legislative assembly friday november - · pdf filequeensland . parliamentary debates [hansard]...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1968

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1942 Rabbit Acts, &c., Bill [ASSEMBLY] Questions

FRIDAY, 29 NOVEMBER, 1968

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL VISIT TO ABORIGINAL CoMMUNITIES, NoRTH QuEENSLAND

Mr. P. Wood, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

With reference to his announced visit to Aboriginal and other settlements in North Queensland in December, what are the names and positions of all persons who will accompany him for all or part of his tour and what places will be visited?

Answer:-"Included in my party will be-Mr. G. E.

McDowell, Chief Commissioner of Lands. Mr. P. J. Killoran, Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. Invitations to accompany me on parts of this visit have been extended to----The Member for Tablelands, Mr. E. Wallis-Smith; The Member for Cook, Mr. H. A. Adair; Mr. Dick Palk, Courier-Mail Journalist; and the following endorsed Party Candidates-Mr. J. Bidner, Country Party; Mr. M. Borzi, Country Party; Mr. W. Wood, Australian Labour Party. In extending these invitations, I believe I have acted fairly in the interests of all concerned. I propose visiting Yarrabah, Hope Vale, Cooktown, Lockhart River (new site), Bamaga, Thursday Island, Weipa, Aurukun, Edward River, Mitchell River, Mornington Island, Doomadgee and Normanton."

SUGGESTED EXPORT OF BUDGERIGARS

Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Primary Industries,-

( 1) Is he aware that Queensland is losing a considerable sum each year because it is not possible to export budgerigars?

(2) Prior to 1960, when it was permissible to export budgerigars for commercial purposes, was there a big demand overseas for Australian panicum, setaria, millet and canary seed?

(3) Is there any reason why budgerigars should not be exported overseas?

( 4) As exported budgerigars could instil healthy life-blood into the overseas trade balance, will he consider making suitable representations to the appropriate Federal authorities to restore the right to export budgerigars?

(5) Is the loss to Australian trade in the sale of birds and the necessary grain in excess of $10 million a year?

Questions [29 NOVEMBER] Questions 1943

Answers:-(1) "No."

(2) "Yes, but varying considerably from year to year."

(3) "For several years prior to 1959, fauna conservationists, naturalists and many members of the general public had become perturbed about the increasing extent of trapping native birds throughout Australia for overseas commercial export. It was alleged that this trafficking was decimating bird populations and in many cases cruelty to the birds was occurring as large numbers died during trapping and transportation. In August 1959 the Commonwealth Government took action and called a conference of State and Commonwealth officials to discuss principally controls on the export of fauna from Australia. The conference clearly showed that because of a number of differing factors completely common policies and rules between the various States and the Commonwealth were not practicable. The conference also demonstrated the need for centralised control over the export traffic in fauna, but no decision was reached to impose a prohibition. Subsequently the Commonwealth Government considered the matter and the Prime Minister's Department, Canberra, advised this State that after considering all aspects of the export trade in native fauna they had decided, in the public interest, to assume full control over fauna export transactions under powers provided by the Commonwealth Department of Customs and Excise Regulations. Permits to export are given by Customs for zoo to zoo transfers of budgerigars or for scientific purposes, subject to agreement of the State fauna controlling authority."

( 4) "I feel it can be accepted that the Commonwealth has given careful consideration to all the relevant issues before deciding on its present policy. In the circumstances I would not be prepared to make the representations sought. There is no evidence to show that re-introduction of export of budgerigars would materially effect the overseas trade balance. In fact, the value of export of bird seed (canary seed, panicum and millet) has increased over the years. For example: 1960-61, $515,900; 1966-67, $1,500,000."

(5) "I have no ready access to figures covering the approximate value to Australia of the previous unsavoury trafficking in cage birds. There is no evidence, however, of any loss in grain trade."

INJURY OF POLICEMAN, SARINA

Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

Did a policeman fracture his ankle in Sarina recently? If so, where and under what circumstances did he fracture it?

Answer:-"No. However, on March 15, 1967, a

police officer sustained injuries including a fractured bone (fibula) in his right ankle when he was unlawfully assaulted after he and another police officer (who was also unlawfuliy assaulted) had arrested a person in Central Street, Sarina, in the vicinity of the Tandara Hotel. On March 16, 1967, Ronald Bernard J ames Mizzen appeared at the Magistrates Court, Sarina, on summonses charging him with having unlawfully assaulted each of the police officers concerned. On pleading 'guilty' to those charges that person was convicted and fined $130 on each of the two charges, in default one month's imprisonment."

ALLEGED USE OF POLICE AS GATEKEEPERS ON VVHARVES

Mr. Bennett, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

( 1) Did police officers recently take over the jobs of the gate-keepers on the wharves during a period of industrial unrest?

(2) Was the appropriate union consulted about the matter?

( 3) Did the water police refuse to do the job?

( 4) Did the city police refuse to do the job?

(5) Was it performed by the Valley special police?

( 6) Why are special police employed on tasks of this nature when there is a record amount of unsolved crime in the State?

(7) If police are to be employed on this type of work, why were special police employed at a special rate of pay?

Answers:(!) "No." (2 to 7) "See Answer to (1)."

COURSE FOR GOVERNESSES, KELVIN GROVE HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. N. T. E. Hewitt, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1) What are the qualifications needed for eligibility to train as governesses in the governesses' course being conducted at Kelvin Grove State High School?

( 2) If at present it is only open to governesses employed as such, will consideration be given to making the training available to mothers teaching their own children?

( 3) Is there any limitation on districts from which trainees can be drawn or are to serve after receiving tuition?

1944 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

Answers:-

( 1) "The course is open to all governesses or persons desirous of becoming governesses. Applicants are required to have completed a course of junior studies."

(2) "Mothers who are home supervisors of the correspondence tuition of their children will be eligible for enrolment in future courses. It might be stated, however that Regional Directors in eo-operatic~ with the Primary Correspondence School and the Country Women's Association have, during 1967 and 1968, conducted special seminars for home supervisors in many country centres. Further assistance in thil; direction will be considered on request."

(3) "No."

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN STATE SCHOOLS

Mr. Dean, pursuant to notice asked The Minister for Education,- '

Will he give a general outline of the system used in religious instruction in Queensland State schools?

Answer:-

"Religious instruction in State Schools is given in accordance with Section 20 of "The Education Act of 1964"."

ALLEGED AssAULTS BY YOUTHS AT MT. TAMBORINE

Mr. Lee, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

(!) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Courier-Mail of November 28 regarding a group of abusive youths who on Sunday attacked a party of students from the Wynnum High School and later a married man and his pregnant wife?

(2) Will he inform the House of the action taken by the police in the matter?

Answers:

(!) "Yes."

(2) "Police investigations in these matters are presently continuing. Should sufficient evidence be obtained upon which to prefer a charge against any person appropriate action will be taken." '

COMMONWEALTH INVESTIGATION INTO MAJOR POWER-HOUSE PROPOSAL,

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND

Mr. Hanson, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1) Has he noted an answer given by the Prime Minister in Federal Parliament on November 27 concerning power-house proposals in Central Queensland wherein he stated that preliminary investigations were

being undertaken by various Federal departments to ascertain what companies were prepared to establish themselves in the proposed power-house area?

(2) In the submission made to the Federal Government, did he name the companies interested in establishing themselves following erection of the powerhouse?

(3) As the Prime Minister stated that the Government also was interested in exploring the idea of a power plant, has he received any further word from the Prime Minister in recent weeks concerning early submissions for Federal aid in the matter?

Answers:-

(!) "No. I saw a Press report of t.he Answer to a Question asked on November 26 but that report did not mention the matter of the investigation to which the Honourable Member refers. I am arranging to obtain a copy of the relevant Hansard."

(2) "A most comprehensive submission was made by the State covering the resources and existing industry in Central Queensland, the industries which the Government hoped to attract with large scale power resources and the local natural resources which could be used by such industries. The submission fully set out the potential output of each proposed new industry and its value. It emphasised the huge contribution which the project could make on a continuing basis to Australia's balance of external payments position and calculated the approximate benefit. In practically every class of industry mentioned in the submission there had been negotiations by the State with local and overseas companies interested in establishing the particular industry concerned. These negotiations were conducted before the submission was made and included certain organisations with whom I had discussions on my trip overseas earlier this year. Because the Government regards such negotiations as highly confidential and respects the confidence of the parties concerned, the names of the companies involved have not been submitted to the Commonwealth, or made public to any other source."

(3) "No, although I understand that a reply should be received shortly."

EXTENSION OF METHODS OF DROUGHT RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Dean for Mr. WaUis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Primary Industries,-

( 1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Queensland Graingrower of November 27 concerning New South Wales drought aid?

Questions [29 NOVEMBER) Questions 1945

(2) As Queensland suffers drought losses in some areas every year, will he have a list prepared of the various methods of assistance available, including those from New South Wales, which are applicable?

( 3) Will he consider setting up the necessary machinery to enable the Government to buy fodder from farmers for distribution, in addition to grain and molasses purchases as was the case during the last drought?

Answers:-

( 1) "The article in the Queensland Graingrower details the drought relief assistance provided by the New South Wales Government with Commonwealth financial support as the result of the severe drought which commenced in 1965. The Queensland Government has a similar series of schemes for assistance."

