The New Dissenters

The Renewal of Victorian Goldfields Agitation in the 20th Century Part Five The Battle of Bet Bet 1986-1988

The Battle of Bet Bet was about a local government placing a whole new layer of approvals and bonds on Miner’s Right Claims and Leases. It also tried to introduce a set of heritage overlays they effectively shut down the shire in respect of mining. It culminated a period of intense anti-mining ideology. Prior, in the years 1986 and 1987 there was a near unbelievable continuous inflow of argument and expectations about mining law, rights and amendments. This included intense activity from land protection groups and the government with its rapidly multiplying departments. The only people who did not go on the anti-mining attack were the small-scale gold miners, who found themselves continuously on the defensive against further restrictions and losses. Underlying and disguised by all of this chaos and regulatory tinkering was a new threat which appeared to be simply another review of mining.

Stephen Barnham Copyright Stephen Barnham 2011

The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work, and owner of this intellectual property.

DEDICATION To the previously unrecognised people who worked so hard to try and protect Victoria’s gold prospecting and small-scale gold mining heritage and those who realise the importance of understanding your own history.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS John’s wife Nola Winter who had the foresight not to throw out numerous documents when John Winter died. Anne Doran who carefully saved mining related Central Victorian newspaper articles and typed many letters for Frank Kopacka. To John Tully who encouraged me keep going while I worried continuously. To Peter Bridge of Hesparian Press whose insistence on the importance of historical integrity. Numerous people named in the work regardless of their views.

GENERAL COMMENTS This series has been written substantially using material that is unique and not to be found in public records. Although not written by an academic or with any training, the author lived through these changes and events. It was written from the perspective of a gold prospector and small-scale gold miner with a sense of lost heritage, lost rights and consequently lost opportunities. In consequence the author acknowledges there will be bias. In literally spending years sorting and writing this material as a history and a guide to avoiding past mistakes, the author discovered that no interest group was happy.

FOOTNOTE CODES Some footnotes have a letter code. These refer to Dunolly Museum archive documents, interviews, newspaper clippings.

COPYRIGHT All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as provided under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced, stored or transmitted by any means without the prior written permission of the author or publisher.

DISCLAIMER This publication may be of assistance to the reader/user, however, the author and publisher do not guarantee, state, imply or present that the document is a complete publication covering all aspects of the subject matter, is without flaw of any kind or is solely appropriate for the particular usage purpose, and disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from relying on any information in this publication.

WARNING This contains contentious subjects, people and events including people known to abuse litigation as a means of control. The contents are from archives, often in handwriting or signed letters. As well as being able to prove the material presented, there is a lot of “interesting” documentation that was never used. Think carefully before taking the lid off Pandora’s Box. Come what may, the author will not “revise” inconvenient history. Table of Contents

CHAPTER 24. 1986...... 1 Land Use Introduction, Mining Vs Lifestyle, 1986...... 1 Gold and Taxation review, 1986...... 2 Taxation and Concerns for Western Australia, 1986...... 2 Gold Tax Submission Extracts, PMAV, 1986...... 2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, Victoria, PMAV Submission, February 1986...... 3 5-Hectare Claim Submission, February 1986...... 4 Delegation to Minister Fordham, March 1986...... 5 Development Leases and George Letunica, The Flawed Concept, 1986...... 5 Insurance Council of Australia and Public Liability, March 1986...... 8 Occupiers Liability and the Shire of Bet Bet (Dunolly), May 1986...... 9 Reimers Family and Mining, March 1986...... 9 Death of Mining Warden, Roydon John Elliott, April 1986...... 10 Mines Act Amendment Bill, April 15th 1986...... 11 Neil Saville, Interview 2006 Re Cowboy Miners, 1986...... 13 Victorian Chamber of Mines to be Established, April 1986...... 13 Douglas Mine, Dispute, Chiltern, 1986...... 15 Gold In Victoria, Proposed Development Initiative, 1986...... 16 Tarnagulla, Mining Public Meeting April 1986...... 17 Horsham Area Exempt Lands, April 1986...... 19 Mining Warden Powers PMAV Press Release, June 1986...... 19 Conservation, Forests and Lands Proposed Legislation Withdrawn, July 1986...... 20 Revitalising the Gold Mining Industry, Submission July 1986...... 21 PMAV Annual General Meeting, 1986...... 21 Development Lease Vs Letunica, Saga Conclusion, 1986...... 21 Victorian Chamber of Mines, Restart 1986...... 21 Minister for Conservation, Joan Kirner, Looks at Mining in Central Victoria November 1986...... 22 Madmans Lane, Maryborough, November 1986...... 23 Regional Manager Conservation, Forests and Lands wants gold price drop, December 1986...... 23 Australian Broadcasting Corporation Four Corners Program, October 2006...... 24

CHAPTER 25. 1987...... 25 Misunderstanding, Misinformation and Anti-Mining Complaints, 1987...... 25 Mining Rights Verses Land Owner Rights, February 1987...... 27 Goldfields Action Information Alliance, 1987...... 28 Title Granting Problems, PMAV Press release, March 1987...... 30 Planning & Environment Bill to Replace Town and Country Planning Act, February 1987...... 30 Chiltern Mine of Clive and Arthur Douglas, Update Report, May 1987...... 30 Maldon and Government Plans, May 1987...... 31 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Submission, August 24th 1987...... 32 Alpine Area Planning Proposals, Submission, August 1987...... 32 Mines Bill (Miscellaneous Amendments), 1987...... 32 Miscellaneous Mines Amendments, PMAV Press Release September 1987...... 34 Miscellaneous Mines Amendments, Report on Castlemaine Public Meeting October 1987...... 34 Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments), PMAV President’s Report, November 1987 ...... 35 Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, Passed Into Law, December 1987...... 36 Victorian Chamber of Mines will not Support Miner’s Right Claims, November 1987...... 36 The National Trust (Victoria), 1987...... 38 Public Liability 1987...... 41 The Mining Warden, Independence Concerns, 1987...... 41 Tailings Ownership 1987...... 42 CHAPTER 26. 1988...... 45 Christopher Davey Resigns as Prospectors and Miners Association President, February 1988...... 45 Noel Laidlaw Appointed Association President, February 1988...... 45 No Confidence in Mining Warden, February 1988...... 45 Mine Tailings Ownership, a Long Running Dispute, 1988 ...... 47 Interim Development Order Amendments, Shire of Bet Bet, January 1988...... 48 Interim Development Order Amendment, Bet Bet Shire, Media Reports, February 8th 1988...... 49 Interim Development Order Amendment Bet Bet Shire, Frank Kopacka, February 1988...... 49 Interim Development Order Amendment, Bet Bet Shire, Response Submissions, February 1988...... 51 Interim Development Order and the Land Conservation Council, March 1988...... 57 Interim Development Order Amendment, Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Response, March 1988...... 57 Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet Sub-Committee, March 1988...... 57 Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, April 1988...... 58 Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, May 1988...... 58 Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, June 1988...... 62 Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, August 1988...... 63 Mines Act Review, February 1988...... 64 Maldon Miners Meeting March 1988...... 70 Mines Act Review, May 1988...... 70 Mines Act Review, Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group Submission, June 1988 ...... 72 Mines Act Review ‘The Green Paper’, December 1988...... 73 Land Protection Groups and the Victorian Farmers Federation, 1988...... 73 Triad Minerals v Maldon Land Protection Association, May 1988...... 75 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill, July 1988...... 75 PMAV Annual General Meeting, August 1988...... 76 Evan Walker Becomes Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Minister, October 1988...... 76 Miner’s Protest Rally, Dunolly, December 1988...... 76 Survey Shows Support for Mining December 1988...... 78

APPENDIX ONE...... 79 Revitalising of the Goldmining Industry in Victoria by Christopher Davey, 1986 ...... 79

APPENDIX TWO...... 80 What is the magnitude of the mining problem? William Kyte 1987 ...... 80 1 Chapter 24. 1986

Synopsis: The Australian Government advised that an inquiry into the taxation of the gold mining industry would be held. Conflict between mining and conservation grows with meetings at Wedderburn and Tarnagulla. The Development Lease title turns into a fiasco. Occupier’s liability continues to be a problem. The Office of Minerals and Energy becomes absorbed into Department of Information, Technology and Resources. The growing seniority of the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands over the Department of Information Technology and Resources becomes ever more apparent.

Land Use Introduction, Mining Vs Lifestyle, 1986 An issue that becomes apparent is the conflict between mining and residential uses of land. People objected to the resurgence of mining. This would not have occurred if rural planning in relation to mining had been maintained and an effort made to ensure that the populace understood the historical aspects of land use. Since what we possess is either grown from the ground or mined from the ground, it is reasonable to consider land known to have resources should be primarily be reserved to those purposes. In fact before the 1975 Mines Act amendments private rural land in a gold area required signs advising the fact. Land should not have limitations placed upon its use without good reason. It is necessary to plan land use from that starting point because mineral resources do not occur where it suits us. Failure to accommodate that fact risks conflict from a lack of fundamental priorities. The lack of priority created chaos. Residential use of land should never be allowed to impinge on land for farming, mining or timber production – but that is what has happened and continues to happen. The ideas of sustainability and that of development is an ever growing oxymoron. This conflict is further exacerbated by the perception that private landowners actually own the land – which is not correct. Compounding this there is often a sense of stewardship extending beyond the private land boundaries into the surrounding environment and a desire to regulate its use. The archive contains many anti-mining letters to the editor, a theme that will be explored in other chapters. In 1986 anti-mining sentiment was beginning to rise. Basic reasons were anti-mining ideology, ignorance or a bad experience with corporate mining representatives. Some letters contain assertions about mining that are bizarre and make use of exaggeration. People without even the most basic knowledge of mining or mining law are easily caught in a scare tactic. The following letter appeared in the Maryborough Advertiser of August 13th 1986:1

Property pegged Sir, I wonder how many of your readers who live between Maryborough and the Baringhup road at Havelock, and living between the Timor and the Havelock forests, know that their property has been pegged out for sluicing. This includes everybody on the Dunolly and Old Dunolly roads. The application in The Advertiser by Pinex Pty Ltd is so vaguely worded that every square yard in all those square miles could be sluiced down to bedrock, and the area in the advertisements (there are two notices of application), is only delineated by compass bearings from the Maryborough Post Office. It is fairly obvious, though not stated, that the Four Mile Creek and all the gullies running into it are to be sluiced. The disastrous effect this is going to have on the environment is nobody's business with the loss of all our trees, our wildlife and our birds, and of course, uncontrolled flooding and erosion as a result of it. Nor would it end there, for it means the destruction of virtually every dam on private property and the silting of the ones not sluiced away. If this scheme goes ahead then we will find ourselves living in a devastated and lifeless wilderness which will take at least a century to recover. There is a similar huge area on the west of Maryborough pegged by the same man. So it concerns Maryborough in a very real way, and if they don't want to live in an empty and ruined landscape, they had better act. Objections can be lodged with the Secretary for Mines, 151 Flinders St, Melbourne or with the Minister for Minerals and Energy, c/- Parliament House, Spring street, Melbourne. It is our country being sluiced down the drain. Yours etc John J. Alderson, Havelock.

