a con-solidating measure like this Bill.

THE MINISTER: lIt was brought in todeal with this question. On that occasionalso the member for Murchison (Mr.Holman) was significantly silent; and themember for Mount Mlargaret simplysupported an amendment by him(Minister) providing fortaightly insteadof monthly pays. The lion. memberwas then muzzled with a portfolio.

MR. HoLMAN: The Minister was nowmuzzled by the Chamber of Mines.

THE MIN[STER: The statement wasincorrect. He was fighting for the Billhe had brought in, and was not givingway to any amendments from either sideif he and the departmental authoritiesthought them impracticable. The Govern-ment, were more auxions than the mem-ber for Mount Nlargaret for the well-being of the men. To conserve this theGovernment had done something, andthe hou. member nothing. The lion.member tried to mislead the House bysaying that he (Minister) had shiftedhis position, and wished to-night to put

1826 Mines Regulation: [ASSEMBLY.] Height of Stopes.

the responsibility on the inspector insteadof on the manager. Nothing of thesort. The desire was to make theinspector responsible for inspecting; tomake him do his duty. Two years ago.speaking on a similar Bill, lie (M1inister)held that the inspector had the necessarypower; and under the existing Act, Rule8, the in~spector ]had the power, and pro-secution should have followed disobedienceto the inspector's instructioni when hethought that certain stopes were toohigh and the mine dangerous. The ruleprovided that every drive and excavationof any kinid, whether on the surface orunderground, should be securely iro-tooted and made safe for persons employedtherein. Clause 37 seemed clear enough;but if any member could suggest a meansof making it clearer, lie was preparedto adopt the suggestion. Two years agolie had stated that the inspector had thenecessary power, but that we shouldprovide that if the inspector consideredany part of the mine dangerous hie couldclose down that part of the mine; alsothat if the manager thought the inspectoracted harshly, the inspector could bereported, and an inquiry would be held.We could give strong powers to theinspector, because it would be well knownthat if the inspector were unduly harassingthe managers, and asking for impossiblethings, an inquiry could be made. Fromall the advice he (the M1inister) could geton this amendment, he was assured itwould be impracticable. In sonic casesan inspector might refuse to allow a stopeto be more than 6 feet high, but in othermines conditions would vary. Hie wasgiven to understand that drill holes werenow bored to a depth of up to 9 feet,and that when an 8-feet face was beintaken out it was necessary to have roofor the machine drills. It must be re-membered that when the Labour Govern-ment brought down a Mines RegulationBill the Minister at that time presumedthat it would suffice to give absolutepower to the inspector. When that Bill1was being discussed, considerable debatetook place on the question of the heightof stopes, and it was specially pointedout that provision was made that theinspector had power to close down a

portion of the mine, while the managercould call for ant arbitration, by whichit could be ascertained whether themanager or the inspector was wrong.'That power was provided in this Billnow before the Committee, al it Watss-ifficienif power. We should not putimpracticable things in the Bill.

11u. COLLIER: Government memberswere just as anxious as Opposition moe-bets to preserve life, but Oppoiitionmembers did not infer, as the memberfor Swan suggested, that mine managerswere pleased ait the frequency of accidents.Nline mnanagers took all icasoniLblu pre-cautious to prevent accidents, bitt whereslopes were carried to great heights itwas impossible to ascertain whether theywere safe or not. Inuastope I~ft. or 2Oft.high neither the inipector nor the managerco ild tell whether the roof wats safe, ashad been pointed out; and it was onlywhent the roof wats allowed to stand forsonic time that it became unsafe, be-cause of the effect of the air upon it. Ifwe limited the height of the stopes to

12ta man could pass along and tapthe roof with a hammer, to see if it was" druinty." A roof only soundeddrummy after it had been standing two