(2) A leaflet entitled 'Drought Aid for the Grazier' was prepared in June, 1967 with the objective of making graziers fully aware of our drought relief measures. A copy of this leaflet is tabled and further copies are available from my Department."

(3) "During the 1965 drought, Drought Relief Fund moneys, donated by public subscription, were used for the purchase .of grain and molasses for distribution to needy graziers. The Committee administering that Fund was careful to husband the moneys as much as possible and purchase fodders which were readily available, were at a fixed price and which .offered the best return for the expenditure. They were careful not to enter into competition with the private individual and so artificially inflate prices. Other than the use of the Drought Relief Fund for fodder purchases, there has not been any scheme for the purchase of fodder by the Government for distribution to stockowners and I would certainly not favour one."

Paper.-Whereupon Mr. Row laid upon the Table of the House the leaflet referred to.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, MT. SURPRISE

Mr. Davies for Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

In view of the increasing importance of Mt. Surprise as a cattle railing centre and as six small generating plants are necessary for the post office and workshop, will he have an early investigation made into the possibility of supplying Mt. Surprise with electricity either by land line or generating plant?

Answer:-

"A preliminary investigation into the possibility of providing a public electricity supply in Mount Surprise was made by the Cairns Regional Electricity Board earlier this year. The annual cost is high

in relation to anticipated revenue and more economic extensions have been given preference for immediate consideration in current programmes. The Board will review the position from time to time particularly in relation to augmenting power generating facilities at Georgetown."

REPORT OF GULF OF CARPENTARIA PRAWN SURVEY

J\1r. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

Have reports and recommendations of the Gulf of Carpentaria prawn survey completed in 1966 been received? If so, will they be made available to Parliament?

Answer:-

"Yes. I understand that it is being edited by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry for publication purposes. I will let the Honourable Member have a copy as soon as it is available."

ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES FOR PRAWNING INDUSTRY AT NORTHERN

PORTS

Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

( 1 ) In relation to the Fisheries Development Conference at Canberra in February, 1967, was it recommended that developmental plans for fisheries should make full use of prawn resources by establishing facilities at local northern ports?

(2) Has any fund for prawn resources research and development of facilities been established? If so, has an approach been made to the Commonwealth Government for matching grants? If not, why not?

(3) Is it the Government's intention to accept conference recommendations to participate in actual developmental projects with 50 per cent. interest by Government and by joint industry enterprises?

Answers:-

( 1) "It is my understanding that the conference recommended that the plan should make full use of facilities at local ports, especially of those established to facilitate the exploitation of mineral resources."

(2 and 3) "My Government participated in partnership with C.S.I.R.O. in substantial research into the prawn resources of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Again in partnership with C.S.I.R.O. it is participating in a fullscale prawn research programme at Scarborough. In both projects costs have been shared by the State and Commonwealth Governments without industry contribution. Consideration has been given to ways and means of financing prawn resources

1946 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Wheat Industry, &c., Bill

research and other work of significance to fisheries. It would appear that the most appropriate method of industry contribution would be through the licensing of prawn processing establishments with an appropriate licence fee preferably based on throughput. The Government has experienced a number of constitutional difficulties in trying to implement such a scheme. All processing plants being established are conducted for the export trade and the Commonwealth Government has copious Regulations governing licensing of these plants for that purpose. I am advised that the State's legislative powers are extremely doubtful in this field. The question resolves itself down to the legal issue whether the Commonwealth Regulations 'cover the field'. The Regulations are so copious that there seems to be little doubt in the minds of our legal advisers that they do cover the field and, if this be so, the State has no constitutional power to legislate. For some months now I have been endeavouring to get this matter resolved and I had suggested to the Commonwealth Fisheries Minister that our legal advisers should confer in this matter in an endeavour to find a solution. I believe that there is one sure approach to the problem and that is for the Commonwealth Government to vacate some of the field under its own export Regulations and make it very clear that the State has legislative power. I am still awaiting advice from the Commonwealth Government. I can see no other ready means of obtaining a fair industry contribution other than by this approach and until the difficulty is resolved with Commonwealth co-operation, I can get no further in the matter. However, I want to emphasise that the prawn research work at Scarborough is pressing ahead with total costs being met by the two Governments."

ADMINISTRATION OF NEW HARBOUR AT HAY POINT

Mr. Davies for Mr. Graham, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

( I) Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the Chairman, Mackay Harbour Board, in The Daily Mercury of November 23 that he had no doubt that his board would administer the port at Hay Point?

(2) Why is his Answer to my Question on November 27 at variance with the chairman's statement?

Answers:(!) "No."

(2) "I take it that the Board Chairman was expressing the hopes of the Mackay Harbour Board in the matter."

PAPER

The following paper was laid on the table:-

Regulation under the Petroleum Acts, 1923 to 1967.

FORM OF QUESTION

Mr. BENNETT (South Brisbane) having given notice of a question-

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question is out of order. It is hypothetical.

Mr. BENNETT: It is a fair question. I want an answer to it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The question is out of order.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. NEWBERY (Mirani) (11.27 a.m.), by leave: During the Supply debate on 24 October I made the following statement, which appears at page 948 of "Hansard"-

"I won the council election in Sarina last year against my opponent, who was an A.L.P. man."

During the past week I have been assured by the gentleman in question that he is not an A.L.P. man, and I am now saying that I accept his denial.

TRUSTEE COMPANIES BILL

INITIATION

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to consolidate the law relating to trustee companies and for purposes connected therewith."

Motion agreed to.

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL

INITIATION

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Primary Industries): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill relating to the marketing of wheat and the stabilisation of the wheat industry."

Motion agreed to.

Mining Bill [29 NoVEMBER] Mining Bill 1947

HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. S. D. TOOTH (Ashgrove-Minister for Health): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Health Acts 1937 to 1968 in a certain particular." Motion agreed to.

MINING BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity) (11.29 a.m.) : I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to provide for the encouragement and regulation of mining within the State of Queensland."

The present Mining Acts are the Mining Acts 1898 to 1967. Since 1898 no attempt has been made to rewrite the Acts, but necessary alterations have been made by way of amendments. There have been many amendments since 1932, when the Act was last consolidated, and at present a person buying a copy of the Act receives almost as ~any pages of amendments as there are pages m the actual Act. This situation did not appear to me to be right, and I considered an early consolidation.

Many of the provisions in the Act are based on a gold-mining philosophy and do not accord with present-day mineral economy which is almost totally dependent on bas~ metals. I believe that the old gold-rush days when people travelled for miles to win gold from easily worked alluvial deposits, are gone. Perhaps some day we may see some other gold rushes-I hope sobut I feel that it is unlikely. The deeplode gold mines which followed the rushes have also gone. At present in Queensland most of our gold comes from Mt. Morgan ~here it . is virtually a by-product. Coppe; 1s the pnmary mineral, and the mine is an open-cut mine. There is only one other major gold producer, namely, the Golden Plateau mine at Cracow, which is a deeplode mine.

Apart from the present Act's relationship to gold-mining, in some ways its provisions relate to the pick-and-shovel days and the modes of mining and transport in those days. Amendments to cover all matters requiring attention were possible, but I considered that the most sensible approach to the problem was to repeal the previous Acts and substitute a new Act in their place. The Bill has been prepared on those lines. I believe it will provide an Act that will 'cater adequately for present methods of mining and will provide for more efficient mining procedures in the future.

The main provisions in the Bill are that gold will be placed on the same level as all other minerals, and, instead of having ,five separate titles, namely, mineral leases, special mineral leases, gold mining leases, special gold mining leases and dredging leases, there will be one lease-a mining lease. The maximum area will be 320 acres, but if the Governor in Council considers that a larger area should' be granted, a lease of any area can be granted. This is similar to the present provisions relative to special mineral leases and special gold mining leases.

Labour conditions and/or expenditure provisions are based on the method of mining. In reef-mining mines, values exist to great depths and many men are employed within a small surface area. When the mineral is being obtained by dredging, the values exist only to shallow depths and large surface areas are required with a small number of men employed per unit area of surface. Consequently, in deep mining, one man will be required by the Act for each 10 acres, and, in dredging, three men plus machinery to the value of $6,000, will be required per 100 acres.

In all cases provision is made for expenditure in lieu of men. As will be realised, most mining today is mechanised and one machine does the work of many men. It would be wrong to force people to employ men who cannot be gainfully and economically employed.

At present, leases have to be contiguous for the labour or expenditure provisions to be amalgamated. Present-day methods are to erect large, efficient plants, costing thousands or millions of dollars in a central position, and to bring the ore: to tJ:e plant. To justify the capital expenditure mvolved, large reserves of ore are required. In many cases the ore is obtained from a number of leases widely separated. All the leases form part of one mining complex and it is considered that the total labour and/ or expenditure provisions should apply to. t~e leases as if they were one lease, not mdtvidual leases. Provision is made in the Bill to cover this.

In certain cases the total number of men required and expenditure to be incurred would be more than required to work the leases in an efficient manner. In such cases the total labour and expenditure provisio~s can be reduced.

As at present, the term of a mining lease under normal circumstances will be 21 years, with the right of renewal for further terms, if the holder complies with the conditions of the lease. However, provision has been made for the granting of leases for fixed terms. These will be granted when the land is required for other purposes at a later date. Even though a lease may have the automatic right of renewal, when the term is renewed, if the land is required for the development of the State, the lease or part of it can be made a fixed-term lease.