The letter appears to be a response to a notice in the Maryborough Advertiser of July 23rd 1986. It is a Mining Lease application for an area 251 hectares by Kinex Pty. Ltd. from New South Wales. The description of workings is limited to a few words: “Cut and fill, sluice operations”. There will be a lot more on these themes of land use. 1 AM86. Maryborough Advertiser article: Property Pegged August 13th 1986 2

Gold and Taxation review, 1986 Late in 1985 the Australian Government announced an inquiry into gold and its tax-free status. The objectives of the Australian Gold Mining Council submission to the inquiry highlight the historical importance of gold in Australia in respect of wealth creation, development and the industries recent emergence from decades of mediocrity. The summary of argument is that since the free market status of gold from 1972 there had been a recovery in gold mining but there is a long way to go and the introduction of taxes to the industry will stifle this fledgling recovery. High inflation, high unemployment, balance of trade problems and the poor performance of other commodity sectors mark this period in the 1980s. The argument against the Tax in short: gold was going well and was expected to make Australia great again, as it did in the past; do not destroy the one significantly growing and productive aspect of Australian industry with taxes. A letter from Christopher Davey dated January 9th 1986 went out to PMAV members advising that submissions needed to be lodged by February 17th. The letter refers to the following aspects of the tax inquiry:

2The Inquiry is considering the following exemptions under the Income Tax Assessment Act: The exemption from income tax of all income (other than from the production, treatment or sale of pyrites) resulting from the working of a gold mining property in Australia (section 23(o)). The exemption from income tax of income derived by the Gold Producer’s Association of gold produced by its members in Australia (section 23c). The exemption from income tax of income derived from the sale, transfer or assignment of rights to mine for gold and certain prescribed metals in Australia (section 23(pa)). The latter aspect of the inquiry is of particular concern for prospectors as it is this incentive which provides much of the impetus for prospecting, while the first exemption encourages mining.

Taxation and Concerns for Western Australia, 1986 A newspaper article written by Mark Smith (date and publisher not noted on the cutting) expressed the concerns of Western Australia in regard to Federal policy and Australia’s last remaining significant gold mining State. Extracts include.

3Federal Resources Minister Senator Peter Walsh argued the proposed resources rent tax could be applied to the mining of gold which was not subject to taxation. …any new tax would initially apply to larger gold producers… This has left many explorers and miners, particularly the smaller companies confused and bitter. Bill Galbraith, chairman of Perth based Carr Boyd Minerals Limited said: ‘It is impossible to plan ahead when one does not know the ground rules. I point out that 18 junior exploration groups had the guts to take calculated risks in 1980-81 and applied themselves whole-heartedly to gold exploration at a time when the majors, en masse, were deserting the field due to slashed budgets. Is it fair to change the rules after the 18 junior groups have discovered 20 mineable deposits in this State?’ Carr Boyd reminded Labor of a pre-election commitment not to enact a specific tax on gold. The trend in mining towards larger scale in base metal and coal, and the reverse in the re-evaluation of the goldfields exposes a major weakness in the government’s proposed gold tax. It is principally aimed at large-scale operations but there are only a handful of big gold producers in Australia. The bottom line for the small gold miners is the price of the yellow metal, which can fluctuate wildly at times.

The argument continues that lower gold prices affect viability and curtails fund raising via the share market due to lack of investment interest. There is also the difficulty of a small company to secure loans due to holding limited assets. This means the ability to cope with fluctuations in the gold price and sensitivity to cash flow are more difficult to absorb and any new broad-based taxes will make this situation worse as well as destroy incentive.

Gold Tax Submission Extracts, PMAV, 1986 The PMAV made a submission on tax from the point of view of Victorian small-scale miners. Extracts include.

4Gold: In 1984/85 exports in gold from Australian totalled $500,000,000. This was a fivefold increase over the 1981/82 just four years previously. It can be expected that this increase of production will continue, particularly if Victoria is able to develop its gold mining industry.

2 D86. Letter to PMAV members from Christopher Davey re Federal Government gold tax inquiry January 5th 1986 3 A86. Newspaper clipping by Mark Smith, undated titled: Mines Tax fears 4 Submission appears in Eureka Echo Vol 4 No. 2 May 1986 page 16 3 Secondly we note that gold makes an immediate contribution to the balance of payments, because within a month of being mined gold can find its way into the international market place and the country can receive international currency directly. We also note that there is a ready market for gold unlike commodities such as oil and coal for which there is fierce competition. Gold always seems to find buyers. Risks: Unlike many minerals, gold deposits in Victoria are small, high grade and highly variable. Ore reserves are hard to establish in this situation in any traditional sense. The risks of starting small-scale gold mines are therefore considerable as it is difficult to find security against which money can be lent, to finance the development of a small-scale mine. Secondly, there is the risk associated with the viability of a mine once it is started. Many gold mines have recently become profitable because the value of the dollar has decreased considerably in the last two years. Had it not done so it is probable that many of the smaller mines that are now being opened would not have yielded the returns that they do. This is likely to be a temporary situation and taxes levied now in the light of the comparatively high Australian gold price will no doubt add to the catastrophe of closing mines when the price lowers, probably in the near future. Incentives: The Association believes that the freedom and the right to mine is important and that the amount of taxation that would be derived from people who take advantage of that freedom would be comparatively small. The loss of incentive would be large and would result in a considerable downturn in the development and operation of small- scale mines throughout Victoria. Conclusions: The Prospectors and Miners Association believes that in Victoria over the next three years a considerable mining industry may be developed. This development will require people who are motivated to endure the hardships and insecurities of gold mining. They already have to address themselves to all the disincentives which are found in social attitudes and government bureaucracy.

To remove the incentives provided by the exemption provided by the Taxation Assessment Act would, we believe, remove a major incentive for this activity. The loss to Australia in foreign exchange and employment through the development of new resources we believe would far outweigh any short time advantage that the Commonwealth may obtain in income through taxation of gold.”

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, Victoria, PMAV Submission, February 1986 The submission was to the Ministry of Planning and Development concerning Aboriginal heritage proposals. It is reproduced in full as it reveals the zealous well-intentioned attempts to help Aboriginal people. But the attitudes of “us and them”, Aboriginal marginalisation, attitudes of “property and wealth” reflect the time period, tensions and responsibility.

5The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria does not oppose any genuine attempt to support the heritage of Victorians. Indeed our first aim is to protect the heritage of Victorians in their right to prospect and mine gold and minerals. However our experience of relics protection legislation is that active people in our society are put at risk. If they have the misfortune to encounter relics, which are then reported, they are likely to lose their property or title, without compensation, and in one instance we know of, be bankrupted. Before any of these proposals go further, there should be an estimate of the cost to Victoria or if the State is not going to compensate people for acquiring their property, the cost to individuals. We would submit strongly that if relics are important to Victoria, the society as a whole should bear the cost of the preservation, not as happens at present, where the few productive people in society are expected to provide the finance. Our second experience of such legislation is that it is likely to be used primarily to obstruct economic development in Victoria. Where mining is concerned, there are provisions to protect land under the Mines Act. Why then are these provisions being overlain with another set of legislation if it is not for the frustration of economic development on which Victoria depends? All Aboriginal Council. We note that ‘consultation’ is important in all aspects of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage management. This is an interesting principal. Many areas of mining heritage have been dealt with by the government but the mining industry has never been consulted. Under the Land Conservation Council our comments were never considered to have any value and mining Historic Areas were created with no regard for the existing industry.