I or three weeks, but one could tell bytapping it whether it was likely to fallor not. Great quantities of fracteur wereused in mining operations nowadays.Hioles were bored up towards the roof.and it took a greater quantity of explosivesto take the face out than if the holeswere bored downwards. As greaterquantities of fracteur were used in thisway it was natural that the explosioinsshattered the roof of the steps consider-ably, andl the effect of the shattering was

I apparent after the roof hlad been standingfor a few weeks. The Secretary of theMiners' Association last December sentword to the inspector of mines that com-plaints had been made with regard tothe safety of at stope in the Oroya-BrownHill mine, but the in~pector was toobusy to examine it. Three days after-wards a great body of stone fell fromthe roof and at man wats killed. It wasall very well to talk of responsibility,but what responribility did any man takewho was not endangering his life ?

Mine Reulaion [2 SPTEIDEX 106.] Height of Slopes. 1827

Managers would take all ordinary pre-cautioir, but the system of competitionon miines to reduce working costs wvassuch that at manager would not take anystep that wvould unduly increase the costof working his mine. 'The Minister talkedof a case of baulky ground being encoun-tered, and necessitating increasing theheight of a stope beyond any limit fixedbut all laws-would press harshly on soaleindividual, and we must assume, ats thleAttorney Gleneral had suggessed a fewnights since, that the men administeringthe Act would use a reasonable amountof commnon sense.

THE MAINISTER OF MINES: Suppose anaccident Occurred, would not the managerbe liable for manslaughter?

MR. COLLIER: As the AttorneyGeneral had pointed out, those adminis'-toting the law would exercise a reason-able amount of common sense, and if aman were not killed the manager wouldbe probably fined only a nominal sum.The Minister relied on Clause 37. Thatclause would meet the case if the Opposi-tion had been successful in carrying theamendment for check inspectors, or if itwere possible for an inspector to fre-quentlv visit a mine, but on the EasternGoldfields an inspector might not visit amine once in two or three montbs. TheState Mining Engineer recommended oneinspection every three months as suffi-cient. We all knew what might happenin large mines in the course of two orthree months ; a stope might be prac.tically safe when the inspector visitedthe mine, but it might be unsafe the nextweek. If an inspector could frequentlyvisit a mine then Clause 87 would meetthe case.

MR. TROY; This measure was broughtforward to better ensure the safety andprotection of miners, and the fact thattwo years ago the measure brought for-ward did not go as far as we wereattempting to go to-day was no argumentwhy the amendment should not beaccepted. The Minister held that theresponsibility of seeing whether a stopewas safe or not, and whether it was toohigh or not, should rest with the inspec-tor ; but an inspector was not alwayscompetent to judge.. Inspectors had notbeen selected because of their greatknowledge of mining matters: the

majority of them were selected at a timewhen it was easy to secure suchpositions, and the knowledge which theypossessed had been gained since theyhad become inspectors. There weresome inspectors in the State inwhom the miners had no confidence.There was one inspector on the North-Eastern Goldfields in whom the minershad every onfidence-be. was previouslyon the Murchison; but that feeling didnot obtain in regard to every inspector.What was the use of placing the responsi-bility on inspectors when we couldpr6vidti in the Hill that stopes should bea certain height ? Then the responsibilitywould rest on no one. We could laydown a hard and fast rule providingagainst mistakes being made; the inspec-tor would tben know his duty, so wouldthe manager. A great many accidentshad occurred through the height ofstopes. and although mining was anavocation which was very risky, therewas no reason why we should not legislateto minimise that risk. 'He did not saythat a. manager liked to see men killed.but managers were compelled to competewith other mine managers and keepdown the cost of production. It was inconsequence of this that a, managercompelled his employees to work indangerous places, and if an employee didnot work in these places then it was soonmade known to him that be must goelsewhere. On one occasion at Cue, ina mine known as the Brilliant, a minerwas blown up. There was a regulationproviding that if a, shot missed minersshould not go down until a certain timehad elapsed. The manager, in the casereferred to, did not tell tbe man not togo down until a certain time elapsed, butliv his action he implied that time shouldnot be wasted, and in order to keep inwith the manager and to hold his posi-tion the miner went down to the placesooner than he should have done, andwas blown to pieces. At the inquiry themanager said that he did not tell theman to go down before the regulationtime had elapsed, but he implied it, andthe man saw that if he did not godown he would not he giving Btis-faction. We were endeavouring toprovide that responsibility should notrest onL the manager or the inspector.We were not legislating alone for the