1948 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill

Previously there was some doubt about whether the department could grant leases or other titles over tailings dumps, as it was considered in some quarters that they should be dealt with as improvements and sold by auction. This position has been clarified, and, if the dumps are not removed within a time permitted by the Minister, they vest in the Crown and titles can be granted over them.

Adequate provisions have been made in the covenants to be contained in leases to provide for rehabilitation of mined areas. The conditions that can be imposed are not restricted in any way, and can be tailored to meet the conditions applicable in individual cases.

Provision is made for the issue of a mining lease immediately it has been recommended by the warden and any special conditions have been formulated, even though the area is not surveyed or the boundaries definitely defined. The document will be endorsed to that effect. Owing to the location of many tenements and delays in surveys at present, no document may be issued for many years. This proposal will give the lessee a document showing that he has a right and title to an area which he can produce to intending financiers or other interested parties. Upon survey, the description in the document will be amended, if necessary.

Licences for the construction of pipelines and conveyor apparatus over land not held by the lessee of the mine are instituted. Modern practice is to transport ore or minerals by pipeline, where practicable, and I can envisage pipelines being used to transport some of our recently discovered minerals from the mines to treatment plants or harbours.

Under the proposed Act the State will be divided into mining districts, with a warden for each district. Instead of people having to go to the nearest warden, which meant the nearest as the crow flies, the divisions will be based on the most convenient warden, having regard to modern methods of transport and the normal business centre for each district.

The sludge-abatement provisions have been revised and, although not changed to any great extent, they have been set out more clearly. They are considered to provide sufficient powers to condition leases adequately and prevent pollution.

Protection of the sea from pollution is included in this revised part.

The prov!Sions relating to wardens, wardens' courts, and appeals from such courts have been brought into line with present-day legal practices and procedures, and should satisfy complaints by legal men about some of the Act's archaic provisions.

Many of the sections of the Aot were inserted in recent times, and no major alterations to these were considered necessary. However, all sections have been carefully re-examined and they, with the new sections,

have been incorporated in a Bill that I consider is simple and concise. As I have said before, I consider that this new Mining Act should cater for present and future mining, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (11.38 a.m.): The Minister told the Committee that there are just about as many amendments in the Bill as there are pages in the Mining Act. I remind the Committee that today is Friday, 29 November, and that Parliament will be sitting for possibly next week and the week after that. The Mining Act is a book of considerable size, and the Bill now introduced means that the Act is to be completely rewritten. As I understood the Minister, some very vital parts of the legislation are to be amended.

The Opposition's committee that will have to examine the Act piece by piece has approximately a week or 10 days to carry out that task, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I enter a strong protest against the cavalier way in which the Government introduces Bills of this type in the dying stages of the session. That is completely and utterly wrong. It is all very well for Government backbenchers to interject. I will guarantee that the great majority of them will never look through the Bill; they are not forced to do so. However, the role of the Opposition is to go through the legislation word by word and page by page to see exactly what is being done. We will do that as best we can, but we most certainly have not been given time to do it properly when one takes into consideration what is left on the Business Paper and what will come forward during the next week for Opposition committees to consider.

On behalf of the Opposition, I protest against the introduction of such an important measure almost at the beginning of December when this Parliament i.s in its dying stages and when it probably will not meet again till August, 1969. Time and time again measures of vital importance are introduced at this stage of a parliamentary session, and it is obvious that the Minister intends next Tuesday to bring down a Bill relating to the Goonyella-Hay Point project, which the Opposition's mining committee will have to study in great detail. When a Bill to provide for the encouragement and regulation of mining in Queensland, which contains many hundreds of pages and hun. dreds of amendments, is brought down at this late stage and other amending Bills have yet to be introduced, I think it is very unfair to the Opposition and very wrong.

I am well aware that there has been an alteration in the methods of mining in Queensland. Every hon. member is conscious of the fact that gold-mining has been phased out, and it is probable that, as a result, many sections of the Act have become redundant. Recently hon. members discussed a Bill to establish a Law Reform Commission in this State to consider the statutes and to

Mining Bill [29 NOVEMBER) Mining Bill 1949

recommend the removal of what might be described as dead wood or redundant sections. I agree with the Minister that something similar has happened under the Mining Act and that there could well be a need to remove from it sections that have become redundant.

Much of the alluvial gold has been taken from this State and, certainly, mining of that type is no longer carried on in Queensland. In fact, gold is now only a by-product of other mining activities. It has been said that the State has moved from the pick-and-shovel era to an era of high mechanisation in the mining industry. I agree that it has. Anyone who has been to the open-cut mines at Moura and other places knows how the great draglines win minerals at the rate of hundreds of tons an hour. That was never envisaged years ago. There has been a similar increase in production at Mt. Morgan and other places. In many instances the days of the pick and shovel have gone for ever, and there is a need to repeal certain sections of the Act as a result.

It is not only at open-cut mines that mechanisation has been introduced. I was at Collinsville some months ago, as were some of my colleagues, and I saw the mechanisation that has taken place in that mine. Only a very small number of men are needed on each shift to operate machinery that can rip tons of coal from the coal face every minute and transport it through the machine and along belts to the surface.

The Minister touched briefly on the question of redundancy. The Opposition is very much aware of this and has brought to the notice of the Minister and the Government on every possible occasion the point that, because of increased mechanisation of mines, many men who previously earned their living in this field have become redundant and have been forced onto the labour market. At times, the Miners' Union has made protests on behalf of those men-and rightly so.

I believe that there is an obligation on the Government to see that men who have been made redundant by increased mechanisation in mines are looked after and retrained, and then put into some other class of work that will enable them to receive as near to their previous earnings in mining as is possible.

This question of redundancy has been prominent over the last couple of years because of increased mechanisation. We are very conscious of it, and we ask that the Government continue to watch the position and to plan ahead so that those who have been pushed out of industry in one place may be readily absorbed in another. We do not want these men to be left out of work and become completely redundant.

It is not my intention this morning to go into all the details mentioned by the Minister. I believe it will require a good deal of time to go into all these matters in detail before we can speak on them with any authority. The Minister has mentioned that

the five separate titles previously associated with gold-mining will now become one, and that it will now be called a "mining lease." I do not see that the Opposition will have any argument with that proposal. There is also to be a maximum area of 320 acres over which a mining lease will apply, except that in certain circumstances the Governor in Council can extend it. I can well see that this could be necessary on occasions, but, generally speaking, we could not have any argument with that because we know many of the conditions that apply today.

The Minister said that the duration of a mining lease will be 21 years, but provision has been made for the granting of leases for certain fixed terms when the land is required for State development. That makes sense to me, and I believe it will to the Opposition generally. Where there could be a need for development, it would be quite silly to issue leases that would continue for a long period of years when it is known when the lease is granted that the development is to take place within a certain time. It is very obvious that there will be need for this fixed term on occasions.

One of the points that particularly struck me this morning, while the Minister was speaking-it sounded to me to be an amend· ment-was the provision to allow for the rehabilitation of mined areas. I think this is a very necessary amendment-if in fact it is an amendment. Many of us have been in areas that have been mined. I believe that many hon. members have been to Moura, and most of us have been struck by the way the overburden has been turned over and piled into high mounds, sometimes as high as 40 to 50 feet, leaving huge stones projecting from the ground for hundreds of yards and sometimes almost as far as the eye can see. The land has been churned up and the whole scene rather gives one the impression of standing on the surface of the moon.

I have also been in northern areas where tin dredges have operated and the land left behind them as they have moved forward is in a similar state-country with very sharp rocks, on which it is quite obvious that, at this stage anyhow, no grass o.r tree will grow. It is barren, chopped-up country, and is certainly an eyesore.

When one sees these things as the result of mining one feels impelled to ask, "Is this to be left here for all time? Is this the kind of heritage that will be left as the result of our activities in mining?" Many people believe, as I do, that it would be a tragedy to leave areas that have been mined in a devastated state, and so I am very pleased that the Minister has included in this measure power to the Government to demand mining operators to rehabilitate areas in which they have carried out their operations.

It is essential that these areas should be restored to something approaching their natural state. Of course, it would not be possible to carry out a complete restoration scheme, because a great number of trees and


much foliage would have disappeared during the mining operations. Of course, it is necessary to mine our mineral resources, but I believe that each one of us has an obligation to see that mining areas are restored to something like their natural state so that trees and foliage can again grow on them and topsoil can once again form. In a number of the mining areas that I have visited it is not possible for anybody to move over the land, and it is much less possible for trees and foliage to grow on it.

I have visited a number of areas in which sand-mining operations are conducted, and I know that the sand-mining companies have planted trees and foliage in an endeavour to restore those areas of land, and they should be commended for doing that. But I know that in areas of open cuts and tin-mining the mine operators have done nothing to restore the land to its former state. I ask the Minister to direct his attention .to those areas and ensure that they are not left to give the appearance of some churned-up porridge, and that they are good for nothing.

The Minister referred to mining districts and said that a warden would be appointed in each mining district and stationed close to transport. I think that is a good scheme. Once everybody is aware of a warden's whereabouts in a particular district, only good could come from his appointment. I have no real argument with this provision, unless it contains something that has escaped my attention.