5 H86. PMAV submission re Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, February 1986 4 The establishment of the All-Aboriginal Council seems to indicate that in this one area of "Aboriginal Heritage"; there is a total about face. We believe that both postures are wrong. It is essential for decisions about heritage to be made by the society, and those decisions must be made in the light of economic activity and employment as well as the value of the relics themselves. We fail to understand what qualifies the All-Aboriginal Council to fulfil their tasks. Sadly, those of Aboriginal descent in Victoria know nothing of, say, the fish traps of Condor or the middens of the coast, except what has been passed on to them by whites. When ‘Women of the Sun’ depicted Victorian Aborigines in 1824, they imported people from Arhnem Land. If the All-Aboriginal Council continues to be the basis of the proposed legislation, we believe that it will be an unqualified disaster. Heritage is all about exploring our common past. If that is to be split into white and black heritage, then only conflict can result. Whites too were nomadic once, albeit on a different part of the globe, so there is commonality, and it is worth exploring. But there is also a common dependence on economic activity and employment or on social security and special grants, and that also can not be omitted from the decision making process. We conclude that the discussion paper on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage provides no valid basis for assessment of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in Victoria. Even the Planning Appeals Board will consist of two Aborigines and an anthropologist and an archaeologist! Where do the broader and often more important social issues of heritage get considered? Compensation. We note the section of Offences and Penalties. We note also the repeated references to ‘compulsory acquisition’ and the ‘please notes’ which are inserted to try to lessen the draconian and undemocratic proposals throughout the discussion paper. At no place is the issue of compensation seriously addressed. Faced with a relic discovery, what is a miner to do? Declare it and be dispossessed of his title and maybe sent to bankruptcy, or destroy the relic beyond recognition and run the lesser risk of discovery and penalty. If he has a social conscience and cares for his family, he will of course take the latter course of action. There is nothing in these proposals to encourage him to do otherwise; indeed there is plenty to encourage him to destroy items of ‘Aboriginal Heritage’. Conclusions. The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria deplores the proposals of the discussion paper because we believe that if implemented they will exacerbate divisions which already exist in our society. Matters of heritage have to be handled from a broad community base. If that heritage cannot be shared, it is not worth having, and our conclusions after reading the discussion paper is that if Aboriginal heritage is going to mean ‘Confidential Registers’, ‘Compulsory Acquisitions’, ‘Conciliation’ before Aborigines and anthropologists, and penalties. We submit that this approach which makes Australian Aboriginal heritage essentially autonomous and separate from white Australians is fundamentally divisive and will be disastrous for Victoria. The proposals in the discussion paper would be more in keeping with a totalitarian society or one party state where the rulers were academic theorists such as anthropologists and a minority social group. The assessment and management of relics must: *Be carried out by general community representatives, not just sectional interest groups, *Account for the cost to the society of the proposed action, and *Encourage the society as a whole to share in the heritage that relics represent. We feel that the discussion paper fails to achieve any of these. The Association would be pleased to discuss the submission further if that was considered of value.

5-Hectare Claim Submission, February 1986 The submission was to the Mining Consultative Committee in regard to problems with the 5-hectare Miner’s Right Claim. It was October 30th 1983 when the Mines Act Amendments came into force and the problems continued, as written by Christopher Davey. Introduction:

6A good feature of the 1983 Mines Act Amendments was the return of the Miner’s Right Claim to an effective mining title. Part of that effectiveness was the ability to increase areas beyond 1ha and to be able to peg within exploration licences, albeit with a limitation on depth. We believe that before any further changes are contemplated the following should be considered. Mining Titles: Wherever possible mining titles should have precedence over exploration titles. The preference by the Department of Information, Technology and Resources in recent years for large-scale exploration titles has been entirely bad. 6 F86. PMAV submission re 5 hectare Claims and Exploration Licences, February 1986 5 Mining is the activity which justifies exploration and it is what benefits the community most by providing material wealth. Working Requirements: When compared on the basis of cost per unit area, the work requirements on claims is far higher than for Exploration Licences. This is as it should be and it justifies the precedence of claims over Exploration Licences. Exploration Licences: The Exploration Licence program has been going for twenty years. In spite of the fact that large sections of

Victoria for long periods have been subject to exploration licence, no mine has been commenced as a result of a discovery made on an Exploration Licence nor are there any in view. This total failure in one of the great gold bearing provinces of the world is a wonder which itself deserves an inquiry This inquiry should look at Department of Information, Technology and Resources and the resources that it has devoted to the Exploration Licence program, in deference to other mining title activities. If the Department of Information, Technology and Resources had devoted a fraction of its resources to mining claims or leases, which it has devoted to exploration licences, mining in Victoria would be a reality. The one achievement of this system is that until recently, it has excluded other prospectors and small companies from the State. The Five Hectare Claims: Where mining is being conducted on a claim and people are employed on a full time basis in a bona fide mining operation, we believe that the 5-ha extension and removal of a depth limit should always be granted. The extension should always be considered on the basis of the work undertaken on the 1-ha claim. In this instance Exploration Licence holders should be able to object to an increase in claim size or removal of the depth limit and that objection should be upheld if they can establish that they have commenced prior exploration in the ground of the claim extension application. Area under Claim: We understand that the total area held under claim in Victoria is about 850 hectares. This, compared with any one Exploration Licence area is an insignificant area. Conclusion: This inquiry seems to display a warped perspective when the actual size of the problem is considered. However, the extension of claim areas was never a strong Prospectors and Miners Association policy. We always had a preference for the consolidation of claims, which we have felt, was preferable to area extensions. The removal of the depth limit has been a strong policy of the Association. Where claims are worked properly, that work should always be supported by the Department of Information, Technology and Resources. If the deposit is important to an Exploration Licence holder, they should attempt to purchase the claim. The buying of rights to mine from prospectors has been at the base of the industry for many years and has been the main contributor to the renewal of gold mining in Western Australia. Until the exploration emphasis of Department of Information, Technology and Resources is replaced by a commitment to support mining in preference to exploration security and inactivity, Victoria will stay where it is as far as gold production is concerned.

Delegation to Minister Fordham, March 1986 Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.2 May 1986 records that.

7In March the Hon Robert Fordham received a delegation from the Association. A number of issues were reviewed including Luigi Mariniello’s Claim, Conservation Forests and Lands proposed legislation, rehabilitation in the North Central Area, Aboriginal land legislation, but no commitments were made on any of our requests. It appears that the Minister does not have the capacity to act in many of these issues, possibly because of constraints within the Government. It is our job to give him the necessary power base. For example, how about writing to your local member complaining about the Conservation Forests and Lands legislative proposals.

Development Leases and George Letunica, The Flawed Concept, 1986 The previous chapter introduced the problems of George Letunica and Development Leases; this revealed the earlier PMAV concerns over the potential land lock up from Development Leases to be well founded. Although this unpleasant example started in 1985, it continued well into 1986 before being resolved. The story reveals the dysfunction created by ever increasing legal complexity, poor legislation and unresponsive mining officials in the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. A dispute became serious in the Dunolly district where there were numerous and extensive Development Lease Applications of up to 260 hectares that were often pegged back to back. The result was large areas closed off to

7 Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.2 May 1986 page 12 6 recreational prospecting or mining title applications. One company issued a summons against people it considered to be trespassers who had allegedly found gold on their Development Lease at Homebush. This resulted in three Tarnagulla prospectors appearing before Judge Lazarus in Melbourne’s County Court on November 6th 1985. George Letunica, his wife and brother had summonses issued against them by G. Ham acting for Kempson Tunbridge. Mr Ham alleged in an affidavit that the three had removed gold from a Development Lease Application, gold nuggets reported in the press to be worth $120,000. An injunction was sought restraining future trespassers from the application area and that the gold be impounded pending the determination of the lease. Mr Ham’s argument was claims pegged by the Letunicas were on land he claimed to have under Development Lease Application. At the time there was a rush of prospectors to the land that indicated to Mr Ham that the nuggets came from the Development Lease Application. Mr. Ham’s Council conceded the lease had not been advertised but was still valid and under Section 67 of the Mines Act he had the right to proceed against the Letunicas. The judge and council spent a lot of time trying to understand what Section 67 meant. The Section originated with the Mining Warden, then was dealt with by the Court of Petty Sessions, then the Magistrates Court and now there was the reintroduction of the Mining Warden to consider. The judge was perplexed and neither Council could “shed any light on the matter” and all noted the Act was being rewritten anyway. Judge Lazarus said “he had never read anything like it and it must be very old. The court action is unique in this century and maybe even the last century.” Mr. Thompson of the Department of Information, Technology and Resources gave evidence in court. Officers of the Department may not divulge information so the Plaintiff subpoenaed documents and Mr Thompson was questioned regarding them. In a sworn affidavit, Mr Letunica denied obtaining the nuggets from the lease application and the judge pointed out there was no conclusive evidence the gold had come from that land. In a ruling the judge said the injunction seemed pointless because the plaintiff could not show that the defendants were the people responsible for the continuing trespass. He ruled that the plaintiff had a plausible case based on inference and that the matter would be tried in the County Court. The Judge ordered that from between August 24th and September 24th the gold found by the defendants, or on their behalf or proceeds from sale be deposited with the Court Registrar. The case came about only because of the television publicity of the gold find. The plaintiff’s case rested on the priority of the mining titles and that was the realm of the Mining Warden, not the courts.

Development Lease, Problems and Conflicts, Submission, February 1986 8 The submission was to the Mining Consultative Committee, written by Christopher Davey, in regard to the Development Lease and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources.

Introduction: Large portions of Central Victoria from Rushworth to the Pyrenees are under Development Lease Application. Legally these areas are not open to recreational prospectors, nor are they available for prospectors who aim to make major gold discoveries. One company is proceeding against a prospector, and their most recent actions have had the explicit aim of having the prospector jailed. It has been found by the County Court that the prospector has not trespassed on the area beyond pegging a claim. Although this was done in ignorance of the existence of the Development Lease Application, the company are persisting with their action to either get the prospector’s gold, or have him jailed. The ill feeling that will result from this action is going to leave no doubt that there are problems and conflicts between prospectors and Development Lease applicants. The Causes of the Conflict: The aim of mining law has been to give a holder security of title to ground in which to invest capital with the aim of obtaining mineral resources. The safeguards for the remainder of the community in this are many, but include: - The owner will conduct his operations in a proper manner, - The owner will not just hold the ground, but will make the necessary expenditure, and employ people. This system has ceased to be effective because of the long period that titles spend as applications. During this time no work can be commenced on the lease by the applicant with any security and all other people are excluded from the area. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that on refusal of a Development Lease, it is common for another lease application to be pegged immediately over the same area, often by the same person. A further problem is being caused by the pegging of Prospecting Area Licences by Development Lease Applicants, and in so doing avoiding the obligations of the Development Lease Title.