(25 SPPTE3MER, 1906.1Mines Regulation:

1828 Hines Regulatiou: [ASML.HigtoSop.

Coolgardie belt. An inspector on theMurchison, and at North Coolgardie, andNorseman did not visit a mine more thanonce in three or probably six months.Those portions of the State would beutterly neglected if the amendment werenot adopted. If the amendment wereadopted, in every portion of the Statewhich could not be visited by an inspectorthe manager would know to wbat heightthe stopes could be worked, and he wouldnot work thoem any higher. Members onthe Government RAide of the House hadbeen invited. to dinner at the PalaceHotel by mining managers, and werefilled with plenty of champagne and goodthings. Mr. Hamilton presided andmade a speech, and that speech met withthe commendations of all members pre-sent. This was a gross scandal, forhad the heads of any unions come toPerth and entertained members on this(Opposition) side of the House andstated their wishes with regard to acertain matter, the members would notonly have received the condemnation ofthe House but would have been verylittle thought of in the country.

Ma. HEITMANN: In reading a fewdays ago the objections of the Chamberof Mines to certain amendments on theNotice Paper, he was rather. surprisedf-hat they adduced not one argumentagainst the amendment now beforethe Committee ; and here to-nightalthough the Minister bad spokentwice he had not informed the Coin.mittee how the amendment would actagainst the interests of the mine-owners.In the most economically worked mineswe found the stopes not higher than 12feet or very rarely 12 feet. He was notbound to 12 feet, and would even go ashigh as 14, but in his opinion that wouldbe sufficiently high for the economicalworking of any mine in Western Aus-tralia. As to lea&ving full discretionarypowers to inspectors his experience hadbeen that it had been impossible for aninspector to do his duty and attend to themines as they should be attended to,especially seeing that, as ha been pointedout, an inspector on the Murchison couldnot inspect many of the mines more thanonce in every two or three months. Theadoption of this amendment would notincrease the cost of mining in any way.In ract where a miner could get at his

work handy, and where he could seewhat be was doing and could examinethe backs without staging, the cost ofstopiug would be mjuch less than wasthat of the stopes where one had touse ladders or stages of other descriptions.Again we saw empty benches on theGovernment side, though their properoccupants had promised to treat this at;sanon-party measure. Surely the fact thttminers had for years ask-ed that theheight of stopes 13o limited should havesome weight, even with mnembers whohad never been down a mine.

Ma. SCADDAN would reply to somestatements and misstatements made bymnembers and by the Minister. TheMinister's reading of a departmentalreport on this clause was misleading,and the member for Coolgardie (Mr.Eddy) stated in consequence that themajority of accidents occurred in stopescarried to a height of four feet. Thereturn showed that the height of thestope was "four feet above man's he-ad."Tha&t would be a, loft. stope. Inanother place the return stated that

Ithe stage was Sft. Gin. from roof.The height of the stope was not men-tioned. It mnight have been 35Ft. Thereturn was absolutely useless. Fewstopes in the Kalgoorlie field were carriedto four feet only. The return in mostcases did not sho'w the height of stope;hence it did not show how manyaccidents happened in stopes; carriedbeyond 12ft. The return seemed tohave been prepared by a boy clerkignorant of mining. It showed 17accidents in stopes during 1905 in theKlalgoorlie district, and for eight monthsof 1906 17 accidents, with four mouthsyet to go, showing that accidents wereincreasing. To this must be added thetwo accidents last week. Tn 1905 only12 accidents in stupes happened through-out the resit of the State, showing anundue percentage on the Kalgoorlie field,where sufficient regard was not, paid tothe welfare of the men. In New Zea-1land, under an e-ffective Act, the deathrate per thousand in 1905 was 1-35 ofmen employed, and in Western Australiait was 2-02. In 1905 the number ofserious accidents per thousand was inNew Zealand 1-27 and in this State]6-0:3. As our mines were sto rich,surelyv the mcii should be protected.