I turn now to the matter of pollution. I believe that the Minister has received many protests about the pollution that occurs in a great number of our streams from the operations of mining companies. This problem is one that must worry all thinking Queenslanders. I believe that many measures have been .taken to prevent pollution of our streams. However, recently I observed that the Herbert River was polluted right from its source and down to the sea. When rivers and streams become polluted from the activities of mining companies all life in and adjacent to them is placed' in jeopardy. I welcome any attempt by the Minister to prevent pollution not only in our rivers but also in the sea. On many occasions large areas of polluted water can be seen in the sea adjacent to river mouths. Members of the Opposition will not oppose any measure that is designed to protect our streams and rivers from pollution.

I think that I have covered the most pertinent points that the Minister has raised, but I wish to emphasise the fact that members of the Opposition are very annoyed that this vital measure has been introduced at this very late stage of the session. Our committee will certainly have to spend many hours studying the contents of the Bill so I register a protest on that committee's behalf, and on behalf of all members of the Opposition, about the delay in presenting this vital measure.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (11.55 a.m.): I join with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in voicing the Opposition's resentment at the somewhat late appearance of this Bill. I do so, because in the years that I have been in this Chamber we have quite frequently drawn attention to the undesirability of introducing important legislation in the dying stages of a parliamentary session. While the introduction of legislation must, for various reasons, be delayed from time to time. I believe that the introduction of this measure at this late stage is inexcusable.

When His Excellency the Governor opened Parliament in August of this year, he detailed the legislative programme of the Government for this session and specifically mentioned that a Bill would be introduced to consolidate the Mining Act. Although he forecast that on the opening day of Parliament as part of the Government's legislative programme, the Opposition has had to twiddle its thumbs all this time, knowing that a Bill would be introduced. This morning, as the Deputy Leader has pointed out, this very important measure has been introduced in the dying stages of the session. This is inexcusable. Knowing that the Governor announced that this Bill would be part of the legislative programme, I can see no reason why it could not have been introduced earlier to give the Opposition an opportunity to study it in detail.

The Opposition's task is made so much more difficult because the Mining Act-a copy of which I have here-to say the least, contains a hotchpotch of amendments. Many weeks of research would be entailed by a competent person in piecing the Act together so that it could be understood. The Opposition, with inadequate secretarial assistance, has to examine all Bills introduced into the Chamber, and it will be denied an opportunity to make a thorough study of what is contemplated in this legislation. The Opposition has a very responsible role to play, but how can it deal with the consolidation of this Act unless it can carry out an adequate study?

Mr. Carum: How many pages are there to study in the existing Act?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: There are something like 500 pages in it.

Mr. Camm: In the Mining Act?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am referring to the Mining Acts.

Mr. Camm: You said there were 500 pages.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am talking about the Mining Acts.

Mr. Carum: You said there were 500 pages in the Mining Act.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: The Minister should not be petty and stupid. On the spur of the moment he asked me to indicate how many pages there are in the Act. He is being infantile in his approach. However,

Mining Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1951

that does not worry me greatly. Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I believe that we have a responsible part to play in this matter and, because of this, I reinforce his argument in this regard.

In detailing his submissions, the Minister indicated that the Act dates back to 1898 and is couched more or less in the terms used in the days of pick-and-shovel mining. The Opposition could not agree more that the time is long overdue when this Act should be brought up to date and a modern approach adopted to mining in this State.

The Minister said that gold is not now on the same level of importance as other minerals, and that there will be only one lease, known as a mining lease, the area of which will be 320 acres. On a superficial examination of that proposal, the Opposition has no real quarrel with it. Today there are many small, individual miners making a living out of mining, so it is vitally important that consideration be given to ensuring that these persons are not completely excluded from those areas in which profitable mining might be undertaken.

I know from my colleague the hon. member for Barcoo that only recently, an application, based on a fairly large area of land, was made for a mining lease in the mineral fields in the Anakie district. This area has become attractive to tourists and small professional miners, and there is a great future in encouraging tourism in this area. Many people on touring holidays take out a miner's right to do a little scratching there. They usually come home with blistered hands and sore backs, and little reward for their efforts apart from having enjoyed a thoroughly pleasant and different type of holiday. The hon. member for Barcoo made several representations in this matter, and J understand that areas have been set aside specifically for this purpose. Because there is an interest in different forms of tourism, this was an essential and necessary step.

Mr. Hanson: This is the only such area in the world that tourists can go onto.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is so. Mr. Hanson: You have to pay to go

onto the sapphire fields in New South Wales.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: That is so. It would have been a tragedy for the

tourist industry if an application to exclude tourists from going onto this area had been granted. It is vitally important that the livelihood and the future of the small miner-and there are many of them operating in the northern area, including the Atherton Tableland-be considered in the granting of mineral leases.

In referring to the proposed consolidation of the Act, the Minister mentioned the part that dredging has played in mining. This applies particularly to the mining of mineral sands and tin-mining, and many years ago I know that the floating-dredge principle

was first used in North Queensland on the Atherton Tableland. With the modernisation of plant and mining methods, it has become vitally necessary to bring our thinking into line with present mining conditions. That is one thing that I am sure the Opposition will scrutinise closely when we receive the Bill.

I understood the Minister to say that it is proposed to establish five mining districts in the State, with a mining warden in charge of each, and applications will be made to the warden who is the closest having regard to normal methods of transport and what is the normal business centre for each district. If there is one aspect of the administration of mining under the Mining Act with which I quarrel it is the way in which applications are made to, and heard in, mining wardens' courts. There are several things in the present set-up with whioh I disagree. One that I feel is most pertinent is the placing on the public of the onus to protest when it is felt that mining could destroy natural features that should be preserved in the interests of the people. Briefly, at present if an application for a mining lease is to be made to a warden's court it must be advertised in the Press, and the responsibility is then thrust upon the people or organisations involved to lodge objections.

Without going deeply into the problem of ensuring the wisest possible use of land, I do not think that most of this responsibility should be thrown onto the public. When an application was made to mine Bllison Reef, it was through the efforts of John Busst and Eddie Hegerl, from the university, that the mining warden decided that the wisest thing to do was to refuse the application.

The plain truth of the matter is that sometimes the required notifications appear in obscure newspapers, and they can be inserted at inappropriate times of the year, such as during the Christmas holidays, when most people would be away and would not see them. I therefore do not think that, in the public interest, such a method is desirable. Certain recommendations have now been made, and the Leader of the Opposition will deal with them at a later stage.

Mounting public interest in these matters was shown when an application was lodged for a mining lease on Moreton Island. In the main, public bodies and public-spirited individuals carried the banner in opposition to what they thought was an undesirable lease. In my opinion, this is a very fertile area in which thought could be given to devising a correct approach to land usage.

People who have taken an interest in and lodged objections to mining developments such as the one proposed on Ellison Reef have become aware of a lack of sketch maps of the areas proposed to be developed. I have received many complaints that, when applications for leases are made to wardens' courts, it is very difficult to obtain from the


warden copies of sketch maps of the area that is the subject of the application. If the responsibility is to be thrown on the public to lodge objections to applications for mining leases, I believe that every facility should be afforded to enable them to present the best possible case.

While I am dealing with the subject of applications for mining leases, I mention that I am at a loss to understand why the Government should set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the granting of mining leases on Moreton Island. Some time ago the Minister for Labour and Tourism made a very profound statement about the future of Moreton Island. An article that appeared in "The Courier-Mail" of 17 August, 1968, said-

"The Tourist Minister (Mr. Herbert) said last night the State Government would not allow Brisbane's 'unspoiled paradise'Moreton Island-to be used for 'get rich quick schemes'.

'We might leave it as it is ... when I think of some of the developments we have allowed I am sorry we permitted them; now we are conservation-conscious', Mr. Herbert said."

Later, the article said-"The island is subject to a sand mining

lease and major activities in this regard are planned by Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited, which plans to bring massive equipment from South Stradbroke Island where it is now operating."

The Minister for Labour and Tourism mentioned also that the Government had set up a committee to consider the question of the protection of Moreton Island. As a matter of fact, in "The Courier-Mail" of 7 August, 1968, this report appeared-

"An official expert committee will soon make recommendations to the State Government on its ideas for the future development of Moreton Island."

lt mentioned the various members of the Committee, who, speaking generally, represented forestry, mines, tourist services and so on. '

I do not know whether the Government has received the report of that committee. If a report has been prepared, it certainly has not been made available, to my knowledge, to members of the Opposition. However, I am completely at a loss to understand why, having adopted the approach that it was desirable that the whole question of the development of Moreton Island be looked at in a very serious light to ascertain, first of all, whether it was desirable that it be left untouched, used as a tourist area or possibly developed for water or for~stry purposes, the Government should agree to the granting of an application for a mining lease in the area.

I understand from the report in "The Courier-Mail" that the hearing took place last Thursday and it was recommended that

the application of a sand-mining company to mine 2,950 acres on Moreton Island be granted. The article states that one of the recommendations was that the application be referred to the interdepartmental committee and also to the Beach Protection Authority. I am at a loss to understand why this application should have been proceeded with before the Government had made a final decision on the future of Moreton Island.

I am inclined to go along with the idea of having such a magnificent island, so close to the capital city, developed as a tourist resort, and I think the future use of Moreton Island must be given v,ery careful consideration. If, after serious study, it is decided that the best use for it is as a tourist resort, this would be a sensible approach to land usage. However, I am at a loss to understand why an application for a mining lease should have been proceeded with before the Government had made a firm decision following the report of the expert committee that was appointed to inquire into and report on the future use of Moreton Island. I seriously question whether the granting of this lease should be approved before we are aware of the recommendation of the committee.