8 G86. PMAV submission re Development Lease and prospector conflicts February 1st 1986 7 We believe that this situation has arisen because of bad legislation and inappropriate practices by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. We also believe that the situation will get worse as there is greater economic pressure to mine gold. Legislative Problems, The Development Lease. The Development Lease itself is a problem, as it does not require large amounts of work to be done on the ground. Instead large sums can be expended on corporate matters not directly aimed at mineral discovery and development. We believe that the Development Lease should be assessed with a view to incorporating it in the Mining Lease Title. The Mining Lease would then have the power to authorise development type activity and to stipulate a labour covenant, which would increase over time, recognising the anticipated build-up from development to mining. This title is of much greater use to genuine miners as they are not faced with a possible hiatus between development and mining. It also lessens the administrative load of the Department of Information, Technology and Resources and places the emphasis where it should be, on the mining of minerals, and the employment of people to achieve that. Legislative Problems, Prospecting Area Licence: This title does not seem to serve any useful purpose on Crown Land. The search permits of Section 325 of the Mines Act, before the 1983 amendments, applied to private land and served a real purpose by authorising a lease applicant to prospect on a restricted area, thus limiting area on which compensation was due. This facility is still required, but if Exploration Licences are not to be limited to the gradicle system, they may be appropriate. At present Prospecting Area Licences provide an opportunity for companies to hold ground without commitment and for the Department of Information, Technology and Resources to avoid making a decision about a lease application. Both aspects are bad and so the title should cease to exist, provided a suitable searching permit for private land is provided. Legislative Problems, Trespassing on a Title: Section 67 of the Mines Act provides for titleholders to proceed against a person who finds gold on their tenement. This section does not appear to have been used until recently and has essentially provided a deterrent. The action which is being taken at present in the County Court of Melbourne is vindictive and abhorrent. We seriously doubt the sincerity of a mining company that is prepared to take such high level court action against an individual, to obtain such a small amount of gold from him. We recommend that this section be reviewed and rewritten so that only the blatant removal of mineral from a known lease area by an unauthorised person is open to court action. Warnings should be necessary before such action could be contemplated. Legislative Problems, Quartz Mining Titles on Known Goldfields: Where a lease is being granted for the purpose of mining underground, and there is no intent to mine alluvial gold near the surface, it would be helpful if people could prospect on the surface. All leases except certain rights and privileges to her Majesty's subjects, and an exception to a depth of say, 30cm, for holders of Miners Rights may be worthy of consideration. This could be a normal inclusion in a lease, unless the applicant refuses it, or it could become incorporated in a redrafted section 67 of the Mines Act. Re-pegging Of Refused Areas: It seems to defeat the purpose of a Department of Information, Technology and Resources decision to refuse a title application if the area is repegged immediately the refusal is made. We therefore recommend that on refusal of a tenement application that the area be unavailable for that type of title application, or for the application of another type of title by the previously refused applicants, for a period of, say, six months. Publication of Lease Locations: There is no straightforward way for a prospector, or a mining company, to find out what land is under lease or lease application. In the past, local advertisements and notices kept communities informed about areas that were under title application. This means is no longer suitable for informing a highly mobile community. Instead we suggest that weekly updated area plans which have all information about titles and reserved land, be posted on public notice boards at regional centres such as Dunolly, Maryborough, Avoca etc. Given present day technology this is a straightforward operation. Request for Mining Information: Applicants for leases are being asked for extensive information about the proposed development and mining operation by the Department of Information, Technology and Resources. This request delays the granting of a title while the information is collected and the story put together. It also diverts expenditure from operating to administrative paperwork. The questions asked by the Department of Information, Technology and Resources can 8 rarely be answered on the information available and so the story provided is often no more than educated guess work. This practice serves no useful practice and adds to the delay in granting titles.

We recommend that the DITR acknowledge the nature of mining, that one finds what one finds and instead limit their inquires to a knowledge of the people 'who are to be employed or contracted to do the work. Why after all do Mine Managers Certificates exist if it is not to indicate competency? Permits: The requirement of a planning permit before a lease is granted under Section 512H of the Mines Act, is another major delay in title application processing. There is a long history of local authority incompetence where mining applications are concurred. We believe that the legitimate concerns of local residents should be addressed by miners, but that it is inappropriate to expect that these can be adequately dealt with at an early stage of the application. We recommend that the provision which requires a planning permit be removed from the Mines Act and that planning requirement be handled independently within pre-determined guidelines, specifying mutually exclusive areas of responsibility for the Inspectorate under the Mines Act and for local authorities. Conclusion: There is no doubt that there is conflict over land for prospecting and mining between prospectors and large tenement holders. The aim of all legislation should be to facilitate mining and while giving security to the titleholder allowing prospecting to continue where ever possible. The present legislation does neither and we have listed series of amendments that may improve the situation. There are many short-term crises, which require prompt resolution, and this requires a responsive administration. The Department of Information, Technology and Resources is anything but responsive and we know that this is not regarded as an important quality by senior officers of the Department. We believe this "head in the sand" attitude by senior officers of the Department needs to be investigated. If they were doing their job, for which the community pays, this inquiry and submission would not be necessary.

Insurance Council of Australia and Public Liability, March 1986 The issue of public liability insurance had not been resolved. Frank Kopacka was still fighting the Occupiers Liability Act in a March 4th letter to Ken Wright, Member of the Legislative Council. Frank included with his letter a copy of the 1985 New Zealand Insurance that stated the problem of obtaining insurance did not lay with the company but with re-insurers. Mr Wright’s response of March 11th.

9 It seems to me the company has taken the easy way out in blaming re-insurers’ difficulties for their cancellation.

Ken Wright acknowledged Frank’s suggestion to repeal the part of the Act that allowed trespassers and uninvited visitors to sue for damages. The reason for the insurance problem was at last made clear in an April 9 th letter to Ken Wright.10 The letter from John McCormick of the Insurance Council of Australia observed that Ken Wright had been discussing the concerns of small-scale miner insurance problems with Les Lester at an Insurance Council of Australia meeting, where Ken Wright was a speaker. Lester said the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria had approached the Insurance Council of Australia two years ago on this very issue. The letter goes on to expose that it was Government policy, as expressed in the Occupier’s Liability Act that caused these insurance problems. The letter states.

The difficulty sprang from the then recently introduced Occupiers Liability Act, the terms of which considerably increased the prospector’s exposure to risk. Instead of simply being liable for any working on which he was directly involved, the prospector could in many cases be deemed the occupier of the land composing his claim. In an area with a lengthy history of mining such claims can often include derelict workings, abandoned machinery and a host of other dangers which it would be quite impractical for the small miner to render safe, but for which he was deemed liable. On investigation it was found that in certain cases insurers were obliged to refuse cover on the grounds that the risk was simply untenable (e.g.) Where dangerous earlier workings existed in fairly populous areas and were readily accessible to members of the public) At the same time a substantial number of prospectors had become, as a result of the publicity given to the Act, suddenly become conscious of their exposure and were seeking what is a fairly specialised form of insurance from companies who normally provided their domestic or motor cover.

9 L86. Letter to Frank Kopacka from Ken Wright re occupiers liability March 11th 1986 10 P86. Letter to Ken Wright from John McCormick, Insurance Council of Australia April 9th 1986 9 The letter continues, advising that Prospectors and Miners Association members had been invited to the meetings of underwriters and learned that there were companies prepared to offer insurance: the letter does not mention the tripled premium cost.

Occupiers Liability and the Shire of Bet Bet (Dunolly), May 1986 In a letter from the Attorney-General Jim Kennan to J.A. Thompson dated May 12th 1986,11 the Secretary of the Bet Bet Shire, Mr Kennan acknowledges two letters dated January 21st and March 26th. Also acknowledged is the content of the letters about the introduction of the Occupiers Liability Act 1983 and its effect on Miner’s Right Claim holders obtaining public liability insurance. Mr Kennan denied the Act increased liability of land occupiers.

The difficulty experienced by holders of Miner’s Right Claims in obtaining public liability insurance is not a consequence which was either intended or contemplated by the Act. The difficulty is, in my view, a result of an unwarranted over-reaction by the insurance industry to the intention of the Act.

Mining and the Environment, 1986: In this context ‘environment’ meant the living conditions of people near working Claims. Problems of noise and dust were allegedly causing local residents to complain about some small-scale mining operations, especially those known as doze and detect. The issue of noise and dust came to prominence and debate in public forums and in Parliament. Doze and detect is a process where a bulldozer is used to remove a layer of earth with the resultant material spread and metal detected for nuggets then the process repeated downward. This was a practice that was not universally endorsed by small-scale miners; it was seen as wasteful by some as it made no attempt to recover finer gold that was not detectable. Even detecting, a lot of small nuggets were missed if the depth scraped away each time was more than a few centimetres.

Reimers Family and Mining, March 1986 An extensive article written by David Cooney appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser of March 5th 1986.12 The article presents the point of view of a mining family at Kingower.

Alvin Reimers was the great grandson of Johannes Reimers; Johannes came to Kingower rush from Hamburg in the early 1850s and the family had been making a living from mining and farming in the area ever since. Alvin, his brother David and their father Tom, established a winery in the early 1970s over old alluvial flats that had been heavily worked for gold; the Blanche Barkly nugget of 1754 ounces was found near the winery entrance of the same name. Of the 8-hectare property the planted vines form 3-hectares that the family worked for gold then levelled out the old heaps for the vines. The first vintage was in 1975. Alvin’s grandfather, Alexander, had a run of good luck with his mining and invested in knitting machinery and built up a clothing firm in Melbourne and won a contract to supply Myers. Alvin pointed out that the bulldozer he owns and mining are not necessarily a destructive pursuit. Nearby is the Passing Clouds winery and other landowners have cleaned up their land and planted vines. The Reimers family are keen to continue using their dozer to find gold and return the results into their winery. They own a claim out in the bush at Long Gully; one of the richest gullies found. Alvin pointed out the stringy trees and scrub on the claim that would be removed and all the old diggings that would be levelled out. Alvin is saddened by the untrue reports that they are preparing to rip through land in the heart of Kingower. There are hand tools only Claims in the town. Alvin is concerned that the impression created in the media is that all Kingower residents are opposed to bulldozer mining. They don’t speak for everyone in Kingower but have taken it on themselves to be spokespersons. Some people wanted a total ban on mining. A lot of these conservationists and greenies would wipe out any industry in the bush that supports many people and gives them a living.

Alvin’s brother, David, had some points as well.

Spare a thought for modern diggers, most of them only small-scale are battlers. If they’re in a big way they are wealth creators and employers. Mining projects now under way in Inglewood are the last hope to stop that town becoming a morbid haven of disenchanted people depending on Government patronage for survival.