(ASSEMBLY.] Height of Stopes.

Mine Reidaioa: [25SEIEEMIEII 196.] fleghd of Siopes. 3829

Apart from shafts, stepes were pro-lbably the most dangerous places in amine. Men would not comphain toan inspector that a stops, was too high ;and no sane man would expect them todo so. The management could easilytrace the information.

TrHE MINeSTER: Not if it came throughthe secretary of the association.

MR. SCAB DAN:, Undoubtely. If aminer reported to the secretary that acertain stope was unsafe, the secretarywould inform the inspector, wvho wouldprobably go immediately to the mine toinspect thec stope; and the mine authori-ties would conclude that the men work-ing in the slope mu Lst have given him theinformation.

Tuae MINISTER: Would the meu bedismissed for that ?

M&. BATH : Recently at Davyhurst hesaw a case in point.

Mu. SCADOAN:. A. 1etter received byhim from Kalgoorlie last week showedthat a man employed on one of the bigmines received orders to put up a risefrom the 250ft. level to the 200ft. level;hut as he was to work alone, hedid not think it good enough and com-plained to theb underground manager, andthe underground manager replied, " Allright, there are plenty of men who willdo it." That young man was six weeksout of work, and on applying again atthe mine for work was told that it was,no use his looking for work there, as hewould not get a, job on the mine again.This showed that if a miner often corn-plained that a place was dangerous, hewould get his time. The fti mister re-marked that Opposition members had notbeen so prone to discuss the Bill broughtdown by the Labour Government. TheMinister would remember that he (Mr.Scaddan) on that occasion remarked thatinspectors were 005 doing their duty, andof the Opposition, took him to taskthat the present Minister, then a memberfor saying so, and said that inspectorsshould be dismissed if they were niotcarrying out their duty' . However, theMinister afterwards concurred with theinspectors when they pointed out thereason for not, paying surprise visits.The Attorne y General, on his own con-fession, had not any practical knowledgeof mining, and the bon. member had noteven read the amendment before opposing

it. The amendment did not make it ahard and fast rule that stopes. should beI12f I. in height. A lesser height -was pro-vided for if necessary. The Mi nera'Associ-ation had asked that the height should befixed at 10 feet. Also in regard to thetaunt of the Minister for Mines, whenthe consolidating Bill was brought downby the Labour Minister for Mines he(Mr. Scsaidan) on the seond readingmade reference to the necessity forproviding for the height of stopes, forboxes in rises, for testing ropes, forventilation, the introduction of specialrules, and for the provision of penthouses ; he was just as anxious, sittingbehind the Labour Minister, to make theBill effective as he was to make thisBill effective. The member for Swanasserted that the Minister had acceptedamendment after amendment from him(Mr. Sead dan) ; hut the amendments theMinister accepted were not of vitalimportance and were really in manycases only verbal, inserting a word hereand there. Tim Minister had not agreedto the amendment with regard to checkinspectors, nor with regard to the pro.vision for notice when again corn-mencing operations in abandoned mines.