Unfortunately, on a very interesting subject such as this the time allotted for spea~ing is altogether too short. However, m his remarks on the consolidation of the Act the Minister said that pollution of streams and beaches will be taken care of. I think every one of us would agree that there is little room to quanel with such a proposal.

It is regrettable that from time to time, as a result of mining and other industrial activities, we see such things as we did last week, when large numbers of fish in the Brisbane River were destroyed as a result of pollution. In the mining of minerals and beach sands, it is up to all of us to see that in these mining processes we do not destroy the ecological significances of the surrounding areas. I believe that Opposition members will be having a very close look at this part of the Bill to satisfy ourselves that it provides adequate safeguards against pollution as a result of mining operations.

Mr. SMITH (Windsor) (12.20 p.m.): It is only 12 months since certain headlines appeared in the local Press. In "The Courier-Mail" of 20 November 1967 the following headline appeared:-

"Simplify Law for People-M.L.A." Under that headline appeared a report of a request of mine for the establishment of a law reform commission.

On the following day the leader in "The Courier-Mail" read-

"Review of laws is needed here. The proposal by Mr. P. R. Smith, M.L.~. ~or Windsor, that a law reform commissiOn

Mining Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1953

be set up in Queensland to review the State's laws should be adopted by the State Government."

Then two days later a Press statement by the then Acting Premier said that, following my statement, he had undertaken to set aside the necessary money for the establishment of that commission.

That reform was necessary in November of last yea~, and in November of this year we are advised of the consolidation of some of the mining Acts.

From a review of Volume 12 of the St.atutes, which has recently been printed, it Will be seen that some consolidation of the Mining Acts has already occurred; however, I feel that there has not been as complete a consolidation as might have been desirable or that there has not been a complete realignment of legislative enactment. Remember that the measure before the Committee at the moment is to introduce a Bill to provide for the encouragement and regulation of mining within the State of Queensland. If we look at the index to Volume 12 of the Statutes, we will realise that we should look at the provisions in our law that relate to mining. The index to Volume 12 extends from page 3 31 to page 346, whereas the index to Volume 13, which has not yet been printed, extends from page 347 to page 359, which is a total of 28 pages devoted to index alone.

. l_\'lr. Davies: Don't you think that this proVISion should have been introduced earlier in the session?

Mr. SMITH: I do not mind when it is introduced, so long as we have plenty of time to consider it. I would not be concerned if !t was introduced on the last day of the sessiOn. I can recall an occasion when the Companies Act was being amended. At one stage we were provided with a first-reading copy with an explanatory note attached to it, and I think the Bill lay on the table of the House for months. If I remember rightly, we re-enacted it when we came back as another Parliament.

Mr. Tucker: You know that there will not he a session next year.

Mr. SMITH: Of course there will be a session next year.

Mr. Tucker: I mean in the early part of the year.

Mr. SMITH: I sympathise with the hon. member for Townsville North if he feels that he will be defeated-! believe that he will be-but some of us will be re-elected. so we will be meeting, all right.

Mr. Tucker: If I am defeated, I am; but surely that is not pertinent to this measure.

Mr. SMITH: What is pertinent is that there is a considerable mass of legislation relative to mining, and that legislation requires reviewing.

62

In his introductory remarks, the Minister pointed out that this is to be a consolidation. But when I look at the Business Paper I am concerned to see that immediately following this notice there appears one to amend the Mines Regulation Act of 1964. It is my keenness to have consolidation and review that prompted me to speak this morning. It is implicit in the statements that I made last year, which led to the establishment of a Law Reform Commission, that we endeavour to make our laws easily ascertainable. The "Regulation of mining" that is referred to in Order of the Day No. 1 appears also in Order No. 2. I take it that a Bill designed to provide for the encouragement and regulation of mining within this State must cover some of the fields covered by the Mines Regulation Act of 1964, because that Act, in its preamble, is stated to be an Act designed to provide for the regular inspection of mines and the safety and health of' persons employed therein.

I hope that any Act dealing with the encouragement and regulation of mining within the State of Queensland will cover these topics. I hope that the Mining Act, as far as possible, will cover all aspects of mining and will provide, shall I say, the skeleton of the legislative structure for mining in this State. Admittedly, agreements like the Alcan or Comalco agreements require particular Acts, because they are Acts brought down to ratify agreements entered into. No-one could write those into the principal Act. One has only to look at the old Mining Act of 1924-I think that was when it started in its present form-to see that it has grown like Topsy. It is particularlv difficult to find out anything about a particular mining topic because the definitions hl'vo been amended and amended. The Mining on Private Land Act, in my submission, is again only one part of mining. I do not see any need to continue it as a separate Act. Yet, on examining the index in Volume 12 I find reprints of Acts like this: the Drainage of Mines Act of 1912 (to be read with the Mining Act). The Mining Act was amended in 1967, and I should have thought that if we have to read an Act of 1912 with the Mining Act, which was amended in 1967, we would have taken advantage of that opportunity to put the Drainage of Mines Act into the head Act.

Mr. Davies: Are you on the Government's mining committee?

Mr. SMITH: No.

Mr. Bennett: Incidentally, the original Mining Act was the Act of 1898.

Mr. SMITH: I am talking about the Mining Act that we are using at the moment.

Then, I see the Mines Regulation Act of 1964 and the Mining Act of 1898 to 1967. I feel that they could be put into the one Act without any difficulty. We also have the Coal Mining Acts of 1925 to 1964 and the Mining for Coal and Mineral Oil Acts of

1954 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mining Bill • 1912 to 1941. I assume that the Coal Min-ing Act deals with coal because that word appears in the title, but I should think that the Mining for Coal and Mineral Oil Act also deals with coal. I fail to see why the two measures could not be combined in one Act. I have already dealt with mining on private land, which I consider to be simply an adjunct to mining. Whether it is on private land, Crown land, or under the sea, it is still mining in my book.

When we have an Act called "The Mining Act", it should tell us about mining, about safety precautions to be taken in mines, and about various permits and so on to be obtained. These regulatnry matters are matters which I feel could well be contained in the Mining Act.

This Bill provides for the encouragement and regulation of mining. In those circumstances I am at a loss to understand why we should subsequently consider a Bill to amend the Mines Regulation Act of 1964, because I would have hoped that the Act of 1964 would have been sucked into the Act that we are considering.

I concede that we must look at mining from different aspects. Sand mining and dredge mining are certainly different from pit mining. We also have alluvial mining. Despite the fact that they are different types of mining, despite the fact that they employ different techniques and expertise, they are still parts of mining operations. My plea a year ago, 10 years ago and 11 years ago was to get our law simplified so that when anyone wanted to know the law on a topic he would have to go to only one place for it.

Mr. Chinchen: What you are suggesting will probably be the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. SMITH: I sincerely hope so because I believe that my suggestions make sound common sense. I am concerned-! was concerned about this for years while I was agitating for law reform, or a law review commission-in that we are going ahead with a reprint of our statutes, making the law available to the people in a garbled fashion, because we have all these unconsolidated piecemeal Acts, that are fairly hard to find at times.

If a person who is not skilled in law read the Mines Regulation Act, he could be forgiven for thinking that it covered the field of regulations for mining. But he would be mistaken. When we consolidate 2m Act we should not do it in a piecemeal fashion or part by part, but should set about it so that the legislation when introduced is comprehensive. I do not see how we can possibly have that in mind with what is on the Business Paper. We should be aiming at that goal.

I sincerely hope that this Bill will be considered for some time. We need time because the effect mining leases have on people and their property is considerable.

I am in sympathy with a good deal of what the hon. member for Salisbury said about some of these applications. He was quite right. Anybody who has had much experience in the mining field realises this. I have had a fair amount to do with mining in years gone by, particularly with mining on private land.

Surely safety measures should be contained in the Mining Act. We have the safety measures for coal mines in one Act and those for other mines in other Acts. Safety regulations should apply to the spudding-in of wells because even in surface work certain shoring work has to be done, and different forms of trenching have to be reinforced. It should be possible, without any difficulty at all, to draw up one Act for mining.

Mr. Bennett: Can you suggest any reason why they are not doing that?

Mr. SMITH: No, I can't. Because it has been my continual plea for 11 years to have some sort of review of these matters, I am concerned that we have not entered into such a review in the way we should have. We have gone ahead with this consolidation of our statutes in such a way that we have produced an inelegant result, and apparently we will perpetuate that by bringing down this sort of legislation and then, in the next breath, amending what I consider should be in this Bill.

I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why Vvc cannot incorporate, in the Mining Act, the Mines Regulation Act, the provisions relating to miners' homesteads and the provisions relating to coal-mining and petroleum-mining. I do not for one moment suggest that we can necessarily cope with off-shore mining in this Act, although that is only because certain sections of our law are unsettled at this stage. I am not at all sure~I do not think the State is either -how far our jurisdiction extends in this matter.

What we are certain of is that these provisions have stood for years in many cases, and my request is that if this Bill is approved, and no doubt it will be, it will be allowed to lie on the table of the House so that people can examine it. It is a very important matter and time should be given to everybody concerned-not just the Government, but all parties and persons interested and concerned in mining-to consider the import of these provisions so that they can make suggestions. We are now moving into an era of review, and I hope, because the Law Reform Commission Bill was read a third time yesterday, that we can look for some substantial review of our higgledypiggledly laws.

Mr. Bennett: When do you think the commission will start?