David also supported the point his brother made about bulldozing and the restoration the old timers workings.

11 Z86. Collection of documents re Miner's Right Claim applications in Kooyoora State Park 12 K86. Bendigo Advertiser: Article Pioneer family defends bulldozer mining, David Cooney March 5th 1986 10

Certainly strip mining will take all the present trees on the claim, but perhaps this is best for the long term reclamation of the forest anyway.

Alvin and David’s 80-year-old father Tom has his own claim adjacent the town, working down a 20-metre shaft in the style of the original diggers. He was friend of Reg and Jack Ansett of Inglewood and Ansett airlines fame. Tom taught Mrs Ansett how to operate a knitting machine and the Ansetts in turn established a mill in Seymour. The Reimer family won’t be doing anything done with the bulldozer for a time as the Criminal Investigation Branch are investigating who filled the dozer’s engine sump with acid.

Author comment: This scenario of reinvesting the proceeds of gold into other productive industries is a very common one. Timber and gold were the mainstays of many small rural towns but these industries have been largely and progressively shut down by government policy. Many towns now subsist on tourism and this is very sensitive to fuel prices, interest rates and employment levels. In the early 21st century Governments have had to spend large sums of money to prop up tourism firstly in the north east of the State and then the Grampians region as a result of large fires and the subsequent collapse of tourism. Regional economic activity is losing its diversity and that removes flexibility “having all your eggs in the one basket”; in practice the obsession with food and wine for example.

Death of Mining Warden, Roydon John Elliott, April 1986 The largest collection of Victorian mining people seen together for many years gathered at the Donvale Uniting Church and the Templestowe Cemetery on April 9th to pay their respects to Don Elliot. Don died on the evening of Friday April 4th after a short period of severe illness.13

Roydon John Elliott Obituary: 14The Association records with deep regret the passing of Roydon John Elliott, affectionately known as the “Don” and officially known as the Mining Warden. Don was born in 1923 in Maryborough in Central Victoria, so it is not surprising that mining should so dominate his life. He attended Coburg and Essendon High Schools. In 1948 he enrolled at Melbourne University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in 1953 and with a diploma in Mining Engineering from the West Australian School of Mines in 1958. During his career he gained certificates as a Mine Manager and Mine Surveyor and for accountancy and electronics. He also had five years of general army engineering experience. Don worked at many mines during holidays to gain vocational experience. In 1949 he joined the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources. By 1953 he had Joined Western Mining Corporation as a Geologist and as a Ventilation Officer – surely a unique double. He gained his underground experience as a Miner at Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie. After two years as a Mining Engineer at Great Boulder Gold Mines, he was appointed General Manager of Morning Star Mine. Then he was Production Superintendent at Peek Mines in the Northern Territory. He returned to Victoria and joined the Mines Department. He was State Mining Engineer for eight years, then was Assistant Director of Mines (Technical) and Chief Mining Adviser for five years. He was also Chairman of the Mine Managers Board and a host of other committees and boards. He served a term as President of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. He was largely responsible for the design of the Sovereign Hill underground operation at Ballarat. In 1983 the Government re-established the historic position of Mining Warden. Don, now the father figure of Victorian mining, was the obvious choice. His wide experience in private industry and government departments and his earthy understanding of the problems of miners and the mining industry carried him through the formation of the office with success; in fact, Don revelled in the going. He made a crash study of law, especially the connotations of ‘natural justice’ and the workings of the Magistrates Court. He now had the powers of a Magistrate, but Don always disguised those powers. He had a deep-seated suspicion of lawyers, preferring his court to be the province of the simple, honest, toiling miner. (reminiscent of Rafaello Carboni) He was especially pleased if the miner showed that he intended to produce gold rather than just shuffle paper. Don liked to think of his court as akin to that of Solomon: he wanted fairness and humanity to prevail.

13 Eureka Echo Vol. 4 No 2 May 1986 page 12 14 Eureka Echo Vol. 4 No 3 July 1986 page 12-14 by William Kyte. 11 His signature started in his student days as a small signature, and in his later years spread 5 -cm high across the page - it is a collector’s dream. As a speaker, Don was brilliant. He was humorous, lucid and pointed. His small physical stature belied the colossus that he became in Victorian Mining. Don took a special interest in the Association and endeared himself to the Association. We are the poorer for his passing. The Association proudly records his achievements, and extends deep sympathy to this family.

Mines Act Amendment Bill, April 15th 1986 Debate for the second reading of this Bill was resumed on April 15th after being adjourned on March 20th. Amendments were alluded to in the February Association submissions on 5-hectare claims and the Development Lease. Some goldfield areas had allegedly developed poor relations between claim holders and local residents resulting in complaints about mining and the practices used. Selected extracts from Hansard April 15th record debate on amendments to the Mines Act in the Legislative Assembly showing a variety of considerations and sentiments including a reference to Claims and machinery.15 Mr. James Ramsay, Liberal for Balwyn, queried if the Bill was doing enough and if the Government was doing enough and whether its actions are relevant to what needs to be done in upgrading the Mines Act. He said that Robert Fordham’s second reading speech referred to a study by Professor Crommelin. The study has recommendations for a complete review of resources law in Victoria and that the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources has access to that study to assist in a major review of the Mines Act, which is intended to take place within two years. Mr. Ramsay said the Minister boldly proclaimed.

‘A revival in mining is occurring at both ends of the spectrum. The renewed activity of large mining companies with new ideas and technology has already led to the opening of Victoria’s first large gold mine in 30 years at Stawell. In addition there are perhaps half a dozen other major developments, including Western Mining Corporation at Bendigo and their opening of Walhalla, all of which the Department of Industry. Technology and Resources is facilitating. Meanwhile the number of small miners in the field continues to grow, as does their success. Several small syndicates are operating mines and major finds have been reported by prospectors using detectors. This has been achieved by simplifying legislation, removing obstacles of accesses to land whilst at the same time tightening up environmental procedures to avoid the excess of the past. A substantial number of the public have a negative reaction to mining because of its record, but the Government is demonstrating that there need not be a conflict between mining and the environment provided some basic rules are applied.’

Mr. Ramsay made a few comments in response to his speech.

‘There is a real question mark hanging over the claim of the Government that it has achieved this development in the mining industry. The Williams United Mine at Wandiligong near Bright, the Western Mining Corporation Mine at Stawell and the A-l Mine Settlement at Gaffneys Creek are in operation. However, the Minister has ignored the fact that no one has commenced gold production under the current Government other than those people whose commitments had been made and where development had started before the Government came to office. None of these significant developments is as a result of the Government’s economic strategy. In recent times smaller mines have been frustrated. The Douglas mine at Chiltern has been frustrated by the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. The Minister spoke about smaller mines continuing to grow. I invite him to visit the Wedderburn-Kingower area to see for himself what is occurring in that area, which is one of the most exciting gold fields of the past and one of the most promising for the future. At least fourteen small miners have been restricted by the Government and its different arms by forcing them to use only hand tools. Are we living in the nineteenth or twentieth century? Are we insisting that miners do their work with picks and shovels to try to follow some age-long tradition? Are we making an attempt to recognise that a tremendous source of economic wealth is waiting to be tapped in Victoria by rewriting existing mining legislation. Restrictions on these fourteen miners in the Wedderburn-Kingower area have effectively forced them to cease operations. The way through the conflict of interests between competing land users must be found. I would willingly assist the Government to try to find a way through those conflicting claims because it will not be resolved along party lines. It is not a question of the Government verses the Opposition. It is a question of various community interests sitting down and making some hard decisions. The Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands staked its claim. The Department of Industry, Technology and Resources has staked its claim. The Ministry for Planning and Environment is involved with its regional planning authorities and local governments are involved in their town planning capacities. To add to the picture, the Department of Labour is also taking an interest by seeking control of occupational health and safety aspects of mining operations so that the Department’s own inspectorate can be part of the action. The planning processes are

15 R86b. Hansard, Assembly pages 60-69 12 suspect because they tend to ignore the planning requirements for resource access. If one looks at planning legislation one will find that provision is made for a quarry for local needs, but it is remarkably silent on mineral extraction or the potential for mineral extraction. The Land Conservation Council has been given a major responsibility in determining some issues of land use. The council’s reports appear to be heading towards a new Land Act schedule zoning of Crown lands. There is no doubt that gold is still important not only to Victoria but also to Australia. Last year approximately $500 million worth of export earnings resulted directly from the export of gold. The figures indicate that 90 per cent of gold export earnings were won in Western Australia and more than 80 per cent of Australia’s gold production occurred in Western Australia. Victoria contributed a miserable l per cent to the national output of gold, from what must still be significant goldfields that Victorians are proud to include as part of their State. In the middle of the last century Victoria was producing 3 per cent of the world’s total gold output. Victoria may never return to that figure in terms of world production, but the fact that Victoria is producing 1 per cent of the nation’s annual gold production is no credit to the Government and no credit to what Victorians could be doing if they put their minds to it.’ Mr Ramsay described a Geological Survey being conducted by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. It is responsible for assessing the activities of the Exploration Licensees on a six-monthly basis. He felt the geological survey was sound from an academic point of view, but the problems of access to potential mineral bearing ores is still largely unresolved. Mr Ramsay said the Opposition believed the Government needs to address the problems of access. He added that in the second-reading speech the Minister stated.

‘The Bill that is now before the House deals with the machinery aspects or the Act and will also remove major obstacles that are within the current requirements of the Mines Act with respect to major commercial projects. These measures do not change the balance struck between the various parties involved in the Victorian mining industry by the 1983 Act.’

The Bill contains various amendments spread over 19 clauses that were aimed at correcting ambiguities and omissions and various other technical issues. Of particular interest is clause 16. This, as hinted at with the aforementioned removal of major obstacles, is the clearing of the way that allowed large mining operations to develop in Victoria. This was done using case by case legislation to circumvent onerous planning controls.

‘Clause 16 enables a mining development licence to be issued ahead of certain planning approvals for projects of major economic importance so long as the operation does not commence ahead of approvals being given.’