*The Minister accepted a miodification ofthe clause dealing with. the engine-drivers, which he stated 'was his desire,hut the clause was not drafted as heintended it to be. Dealinig with the pro-posal for persons firing out a lode, theMinister opposed the amendment and itwas not accepted. As to the compulsorytesting of cages, the Minister did notaccept the proposal brought forward.The essential points that had been pro-posed by him (Mr. Scaddan) the Ministerhad opposed. Now, dealing with theheight of stopes, which was the mostvital point in the Bill, the Minister wasopposing that. One would just as wellsee the Bill withdrawn as that it shouldgo through without limiting the heightof slopes. The Minister depended onClause 37, which compelled an inspectorto see that the workings in any part of amine were not dangerous. That did notmeet the case, for a, slope could be carriedto any height until such time as theinspector arrived and told the men tocease working. Then he could bring thelimit of the stope. to 10 feet, but after

i that the management could continue to

Mines Regulation: [25 SF17EMBER, 1906.]

1830 Mines Regulationt: [ASSE31BLY.] Height of Slopes.

carry the slope to its original heightuntil the inspector visited the mine again.The journal of the Chamber of Minesstated that the mine managers had beennegotiating with the Mines Departmentfor mouths in connection with the heightof stopes, but that they had not beenable to come to any agreement. It wasluseless to permit the question to bepassed aside on the assumption thatsome agreement was to be come to. Ifwe stated in the Bill that the maximumheight of stopes was to be 12 feet, shouldany accident occur or the inspectorarrive on a mine and find the stope hadbeen carried to a greater height than 12feet, he could take proceedings against themanager. &n inspector only visited thebig mines twice in the year. As to theMinister stating that in using rock drillsmore than two feet were required, it wasvery rarely that men stoped directly overtheir heads. If they went higher thannine feet they had to rig a staging.He (Mr. Scaddan) haod seen groundwhich to all appearances was safe, andsounded safe, but the next moment a fallhad occurred through a soapy beading.No reason had been advanced againstlimiting the height to a maximum of 12feet, and he asked the Minister to give a12-mouths trial to the proposal and seehow it worked out in practice.

Ma. BARNETT: Having listened tothe arguments on both Sides he haddecided to support the amendment.

MR. TAYLOR: Having heard thestatement by the member forlvanhoe withreference to mines being visited onlytwice a year on the Golden Mile, thatmust show members that Some limit inthe height of Slopes should be fixed. Ofcourse the visits of inspectors werefrequent, but an inspector could notthoroughly inspect a mine more thantwice aL year. It was surprising to hearthe Minister say that in the Kalgurlimine there was a slope over 100 feethigh. The scrip of that mine was higheron the market than that of any othermine in Western Australia. There mustbe some object in carrying the slope tothe height it was carried. No argumenthad been advanced sufficiently strong tosupport the Minister's contention. Thelimitation of 12 feet might perhaps work ahardship in some parts of the State; but

a limit should be placed on the height ofstopes.

Ma. HOLMAN: The Ilinister andalso the Press hadl stated that memberson the Op position side praised themeasure when it was introduced. He(Mr. Holman) to-night denied that. Asregarded himself, the member for Ivan-hoe, and other members, the measure wagnot praised at all. The only thing saidwas that they were glad the measure wasbrought down so early, and when it wasin Committee they would do everythingpossible to turn it out a decent Bill. TheBill introduced two years ago was broughtforward for a special purpose, and 6x-perience had shown tha~t it was notsufficient.

Amendment (Mr. Scaddan's) put, anda division taken with the followingresult:

.&yesNoes

Majority against ..Area.

Mr. BarnettMr. RathMr. Solto,,Mr. CollierMr. fleitmannMr. JiolmMr. Job.s.nMr. ScaddanMr. SmithMr. TaylorMr. UnderwoodMr. WalkerMr. WareXr. imry (TOWle).

... .. ... 14.. 19

5Noe.

Mr. BrebberMr. BrownMr. CanoMr. DaviesMr. EddyMr. EwingMr. Gordon

Mr. HaywardMr. KeenanMr. LaymanMr. MoaertyMr. MaleMr. MitchellMr. Pri.eMr. StoneMr. VeryardMr. Hsxdwick(Tte)

Amendment thus negatived.Progress reported, and leave given to

sit again.

ADJOURNMENT.

The House' adjourned at six minutespast 11 o'clock, until the next day.