Mr. SMITH: I do not know, but I hope that the procedure I suggest can be a prelude to it. I hope that we can do this

Mining Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Mining Bill 1955

job thoroughly and then allow time for those p:.orties and persons interested to look at it and make suggestions. Then, having the benefit of those suggestions, we will be able to enact comprehensive mining legislation similar to the Companies Act which was passed years ago. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959 was, in effect, a consolidation of the matrimonial legislation of all the States, and it was left alive for suggestion. We can only gain by taking this action; we cannot lose. We should never be too proud to allow the people to make suggestions for the improvement of laws. If we turn a deaf ear to suggestions for improvements, we are not legislating well. My ambition is to see that the laws that pass through here are as good as they can be made, and that attitude could well start with this Bill.

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity) (12.36 p.m.), in reply: I listened with great interest to the submissions made by members on both sides of the Chamber. I assure the hon. member for Salisbury that I was not being facetious when I asked him how many pages were in the Mining Act. The tenor of the remarks of the hon. member for Salisbury, and also the hon. member for Townsville North, suggested that they were confused as to which Act was being consolidated. The volumes that they brandished contain not merely the Mining Act but all Acts associated with mining. The Act that is in fact being consolidated occupies 54 pages in this little book I have here, plus some amendments that have been made over the years.

The claim has been made by hon. members opposite that they are not being given sufficient time to study the Bill. To my knowledge, no date has been fixed for the rising of the House.

Mr. Sherrington: Why couldn't you have introduced it earlier?

Mr. CAMM: To my knowledge, the House has been busy ever since it assembled. The hon. member said, to quote his words, that the Opposition has been sitting there twiddling !heir thumbs waiting for this Bill. My opinion ts that at least some members on the Opposition side have endeavoured to make intelligent contributions on other matters that have come before Parliament since last August. I do not think that all members opposite have merely been sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

Mr. Sherrington: We have not been on the Barrier Reef lying in the sun.

Mr. CAMM: That is right. I go home to my electorate whenever the people require me there in an official capacity.

The hon. member for Townsville North referred to the spoiling of the landscape by open-cut mining. I, too, feel concerned when I see how some land is left after

mining operations have been carried out, but that is associated with mining wherever one goes. It is a fact that after dredging opera· tions in the Herberton area some of the land has been improved for grazing, because the run-offs from the little heaps induce the growth of couch grass and other succulent grasses for cattle. In some open-cut coalmine areas, it is true that for a while the land looks most unattractive, but I observed when I was overseas that after a number of years the heaps weather down, and, when they are flattened somewhat by bulldozers, the land is brought into production again, mainly for grazing and not for agriculture.

The hon. member for Salisbury had something to say about the gem fields at Anakie and Sapphire. He was not courteous enough to give me any thanks _or expre.ss any appreciation of my action m declanng thts area of 150 square miles open only to tourists and people interested in collecting gems. I know that he has been very critical of me in my capacity as Minister for Mines. He claims that I am a great exploiter of Queensland· that I am selling the Barrier Reef and 'everything else. I say to him that if he goes back into the history of mu;mg in this State and the records of the vanous Ministers that the State has had, he will find that no other Minister for Mines ever did as much for conservation in Queensland as I have done. I was instrumental in reserving 30 square miles of the A.gate Creek fi~ld when it was being explmted. I remmd him that it was an A.L.P. government which issued the only dredging leases that have ever been issued in perpetuity. They were for the mining of mineral sands on the Queensland Coast, and they cannot now be repudiated. That has never b~en done by this Government. Not only drd I support the rejection of the application for permission to mine Ellison Reef; I also refused an application for the mining of what was reputedly a very rich body of copper ore on Pentecost Island.

As Minister for Mines, I have a responsibility to see that mining is carried out in this State. If the hon. member for Salisbury thinks that too much mining is being carried out under my jurisdiction, I say to him that I think great credit is due to me for encouraging companies to mine in Queensland. Do not let me hear anyone accuse me of being the great exploiter, someone who is prepared to sell Queensland's natural assets.

I know that there has been a great deal of controversy about the damage that mining could cause to the Great Barrier Reef. Noone is more consciou3 than I am of the value of the Great Barrier Reef. I have spent a lifetime in the area, and my electorate takes in some of the best parts of the Great Barrier Reef.

Mention was made of the use of coral for the production of lime. I remind. hon. mei?bers opposite that the cement mdustry m

1956 Mining Bill [ASSEMBLY] Mines Regulation, &c., Bill

South Queensland is dependent upon the mining of coral in Moreton Bay. One does not hear any objections from them to that mining. As there is so much dead coral in Moreton Bay and the Great Barrier Reef is so hu~e, is it not possible that tremendous depo·sits of coral may have been washed up onto different banks and shoals? I know that some exist on the outside of the islands.

Mr. Tucker: That was not the argument.

Mr. CAMM: I have never granted a lease that will in any way jeopardise the Great Barrier Reef; to the contrary, I have done everything in my power to ensure that the beauty of the reef will not be damaged.

I did not indicate the number of mining districts that will be formed. What I did say was that mining districts will be allotted to wardens, taking into consideration the transport that is available. At present, difficulties occur in hearing applications in w-ardens' districts, and those applications can be transferred to another warden's court. Mining districts will be formed in various r'lrts of the State, but I do not know what the number will be.

The mining lease on Moreton Island will eventually come to me for approval, but I point out to the Committee that no objections were received from members of the special committee that was formed to investigate the al-nlication and to consider the desirabilitv of preserving any natural resources affected by it.

The hon. member for Windsor has much more legal knowledge than I will ever have. However, speaking from a layman's point of view and having the advice of my officers, I should say that it would be very cumbersome to have one Mining Act covering all mining activities in this State and there may be difficulties associated with its compilation. Many different methods of mining are used in Queensland-dredging, drilling for oil, open-cut, underground, coal, and metalliferous-and the Mining Act refers specifically to metalliferous mining and is not associated with coal-mining or drilling for oil. There are separate Acts covering those specific mining operations.

I know that the hon. member for Windsor has made many worth-while suggestions in this Chamber, and his submissions in this debate will be taken into consideration.

Motion (Mr. Camm) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Camm, read a first time.

MINES REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper, Greenslopes, in the chair)

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-_M_inister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity) (12.46 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to ~mend t~e Mines Regulation Act of 1964 m certam particulars."

The Bill I am about to introduce _is to some degree complementa;y to. the Bill I .h~ve just introduced dealmg w1th a new mmmg Act.

Since the Mines Regulation Act deals wit!t the .yeaulation and inspection of metalliferous ~ines which obtair: t.itles _under the .terms of the Mining Acts, It 1s desirable that the terms "mine" and "mineral" be defined in similar terms in both Acts.

Members will recollect . that prior . to the introduction of the Mmes RegulatJ_on Act of 1964, there had been ex:ensive discussions both with ind?stry and Wit~. the unions concerned regardmg the prov1s10ns of such Act and regulations. The Act as then formulated had taken due cognisance of the views then expressed to the departme~t. It was also indicated at that stage that ~n ~ue course there would be further exammatlon of the legislation. T~is is. l!ecessary because of the rapid advance m mmmg technology.

It is anticipated that discussio~s wi!h industry and the unions along these hues w1ll be held within the next year or so.

Generally speaking, d~ring the . four. years that the Act has been m operatlc;m, 1t J:as been found to work reasonably sat1sfa~tonly. However, the Act as existing deals. With .the regulation and inspection of operatmg mmes and places which have be~n n:ined. I! does not deal with mines :;ommg ll!to bemg or plants under constructwn on mmes.

This limitation has caused problems, since it is desirable that mines being devel?ped and plants being constructed should be mspected and regulated by the Act.

After a careful study of the positio~, it _is proposed to amend the Act so that 1t will provide, firstly, for m_ines being p~ospected and developed, includmg plants b~mg constructed for mines; secondly, m1nes and mining plants actually in operation; ~nd finally, for the protection. of old mme workings and abandoned mmes.

These aspects have been provided for by amendments to section 5 and section ~4. of the existing Act. In section 5 the ex1stmg definitions of "mine' and "mineral" h~~e been deleted and in their stead the defimtwns .of "mine" and "mineral" used in the n~v:' Mming Act are oroposed. Such defim~wn of "mine" includes, as hon. members w1ll have noted, operations. with ~ view to, or for the purpose of, winnmg n:merals and the place where such is occurnng. To ensure that

Mines Regulation, &c., Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Agricultural, &c., Bill 1957

parts of an operating mine which are temporarily disused or abandoned are included in the term "mine", words to this effect have been added to the definition of "mine".

The matter of protection of the shafts and workings of abandoned mines is covered by an amendment of section 54 which ensures that regulations may be made dealing with such matter. Already there are in existence two regulations, Nos. 45 and 46, which make ce;tain provisions concerning the protection of abandoned shafts and excavations--

Mr. Tucker: In what way?

Mr. CAMM: Under Regulations 45 and 46 the Mines Department has power to require that these shafts be fenced and protected. However, it is possible that upon careful examination further regulations will be necessary.

As advised, this is a simple amending Bill to complement our new Mining Act and to clarify the situation concerning developing mines and mining plants under construction.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (12.51 p.m.): Obviously the Bill is a small one, and members of the Opposition will not oppose its introduction, unless, of course, it contains provisions that the Minister has not yet spelt out.