Mr. Ramsay went on to say.

‘According to Public Service gossip the Chairman of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd wrote to the Premier in the middle of last month stating that if the Government intends to consolidate various Acts under the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands without making proper provision for mining access to enable sensible exploration and development of the mineral resources in Victoria, then Western Mining will consider carrying out its mining operations somewhere other than in Victoria. I have submitted an application under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the letter because I believe it is tremendously important to the future economic development of this State. It is important that the people of Victoria and the Government should understand the consequences of locking up land in such a way that mining activities are virtually forestalled forever.’

Mr B. J. Evans for Gippsland East. ‘When amendments to the Mines Act were last before this House honourable members were subjected to some of the most intense lobbying ever experienced. That was largely on behalf of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria Ltd. It was carried out by the late Dr Doug Kemsley who was ably supported by his wife in numerous representations to members on all sides of the House. Honourable members also received representations on behalf of large exploration companies because the proposed legislation dealt with items in which two sides of the exploration industry, if I can call it that, came into a great deal of conflict. The Bill is notable for the absence of any such representation.’

Mr Evans noted that the Minister said in his second-reading speech.

‘The Bill that is now before the house deals with the machinery aspects of the Act and will also remove major obstacles that are within the current requirement of the Mines Act with respect to major commercial projects. 13 These measures do not change the balance struck between the various parties involved in the Victorian mining industry by the 1983 Act.’

It is now plain that large miners are to have amendments to aid them while the small-scale miners are to receive no such assistance, despite a long history of objections to the burden of planning controls. Mr Bill Heffernan for Ivanhoe, raised the issue that was to become the subject of a public inquiry held on April 24th at Wedderburn.

‘With regard to land rehabilitation. It has been brought to my attention that large-scale gold exploration in country areas has caused tremendous damage to the landscape. Huge bulldozers – of which there are many – do tremendous damage to these areas. I ask whether the Minister has examined land rehabilitation and whether the Bill takes the necessary steps to ensure that, when an application for mining rights is granted, the land use will be rehabilitated once the company or individual has completed the exploration.’

Neil Saville, Interview 2006 Re Cowboy Miners, 1986 Neil Saville: There were a lot of cowboys who did not give a stuff about how they ran their mining claims. They had the attitude that they were only on the ground for a year or so and didn’t care about how they went about their work. I remember at various Prospectors and Miners meetings there would be a few people who were having a lot of trouble with Mines Inspectors. It was usually the same people and these people were the cowboys. It wasn’t so much a problem around Dunolly and Maryborough but the further you got out the worse it got. There were so many things thrown at us to make it harder that it was easy to see that the Department was either anti-mining or being over-ridden by Conservation Forests and Lands. I have to say the people in the field were mostly very good; I had a long and good relationship with the Mines Inspector Neal Beachley: He was a gentleman. One day Neal came out to my Flagstaff Claim near Maryborough. I had moved from where I was working and left behind a high wall that had cracks behind it so it wasn’t very safe I admit. A case of good intentions to fix but a bit slow getting to it. Neal took one look at this: ‘What are you doing to me? Fix it up before you get me in trouble!’ I did fix it. He wasn’t nasty about it, just worried. I did not have trouble because I generally took care and did the right thing. Neal and I would work our way through what I wanted to do and I found him easy to get along with; the cowboys did not and the inspectors came down hard on them just to try and get the basics done. It was the actions of the cowboys that would get into the papers, falling right into the hands of extremist greenies so the public only saw the bad side. The spotlight was on the cowboys, just a few, but the rest of us were treated the same. I actually had people spying on me; hiding in the scrub with binoculars and cameras.

Victorian Chamber of Mines to be Established, April 1986 16The Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.2 May 1986 reported that on April 22 nd 1986 the Victorian Mining Industry Committee, which consisted of Conzinc Riotinto Australia, Western Mining Company, Broken Hill Proprietary, Triad Minerals and the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria, convened a meeting of all the mining companies and organisations in Victoria. Eighty-six companies and groups had previously responded favourably to the formation of a Chamber. The meeting was presented with detailed proposals for a Chamber of Mines and asked to make a financial commitment. The Hon. Robert Fordham, Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources opened the meeting and declared support for a unified industry voice. After the financial and legal proposals were put to the meeting there was the opportunity for industry people to declare support for the chamber, and Chris Davey was able to declare the support of the Prospectors and Miners Association for the Chamber. In doing so he recalled the public advocacy for a Chamber made by Doug Kemsley when he was President of the Association. Under the new VCM the previously independent corporate interests combined, with disastrous results for the small-scale miner.

Wedderburn Mining Public Inquiry April 198617 A public inquiry run by the Mining Consultative Committee was held at Wedderburn on April 24th 1986. Extracts from a PMAV submission to the inquiry.

16 Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.2 May 1986 page 13 17 R86a. PMAV submission to Mining Advisory Committee on mining at Wedderburn. 14 The environmental criteria applied to mining operations in inhabited areas should not be any more stringent than those applied to civil works such as house building or road construction. Mining is site specific and unlike the previously mentioned civil works, is a temporary land use. Surface mining should be conducted by machinery operated in a system and schedule that makes efficient use of the gold resource, and which facilitates prompt rehabilitation. The timing of such operations is important and so machinery of the correct size is essential. Efficient use of the resource will necessitate the removal of vegetation from the land under which the gold is located. Topsoil should be returned to mined out areas within a six-month period so as to allow revegetation to occur and the earthworks should be left in a stable state. Regrowth will begin almost immediately, and the vegetation cycle will continue as it has done for years. There is no question, of disinheriting our children. In fact, it is probable that by beginning the vegetation cycle again not only our children, but also our children's children have much more to look forward to than they otherwise would have. The Department of Industry, Technology and Resources holds security deposits to ensure proper rehabilitation of mined areas. The deposits being charged at present are about twice what is required to achieve proper rehabilitation of Miner’s Right Claims and the Association understands that even higher deposits are being requested by other government bodies. We believe these requests have no other purpose but to discourage mining, and are against the national interest. The Prospectors and Miners Association Victoria has repeatedly sought environmental data from government departments which would demonstrate that land competently mined with machinery, will be irreparably damaged. No such data has been supplied. In fact the Association can point to a number of situations where in even a short time after mining, land has been improved on its previous state. Access to Land: The Prospectors and Miners Association has, for a long time, been concerned about the indiscriminate sub- division of auriferous ground through out the north central area of Victoria. This has been allowed by local government bodies with out any thought for the national interest or the long-term damage to the environment caused by such subdivisions. The creation of residential blocks has locked up large areas of the nation's precious gold resources. The Association believes that every effort should be made to redress this situation and that may involve temporary minor discomfits for residents. If there is anger at this situation, it should be addressed to the local government bodies throughout Central Victoria who have implemented planning schemes without giving proper consideration to the nation’s mineral wealth, and to the State Government who gave them the authority to do so. The Association also notes the long-term damage to the environment of such subdivisions. The permanent removal of vegetation for residences and provision of services, constant risk of fire and pollution such as the seepage of sewerage into the watertable have often been ignored. By comparison, mining is a temporary land use which properly conducted provides no medium or long term damage to the environment. The evidence for this is not hard to find. Repeatedly miners have been told that they 'harm the natural environment' in the north central area, a charge which when it is investigated, is often found to refer to land which was previously mined. There is no environmental reason why mining should not continue. Conclusions: If the Mining Consultative Committee should find that the use of bulldozers are not suitable near inhabited areas, we would request that mining not be totally banned. The Association is aware of the development of equipment which is more efficient than the ‘doze and detect’ operations which are now proposed. In such a situation the land now under claim should remain reserved for the present claim owners, and the option should remain for them to propose other methods of mining which the Committee may deem more appropriate. It may be concluded from our submission that the Association feels that standards and conditions not observed by local authorities and residents are being applied to the mining industry without due consideration for the national importance of the industry, and the realities of the processes of the mining operation itself. The opposition to mining is largely based on ignorance and falsely perceived parochial self-interest, and is at odds with the future well being of Australia. The Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, alone amongst government bodies, has a perspective that includes local interests, environmental concerns, operating practice, employee and public safety, operator financial security, the privileges of community ownership of minerals and the benefit to the entire Australian community of mineral production. Under no circumstances should its authority be divested or diluted to give sway to sectional interests that do not appreciate the complexity of the industry, the competing interests and the essential nature of mining for the immediate and long term future of Australia. 15 Douglas Mine, Dispute, Chiltern, 1986 In the Legislative Assembly Hansard notes for April 15th, the Chiltern mine of Clive and Arthur Douglas is mentioned by Liberal Member, Mr Ramsay.

The Douglas mine at Chiltern has been frustrated by the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands.

The outline of what happened to the Messrs Douglas when Crown land was changed to a park is revealed in this May 1986 submission written by Christopher Davey.