The matter of protecting the public from the danger of abandoned mine workings and shafts is of great importance. For a very long time the residents of Charters Towers, in particular, have been very worried about open shafts and abandoned workings in that area, and it was only in the last few years that some of them were fenced and precautions were taken to ensure that unwary people did not fall into them. I am sure that members of the Opposition will not oppose this measure; in fact, we welcome it.

As the Minister has said, the clause relative to the definition of mines and minerals is complementary to the one contained in the Bill that will provide for the encouragement and regulation of mining within the State of Queensland. I can see that it is necessary to embody de.finitions of various mines and minerals in the Bill because at present we are dealing, in the main, with metalliferous mines.

As the Minister and I have said, the State is experiencing a rapid advance in mining technology, and it is sometimes necessary to introduce further regulati.ons to bring the mining Acts into line with the advances that have been made in mining.

As I see the Bill, the points that I have raised are its most pertinent ones. The Opposition will certainly allow the introduction of this Bill.

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity) (12.54 p.m.), in reply: When members of the

Opposition have an opportunity of per~s~ng the Bill they will find that the ex1stmg provisions of the Act will be extended to a mine that is not yet in production but is really at the exploratory stage. In addition, it covers a mine that has gone out of production. The definition of "mine" win include those two categories.

Motion (Mr. Camm) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Camm, read a first time. [Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2.15 p.m.J

AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTION CONTROL AGT

AMENDMENT BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook~Minister for Primary Industries) (2.15 p.m.): I move-

"That the Bill be now read a second time."

I dealt with this measure in some detail when introducing the Bill. Now that hon. members have had an opportunity to study it, I think they will agree that there is little more that I need add. It was apparent during the introductory debate that the proposed amendments have general support.

Although I dealt at the introductory stage with most of the matters raised during that debate, there are still one or two points that I should like to clear up and to reiterate. Quite a deal of stress was laid on the need for the adequate qualification of operators, both aerial and ground. I am in full agreement with this. These people will all have to pass an examination. They will have manuals available to study. The aerial operator's chemical rating manual is already available, and the manual for ground spraying will soon be ready. The examinations will be based on these manuals, and they will be designed to ensure that every applicant has a thorough knowledge of the subject before he gets a licence. The availability of these manuals in itself should contribute very markedly to a better understanding of spraying problems.

There was one point raised by the hon. member for Landsborough on which I might amplify my remarks in the earlier debate. This concerns ground-spraying operations. What will actually constitute one groundspraying operation for insurance cover purposes has not yet been fully worked out. Our present thinking is that it should be related to the carrying out of a particular spraying operation on one farm. If the operator moves to another farm, that would be another operation. The finer details are being worked out in consultation with the underwriters. Matters such as spraying along roadways also have to be considered.

1958 Agricultural Chemicals [ASSEMBLY] Distribution Control, &c., Bill

The hon. member for Tablelands raised the question of possible indiscriminate use of chemicals by local authorities. I stress that persons employed on this work by local authorities or Government institutions will have to be licensed. This does not mean that every person in every gang will need to be licensed. Provision is made for the licence to be held by a person such as a foreman or ganger immediately in charge of a gang. He need not necessarily be the person carrying out the operation. A person will need to have an insurance policy before he can be in charge of the operation. The basic principle is that thel'e should be someone in charge who has a thorough knowledge of the subject.

.The hon. member for Warwick, along w1th other hon. members, raised the question of assessment of damage in terms of money. I repeat that this will remain the function of the insurance companies and the courts. It will not be taken over by my department. The department's job is concerned only winh physical damage. We will investigate complaints, determine whether damage has occurred and endeavour to ascertain the nature, cause and source of damage. Factual reports will be provided, and any claim Will then be a matter for negotiation between th.e pa_rties concerned. Any injured party Will still have normal recourse to litiaation if he so chooses. "'

Concern was expressed by a number of hon. members regarding the value of insurance and the cost of premiums. I have already indicated that the terms of the insurance for aerial operators have been developed in association with the underwriters and the operators. There should be no problems in this regard. As to the premiums, these were expected to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $200 for the minimum policy of $30,000 for each aircraft. Inquiries in the last few days suggest that at the very worst the figure should not exceed $300. We do know that some aerial operators already have chemical liability policies against accident for amounts well in excess of the $30,000 specified in the Act.

Regarding policies and premiums for ground operators, this question has been discussed with underwriters in Queensland and will be the subject of further discussion in more detail in the near future. Satisfactory arrangements are expected to be made.

The hon. member for Warwick made the point that the whole question of premiums in the future must depend on experience with regard to the number and size of claims. This is certainly the case, as it is in all forms of insurance. It is just not predictable at this stage.

As I indicated at the time of the passing of the principal Act in 1966, the legislation is not expected to solve all the problems associated with aerial and ground spraying, but it will facilitate investigations into damage

and the resolution of differences between those suffering damage and the spraying operators. It will also ensure that funds are available to meet claims. The present amendments will assist in getting the scheme into operation.

As I pointed out before, the Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Board consists of a number of very reliable and responsible people. Its members are Mr. S. Marriott, Deputy Director of the Division of Plant Industry, as chairman; Mr. Selwyn Everist, Government Botanist; Mr. T. J. Beckmann, Chief Chemist, Mr. F. W. Berrill, Chief Horticulturist; Mr. A. C. Peel, Director of Agricultural Standards, who is the secretary; Mr. J. Mann, Director of the Biological Research Laboratory of the Department of Lands; Mr. D. Hunter, head of the Development Branch of the Lands Department; Mr. T. Drury, of the Department of Civil Aviation; and Mr. J. Jones, of the Council of Agriculture. It will therefore be seen that the board comprises quite a comprehensive array of responsible people who, I am certain, will do a particularly good job.

Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo) (2.23 p.m.): The amendment before the House is rather interesting. Unfortunately, I was not here when the Bill was introduced, but I do recall the interesting debate that took place when this legislation was before Parliament in 1966. At that stage I suppose it can be said that there were two approaches to aerial and ground spraying. There was the approach of the man on the land who sought to use spraying for his protection, and there was the approach of those in a section of the community who felt that there was a certain amount of risk in spraying, perhaps greater in the case of aerial spraying than in the c :se of ground operations about which complaints have been made from time to time.

As the Minister said today, local authorities have become involved in this matter. The Committee will have noted that the Minister stressed that local authorities would carry out ground spraying under the supervision of qualified officers. He went to a great deal of trouble to point out that adequate provision is being made for people to obtain qualifications in spraying, whether they be aerial or ground operators.

Stress was laid on the manual and its availability and on the examinations that will be provided so that operators who are licensed will be well versed in the dangers of their occupation and their responsibilities as operators, not only to the people with whom they contract to carry out work but also to the people in the immediate environs of the property that is to be sprayed from the air or from the gound. In addition, governmental or semi-governmental instrumentalities will be cognisant of the importance of being careful and will at all

Agricultural Chemicals [29 NOVEMBER] Distribution Control, &c., Bill 1959

times seek to protect persons who are in the immediate area in which operators are working.

The amendments that have been outlined by the Minister are very simple indeed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his appreciation of the Minister's introductory remarks, said that at that stage he could see very little that would hinder the Opposition from giving a favourable opinion on what would be before the House. I have had a quick look through the Bill, and I was very interested in it because I was associated with the debate on the original Bill in 1966. I realised at that time that the responsibility was great, and it was stressed in this Chamber-the Minister will recall this-that many further experiments would have to be carried out. Although aerial distribution had been covered adequately by the legislation, it was intended to cover the modus operandi of ground distribution by a series of regulations.

The amendments proposed by the Minister have now been put before hon. members. Examination discloses that they are definitely designed to assist and promote a better understanding of the Alct and of the purpose of its provisions. They have been arrived at through consultation between the States, between underwriters and operators, and, no doubt, between departmental officers.

The definitions have been tightened. The first one brings out the important fact that dispersal could or could not be intended. That is important because, as the Minister said, a deliberate action 1s not clearly defined in the original Act.

Mr. Row: It could be accidental.

Mr. O'DONNELL: That is correct. In these modern days, when people have the alternative of leasing equipment and vehicles instead of owning them, the Bill must include provisions to cover the lessees of equipment, not only the owners of equipment, as the Act now states.

The important question of drift arises more from aerial spraying than it does from ground distribution. In spite o£ all the discussions that took place in this Chamber when the original Bill was brought down, I do not think one reference was made to the possibility of drift. Perhaps hon. members did think of it but thought of it only as an act of God. They probably said, "How can one obviate this?" A great deal of thought has been given to the problem, and the Bill provides for drift to be taken into consideration.

I think therefore that the definitions in these three aspects have been sufficiently brought up to date and, although later other discrepancies may be found, this measure, at least so far as we are concerned, is a move in the right direction.

Another amendment of considerable importance illustrates that the activities shall relate to distribution and not to mere transport of chemicals from property to prop-· erty. This could be done by air as well as by ground vehicles.

In respect of the policy of insurance we see a provision to the effect that the owner or any other person shall be indemnified. The original Act stated, "The owner and his employees". This recognises that any other person may u·se this equipment. Aircraft can · 1ss from one person to another. An aircraft may be lent by one person to another. This would happen if a man wanted to carry out an operation and something happened to his aircraft; he would then borrow an aircraft.

Mr. Row: He would not be the lessee; he would be just using it.

Mr. O'DONNELL: That is right, and even if he was short of a pilot he could possibly use a friend as a pilot provided he was licensed. I think the Minister stressed that each flight is adequately covered to this amount of $30,000. I do not think there is any need for me to go into further detail on that.