18Miner’s Right Claim No. 4 is located in bushland about 5 kilometres east of Chiltern in northeast Victoria. In 1977 the Land Conservation Council published its north eastern area, districts 3, 4 and 5 Final Recommendations. They recommended that the area where the Claim is located be made the Chiltern Regional Park and that mining be allowed to continue in the area where there is no conflict with the primary land use. (Pages. 10 & 13) The then Ministry for Conservation failed to comply with the Land Conservation Council Recommendations and in 1981 added the area to Schedule 3 of the National Parks Act making it a State Park and bringing it within the control of Section 40 of the National Parks Act. Prior to this Clive and Arthur Douglas pegged a claim in the area. This eventually was processed through the mechanism of Section 40 of the National Parks Act and the Claim was registered until the 30 October 1988. But the Minister for Conservation, Rod Mackenzie, only gave permission until 14th September 1984. This was subsequently increased until the 14th September 1985, but the present Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands, Joan Kirner, has refused to allow continuation of the Claim. Since that time the shaft has been temporarily capped and the mine has not operated although the plant has remained on site. The claim owners have worked the mine competently and over a period of 4 years obtained 450 oz of gold for an expenditure of between $50,000 and $60,000. The area has considerable potential there is payable gold underfoot and its extremities have not been prospected. The surface area occupied by the mine is about 50 m by 20 m and it is found by one of the tracks that run through the park. The park itself is of a size of about 40 square kilometres. In writing to Mr Douglas the Mining Registrar mentioned the existence of a botanical survey, however the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources has not apparently obtained a copy of this survey. In any case, the Prospectors and Miners Association submits that it is not possible to argue that the removal of vegetation from an area of 50m by 20m could destroy significant botanical species distributed through a park of the size of 40 square kilometres. In fact the area concerned did not have vegetation before the mine began. In the absence of any environmental data the action of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands seems to the Prospectors and Miners Association to be high handed in the extreme. The Prospectors and Miners submit that this example demonstrates: I. The refusal of the Department of Lands to comply with Land Conservation Council Recommendations. 2. The incapacity of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands to manage land on which Victoria's resources are found. That anyone should expect that the vegetation of a park of this magnitude would be damaged by the activity on a claim of such small size reveals, we believe, a degree of incompetence that is hard to credit. Most of our members are rapidly reaching the conclusion that the Land Conservation Council is a conservationist confidence trick. We note that a view expressing similar sentiments was expressed in the Legislative Council by the Hon D. M. Evans on 16 April 1986. The Prospectors and Miners Association looks forward to a prompt response in this matter as we believe it demonstrates the reason why the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources should have sole control over the development of Victoria’s mineral resources.

Undated letter from Joan Kirner re-printed in Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.4 September 1986. 19Dear Mr Douglas. I write following further consideration of your request for an extension of the period of your Miners Right Claim in Chiltern State Park. I am advised that at a site meeting with officers of this Department and the National Parks Advisory Council on

4 July you stated you did not intend to continue mining the claim and wished to transfer it to new principals. I note your letter also reflects this view and discusses the need to expand operations by erecting heavier winding gear to develop the ore-body to a greater depth.

18 V86 PMAV submission re Miner's Right Claim No 4, C.R and A.J. Douglas May 1986 19 Eureka Echo Vol.4 No.4 September 1986 page 11 16 Your proposal for an expanded mining venture with new principals has unknown implications for the environment and I am not prepared to consent to extending the period of the Claim nor am I prepared to consent to its transfer to another party. You also ask whether Chiltern State Park is ‘available for mining’. My answer must be that there can be no blanket approval of mining in this or any park. As the National Parks Act clearly provides for the Minister for

Conservation, Forests and Lands to consent or withhold consent for any mining tenement issued under the Mines Act each case must be considered on its merits. Yours sincerely Joan E. Kirner, Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands.

Gold In Victoria, Proposed Development Initiative, 1986 In April of 1986 a combined paper was released by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, La Trobe University, The University of Melbourne and Monash University. It is titled: Gold in Victoria: The Development of Victoria’s Mineral Wealth. A proposal for a collaborative project to enhance gold exploration in the State.20 Opening with a description of Victoria as “one of the world’s great gold producing provinces” it continues with the observation that Victoria is missing out on the world gold boom. To remedy this situation it is proposed to establish the Victorian Gold Group to draw on the technical information gained by the Geological Survey of Victoria over the last 134 years and the scientific expertise developed over the last 15 years by three major Victorian universities. There is a graph that shows Victorian gold production is still in decline while West Australia has risen sharply. A further graph shows that Victorian exploration expenditure has risen marginally compared to Australia. The paper then says.

This initiative is aimed at achieving an enhancement of our understanding of Victoria’s gold resources, leading to the discovery of new deposits.

There are then numerous figures and glowing outlooks for gold in Victoria with this telling comment.

Although Victoria had produced more gold that any other State in Australia up to 1984, it has largely missed out on the current gold rush. Whereas $180 million was spent on gold exploration in Australia in 1984/85, only 6% of this was spent on gold exploration in Victoria.

The paper then, over many pages, discusses the need for research, modelling and so forth with a view to discovering new deposits. The argument essentially reflects the technical approach that was the cause of much frustration for Dr Kemsley when he encountered the same academic philosophy in the Mines Department several years earlier. The paper states.

Although Victoria is not maximising its opportunities in the current gold boom, there has been a dramatic increase in gold production in 1985 with the opening of the Stawell Mine. Estimated gold production for 1985 is close to 1000kg and this is a huge increase on the 1974-75 to 1983-84 range of 74kg.

The discussion turns to finding another such mine as Stawell. People not familiar with gold history could easily assume that Stawell was a new discovery rather than reopening and redeveloping an ore body that, rare for Victoria, allowed bulk processing. The paper continues with employment benefits, regional economy benefits and lots more regarding research, “state of the art”, geoscience interpretations and modelling. There is a lengthy list of topics of study with the aim of producing “high quality data sets”. There is then several pages pertaining to staff, facilities and budgets. Then lots more that can be condensed down to “research” then more on costs and the inevitable bureaucratic structures. The irony of the initiative is contained in the second last paragraph: “Preliminary consultation has already been held with a number of exploration companies who have contributed to the development of this initiative and strongly support it.” When the PMAV learnt of this initiative John Winter wrote to Industry, Technology and Resources Minister Robert Fordham. The letter dated May 18th is reproduced in full.

20 N86 Document: Gold In Victoria, Proposed Development Initiative, April 1986; Latrobe and Monash University: 17 21The Association has become aware of an initiative to ‘undertake geological studies though out Victoria” as a means of ‘remedying’ Victoria’s lack of gold production. The Association has a number of concerns with this proposal 1. The problem of gold development in Victoria is not geological. The locations where gold is to be found are widely known. The problems are: * Access to land. * Bureaucratic red tape delaying titles. * Suitable equipment to economically work Victoria’s small deposits. * Financial structures suitable for mining gold deposits with highly variable grades. * Modern treatment processes for alluvial gold, and refractory and antimony-gold ores. 2. The aim of the study is to ‘develop a geological framework and models for ore genesis’. This is a long-term exercise and is primarily academic in approach. A much more practical and fruitful method is the use of observational data and the correlation of that data with regional and local geological settings. A detailed paper illustrating that view is attached. (Not reproduced here, the document is several pages in length written by John Drew Ridge of the Department of Geology, University of Florida) 3. We note that a number of geologists who have been working on Victorian gold geology for many years in teaching institutions are not part of the proposed ‘Victorian Gold Group’. Surely if this proposal is worth pursuing it should include all who are already working in the area. In conclusion, we would want to say that the proposal will certainly be a nice academic program and it is possible that results from it may help gold exploration in five or ten years time. However the idea that the $2.8m program will solve Victoria’s immediate lack of gold production by finding gold deposits would fill most of our members, who know only too well where it is to be found, with great amusement. If government money is available to tackle the problem, may we suggest you support investigations in the equipment and treatment areas; results in these areas will immediately help in the production of gold and will have the added advantage of assisting Victoria’s manufacturing base. Yours Sincerely, J. Winter, Secretary.

Tarnagulla, Mining Public Meeting April 1986 A public meeting was held in the Tarnagulla Hall to discuss the future of small-scale mining in Victoria.22 The Meeting was chaired by Christopher Davey with approximately 200 people present, including the Hon. Ken Wright, Member of the Legislative Council. Also present were observing officers from Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Frank Jones, How Tan and Phil Roberts. Apologies and best wishes were conveyed from The Hon. Robert Fordham, the Hon. Jim Ramsey, Michael John, Barry Steggall, David Kennedy, Keith Bowen and about 50 members of the Association. Ken Wright stressed the importance of unity in the industry. In his opinion the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands was intervening too much in mining and Department of Information, Technology and Resources were doing a good job. He didn’t want to see another department taking over. Chris Davey advised public risk insurance was available through the PMAV. Victoria was now in a state of change. Mining control is being sought by Departments of Conservation Forests and Lands, Planning and Environment, and Labour. Conservation Forests and Lands Act and the Town and Country Planning Act are being rewritten. Sir Arvi Parbo’s letter to the government, mentioned in the Bendigo Advertiser, threatened a Western Mining Company withdrawal from Victoria, which was a result of proposed Conservation Forests and Lands Legislation. An explanation of the effects on land use of the CFL legislation was given (This explanation was not detailed), noting that miners were already experiencing the proposed action by CFL. The Association’s efforts and methods of combating problems were outlined and the present meeting was partly called for the purpose of judging support in the area for the Association’s action. He considered that re-educating the community was important and that the gold tax publicity was already doing that. There was $500,000,000 in gold exported in 1984/85 and in the light of the balance of payments deficit, miners were a vital part of Australia, and people on whom the future depends. He reported that the Victorian Chamber of Mines would be formed by August 1986. There needed to be development of better mining technology. Finally the Association was establishing a branch in North Central Victoria; its Chairman was David Lee, together with John Clancey, Ron Clark, and Alvin Reimers. Others were invited to join. Questions:

21 AB86 Letter from John Winter to Robert Fordham re geological program May 18th 1986 and attachment by John Drew Ridge, Department of Geology, University of Florida. 22 S86 and U86: S86, PMAV press release advising that a public meeting will be called; no date or location given; document date April 21st 1986; also six letters to politicians giving invitation to discuss the future of small-scale mining giving location as Tarnagulla and date as April 30th. U86 Report of public meeting at Tarnagulla April 30 1986 18 ‘When will Conservation Forests and Lands legislation go through?’ C. Davey responded that rumours say Spring Session.