The matter of damage on the property where the operation is actually taking place i-; important. I think it is very important that the position has been emphatically stated in the Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that the other States also have included this provision. The policy does not cover damage on the property where the actual cont!·act ~has been entered into between the •-perator and the person concerned. If the fcirmer could prove, or thought, that the operator had been careless in his operation on the property, I suppose he could sue him for breach of contract in a civil court. It is purely a business transaction between the primary producer and the contractor, whether it is aerial distribution or ground distribution.

The last point raised has reference to when the aerial or ground distribution is not actually carried out by the owner of the aircraft or ground equipment. In this case the obligation to make or cause to be made a record of such particulars ·shall be undertaken by the person actually carrying out the distribution, who shall forthwith deliver such particulars to the owner of the aircraft or, as the case may b~, ground eauipment. I think that is very Important. 'Vhoever is in charge of the operation passes on the information to the owner and, as a consequence, the full ramifications of the act me observed. I think I have indicated that the Opposition favours the Bill before the House.

Mr. AH'ERN (Landsborough) (2.34 p.m.): I said during the introductory stage of this Bill that its most important feature was that it widens the concept of the legislation to cover spray drift, which has caused most of the damage that has been occurring in

~960 Agricultural Chemicals [ASSEMBLY] Distribution Control, &c., Bill

Queensland as a result of spraying operations; and secondly, that the real worth of this legislation will be the measure of protection that is afforded growers when it comes into effect.

Initially, of course, the primary intention .of the legislation was to provide compensation for injurious affection caused by damage from chemicals used in this manner. It will .be of much more value if it can prevent such a problem from arising. If it is to afford prevention-and I think it mustit will be afforded mainly through the manuals that are to be published. As the Minister has pointed out, the manual relative to aerial spraying has already been published and is readily available, and the manual covering ground operations is soon to be released. I express the hope that the latter manual will come properly to grips with this problem.

At present there are four matters that must be taken into consideration in the compilation of such a manual. They are firstly, nozzle size; secondly, pressures to b~ used in the equipment; thirdly, particle size, which is the result of nozzle size and the pressure of operation; and, fourthly, wind currents.

I said at the introductory stage that a great number of the misters that are used today-indeed, I use them myself-reduce particles right down to 5 microns in size, and it has been shown that particles of less than 100 microns in size are susceptible to spray drift. That is something that the Minister will need to consider when he is preparing this manual. The manual will need to set out specifications for nozzle 'Si21es and pressures that will give certain particle sizes.

Already efforts have been made to render interim advice to operators in these matters. Quite recently the chairman of the Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Board, Mr. Stan Marriott, issued a Press statement in which he said-

"Under windy conditions or even on a warm, still day the very small droplets can be carried by air currents for considerable distances and may be deposited on susceptible crops. For this reason, sprayers should make certain that their equipment and spray nozzles are types which do not produce very small droplets."

That is good advice, but it should be made clear to operators that if they use certain types of nozzles at certain pressures they will produce very small particLes and consequently will be faced with the problem of spray drift.

Another point to bear in mind, Mr. Marriott said, is that the droplet size tends to be reduced as the operating pressure increases so that spraying should be carried out usin~ the lowest possible pressure that will still give a good coverage of weeds. That is particularly important; however, the manual should go much further than that if it is

to be worth while. It will be read by a great number of people who are interested in this matter, and they will try to abide by its recommendations.

Mr. Row: It should be good educrttion for them on this problem .

Mr. AHERN: It will be good education. However, if it is to be so widely read, it should get right down to tin-tacks and set out the conditions very clearly. It will then provide a good measure of prevention. A great number of chemicals are used in agriculture, and they can be used safely in many situations if certain procedures are followed to prevent spray drift.

The Minister has pointed out that the board will be engaged in continual research into problems associated with the distribution of chemicals, with a view to recommending certain proposals to ove!'come any new problems that may arise.

I should like the board to look further at the word "drift", which has been introduced into this measure. At the present time the legislation covers aerial spray drift only, but that is not the only drift that occurs. It is possible for considerable drift to be caused by J:ain water. Chemicals can be washed from one situation to another, into catchment areas or small dams. A citrus-grower who is irrigating his crop from a small dam can be killing it while doing so. The board could well investigate this matter. Although I know that it is a very difficult problem to control, I am sure that the board is competent to investigate it and see if this legislation can be extended or whether regulations can be introduced later to deal with it. Pwbably it is not so serious in bigger dams and catchment areas, but in my electorate, where many small-crop farmers irrigate from small farm dams or small catchment areas, if farmers spray groundsel and rain subsequently falls, it is possible for many dams to be contaminated. I should like the board to keep this problem under review and see if anything can be done to control it or whether it is as serious as many people suggest.

We were told by the hon. member for Tablelands that the problems created by the use of chemkals in agriculture are very serious, and that immediate action is necessary to control them. The use of chemicals in agriculture is a fact of life, and we must learn to live with it. However, we should not become carried away by emotional theories, such as "Next spring will be a silent spring in Australia." The facts are that if we are to produce good fruit and vegetables and other crops, we require chemicals to control insects as well as bacteriological, fungal, and other such diseases. If the residue problem is a serious threat to human life, for instance, as a residue in fish, we certainly must do something about it, but we cannot completely ban overnight the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons without doing irreparable harm to primary industry. It

Agricultural Chemicals [29 NOVEMBER] Distribution Control, &c., Bill 1961

may be ne~essary in the long run to find alternative chemicals, but we cannot do that overnight.

Mr. Sherrington interjected.

Mr. AHERN: That is exactly what I say. We need more research into the problem.

Mr. Sherrington: We do not spend enough money.

Mr. AHERN: This is not a problem that is peculiar to the Department of Primary Industries; it is an Australia-wide problem. I agree with the hon. member that we cannot base our thinking on the views of one professor at the University of Sydney. We must rely on a wider basis of .research so that in the long run we can plan to overcome the problem.

The fact is that, for very special reasons, the legislation being introduced in the other States to control this problem is not considered necessary in Queensland. We do not use in Queensland many of the chemicals to control insects that are used extensively in agricultural fertilisers in the other States. Quite a lot of DDT and chlorinated hydrocarbons of one type or another is used in superphosphates in the other States to control grass grubs, and so on, in pasture. That practice has not been generally adopted in Queensland. The problem created by DDT residues is not nearly as serious in Queensland as it is in the other States. It is not worthy of the attention that was given to it the other day by the hon. member for Tablelands. What he suggested should be done would be a blow to the industry that need not be delivered at this time.

If the hon. member takes the trouble to read last week's "Queensland Fruit and Vegetable News", he will see an article from the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry which suggests that the present residue problem in Queensland and Australia is nowhere near as serious as many people suggest. I agree with the hon. member for Salisbury, who said that more research should be conducted into this problem.

I support the legislation. It has been well received in the fruit and vegetable industry in my electorate. I think it is a bold effort to recognise and solve some serious problems in agriculture. It will be the basis for the fruit-growers and dairy-farmers to earn a reasonable living with reasonable protection and will ensure that contractors engaged in this type of work are not put out of business by expensive litigation.

I commend the Minister for introducing the Bill.

Hon. J. A. ROW (Hinchinbrook-Minister for Primary Industries) (2.46 p.m.), in reply: I thank the two hon. members who have spoken in the second-reading debate for their contributions. The hon. member for Barcoo was not here when the Bill was

introduced because he was in hospital. It i-s obvious that he has since made a study of the Bill, as he did the Bill that was introduced last year. He has given strong. support for the proposals, and obviously has. a good appreciation of the principles contained in the Act and the need for these proposals.

I shall make reference to four points that the hon. member made and confirm his statements. These proposals were worked out in consultation with the other States, the underwriters, and the operators.

The definition has been extended to fully cover spray drift. The legislation covers the actual distribution and not the transportation of these chemicals. This was a matter of concern. There was a feeling among interested parties that the legislation was not specific enough and was not limited to actual distribution, and that it could in effect also cover transportation. We overcame that problem. The insurance policy will not cover damage on the farm where contract spraying is carried out. These are the four basic points. I think they are good ones, and I thank the hon. member for stating them so clearly.

The hon. member for Landsborough comes from an area where most of the problems associated with ground-spraying, particularly the ground-spraying of groundsel, have arisen_ He has made an intensive study of the Bill and its proposals. He mentioned the proposal relative to spray drift and the important fact that while the Bill does not assess the amount of damage in terms of money, it effects prevention and ensures the exercise of greater care and responsibility, which to a large extent has been the cause of most of the trouble in his area. The manual; for ground-spraying will cover many import-· ant points. What he mentioned about nozzle· size, pressure, droplet size and wind drift will be considered when the regulations are drafted. Provision is already made in section 48 for some of these. I have noted most of the hon. member's points. The point he made relative to chlorinated hydrocarbons has exercised my mind and the minds. of many other people.

I thank hon. members for their contributions. This has been a popular Bill, and: it is pleasing to know that some Bills can go through the House with the agreement of both sides of the Chamber.

Motion (Mr. Row) agreed to.

CoMMITTEE

(Mr. Smith, Windsor, in the chair)

Clauses 1 to 4, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

The House adjourned at 2.52 p.m.

legislative assembly friday november - · pdf filequeensland . parliamentary debates [hansard]...

Documents