‘Will Chamber of Mines be able to do anything?’ C. Davey: yes, the Victorian Mining Industry Committee is already conducting negotiations, but support will be needed. In answer to another question C. Davey stated that $159,000,000 was the Conservation Forests and Lands current budget and that comes from taxation. Lubo Todorov, President of Gold Dredgers Association of Australia, outlined problems faced by dredgers. He reported on studies in the United States, which found that dredging improved the river and stream environment. Bob Hird stated that Exploration Licensees had held areas around Heathcote for years and done nothing. C. Davey responded that the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria had recently submitted that the Exploration Licence system was a failure where gold was concerned but it was important to resolve such problems within the industry. John Clancy spoke of the problem of access and no right to prevent people entering a Claim or ordering them to leave. This was a problem for safety and security. There was a question on availability of batteries (Creswick) and possibility of using cyanide and operating batteries by miners themselves. Frank Jones explained the role of Department and use of batteries. No cyaniding facilities were available but Government was considering a mobile crushing unit. C. Davey mentioned that a Carbon-in-Pulp testing plant was in the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology basement, but the staff concerned had left. If there was demand the Institute should be contacted. Frank Kopaka spoke in opposition to the obnoxious Occupiers Liability Act. Lindsay Robertson commented on the role of small miners and prospectors in the discovery of most major deposits of gold in Australia. C. Davey agreed and said that only about 2 gold mines in Australia were not found by prospectors. Keith Sheehan announced a Seminar on Gold Tax to be held at Castlemaine 14th May 1986. He noted that the reason for the formation of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria was the Land Conservation Council recommendations restricting land access and it was now facing the second wave of this attack in the form of Conservation Forests and Lands legislation. He said that it was necessary to tell politicians that you won’t stand for the proposed Conservation Forests and Lands legislation. He emphasised the importance of the Chamber of Mines and supported the PMAV, which had a good President and Committee. There were a couple of questions relating to shire council’s activities in removing gravel and taking tailings away. Also about the possibility of wood chipping mining areas before rehabilitation. C. Davey responded by saying miners must fight the battle on grounds of gold production’s importance to the National Economy. Some members expressed respect for Forest Officers and queried the Conservation Forests and Lands opposition to mining and: why do they want to take over everything?

C. Davey agreed that Forest Officers were normally most helpful, but said that this move appeared to be bureaucratic empire building from Melbourne and ultimately job protection for an over-staffed Department.

Ken Wright said. Conservation Forests and Lands had too many chiefs and not enough indians. The Draft Bill maybe circulated. It could be expected that the Bill would go to Legislative Assembly in Spring Session and the held over six months for debate. Passed in Legislative Assembly and then to Legislative Council. Liberal and National Party have majority in the Upper House. If conservationists go too far, and I think they have, the National Party will oppose Bill.

Ron Clark moved that. The Prospectors and Small-scale miners of Victoria call on the Government to reject the proposed Conservation, Forests and Lands legislation and to endorse the role of the Minister and Department of Industry, Technology and Resources in mining.

Seconded by Frank Crimeen who said that he had the opportunity to read the proposed legislation and thought that it should be burnt. The motion was passed unanimously and The Hon. Ken Wright agreed to take the motion to the Government. Notices were given of the PMAV Annual General Meeting at Maldon 3 August, 1986 and gold tax meetings - Castlemaine, 14 May; Stawell, 17 May; Bendigo 24 May. 19 Horsham Area Exempt Lands, April 1986 A Prospectors and Miners Association letter to Industry, Technology and Resources Minister Fordham was critical of land exemptions made under the Mines Act. The letter is dated April 30th and raises the issue of 20,000 hectares of public and private land exempted under Section 7 (Crown Land) and 347 (Private Land). The letter says it is the Association’s understanding that exemptions are made for the public benefit or for public purposes.

23We are unable to identify an appropriate public benefit in the present instance and would be grateful if you would set out for us the reasons for the exemptions and the purposes for which they have been made.

A Department of Industry, Technology and Resources media release of February 28th 1986 details the efforts Conzinc Riotinto will make exploring mineral-sand deposits south east of Horsham. A Development Lease had been applied for to explore a 2,000-hectare site. Minister Fordham.

The State Government had agreed to exempt an area of 20,000 hectares around the development site from mining rights. This will mean that the practice of ‘vexatious pegging’ can be avoided.

The Victorian Government Gazette No 12, 26th February shows that on February 25th at the Executive Council Chamber the Governor and Members of Parliament, Mr White, Mr Wilkes and Mr Jolly excepted from occupation under a Miner’s Right 20,000 hectares of land.24 The PMAV attempted to obtain, under Freedom of Information request 229, documents relating to a range of exemption decisions made by Governor-in-Council.25 The request was denied on the basis that the documents were acquired from a business undertaking, that disclosure of the information would be likely to expose the undertaking to disadvantage. The request for a review returned the same result.26 Freedom of Information requests were also made in respect of decisions made under the Mines Act Section 7 and 347 by Governor-in-Council on February 25th 1986 were made of the Rural Water Commission, the Ministry of Planning and Environment and the Department of The Premier and Cabinet.27 The Rural Water Commission acknowledged that they had two representatives at a briefing meeting held with the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources on February 4th but there were no minutes of the meeting. There are no documents in the archive regarding a response from Planning and Environment. The Department of Premier and Cabinet released a letter, which was essentially a publicity letter for the project sent to the Department; it does note that two people had been to a briefing meeting on February 3 rd. The other “document” released was a photocopy of an article from The Miner newspaper describing the Wimmera area and the Conzinc Riotinto Australia project. The news item is stamped “Department of the Premier and Cabinet” and in large capital letters “Released under the FOI Act”. The Department would not release Cabinet documents as documents that disclose decisions or the deliberations of Cabinet are exempt from Freedom of Information. The PMAV argued that since the land was exempted under the Mines Act, which can only be done for public purpose or public benefit, there should not be any restriction on letting the public know what that benefit might be. As there is no exemption for a private benefit in the Mines Act, any concerns about “private dealings” are irrelevant. There are approximately 50 pages regarding this matter in the archive. The factual reasons for the exemption of the land have never been made public.

Mining Warden Powers PMAV Press Release, June 1986 28The Mining Warden is a toothless tiger, according to the President of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria, Christopher Davey. The Warden was originally established to investigate disputes among miners and complaints against the Department of Information, Technology and Resources. But many of the recommendations of the Warden have been rejected, says Mr Davey. Recently Mr Davey was told by a Departmental Officer that the Department had decided not to accept a particular Warden’s recommendation and that was the end of the matter. Although the Mines Act requires the Warden to report directly to the Minister, even the enquires for the Warden’s position advertised on Saturday are to be addressed to a Departmental Officer.

23 T86 Letter and documents re large land area exemption from mining near Horsham page 1 24 T86 Letter and documents re large land area exemption from mining near Horsham page 5 25 T86. Letter and documents re large land area exemption from mining near Horsham page 8 26 Y86a. Letter to William Billinghurst from Department of Industry, Technology and Resources re FOI application 229 may 12th 1986 27 T86. Letter and documents re large land area exemption from mining near Horsham 28 Eureka Echo Vol 4. No. 3 July 1986 page 3 20 The same advertisement stated that the Warden was soon to be located in Bendigo, which will allow the Government to take even less notice of his recommendations. Mr Davey believes that the Office of Warden was an excellent feature of the present Government’s 1983 amendments to the Mines Act. But until the Government accepts the Warden’s recommendations the Office will continue to be an expensive and pointless exercise.

Kooyoora State Park and Miner’s Right Claims, 1986 29 In January 1986 applications for Miner’s Right Claims numbered 1402, 1363 and 1364 were made in the Kooyora State Park. The applications were acknowledged in letters from the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources dated January 15th. Those letters noted the applications were in a park and could not be registered without the written consent of the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, who should be contacted immediately at 240 Victoria Parade East Melbourne. This contact was made and Minister Joan Kirner refused the applications in a letter dated March 11th. In the letter she advised the park was proclaimed on November 17th 1985. From her letter is this extract

I consider Miner’s Right Claims to be incompatible with the protection of conservation values of the park. I am particularly concerned with the recent trend of applications for contiguous claims such as yours, as these have the capacity to cause even greater changes to the environment.

On April 24th and on behalf of the Claim applicants, the Prospectors and Miners Association wrote Mr Hans Eisner, Director-General of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. The letter advises that there was no gazettal of the park on November 17th as stated in Minister Kirner’s letter and that registration of the Claims should proceed without delay. The response to PMAV Secretary John Winter from Mining Registrar F. J. Stehmann, dated May 7th, restates the Claims cannot be registered due to the rejection of consent by the Minister for Conservation. The mining registrar also advised that the proclamation of this park appears in the Government Gazette on page 4267 dated November 13th 1985. The Association wrote to Robert Fordham, Minister for the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources (no copy of letter known) which generated this response that appeared in the Eureka Echo, Vol.4 No.4 September 1986:

30‘Dear Mr Davey Mining In North Central Area I refer to your letter of 10 June 1986 regarding the decision of the Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands not to consent to a claim in the Kooyoora State Park. I do not propose to comment on the specifics of the case but I am fully aware that your Association and the Chamber of Mines are concerned with the issue of mining in State Parks. Following the rationalisation of legislation administered by the Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands it is currently proposed that most State Parks will be transferred as a Schedule to the National Parks Act. As I was concerned that this may result in land not being available for mining purposes. My colleague Mrs Kirner and I have established a working party to investigate mining in State Parks. This Working Party is comprised of representatives from the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Land Conservation Council, the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands and this Department. I have given an undertaking that the Working Party will consult with the Chamber of Mines at the appropriate time. Yours sincerely Robert Fordham MP, Minister For Industry Technology and Resources.

Conservation, Forests and Lands Proposed Legislation Withdrawn, July 1986 31Recent letter from Mr Fordham seems to indicate that most of the draconian measures in the proposed Conservation Forests and Lands legislation will not be implemented and the Association can take some of the credit. When Doug Kemsley was President the Association had a great victory over the Land Conservation Council. The Government now simply ignores the Land Conservation Council Recommendations when they specifically recommend mining in the North Central area. At every step we face an urban bureaucracy determined to stop people making a living. [It has not been learned what these draconian Conservation, Forests and Lands measures were]

29 Y86. Collection of documents re Miner's Right Claim applications in Kooyoora State Park 30 Eureka Echo, Vol.4 No.4 September 1986 page 12 31 Eureka Echo, Vol. 4 No.3 July 1986 Page 2 21 Revitalising the Gold Mining Industry, Submission July 1986 A submission on revitalising the gold industry in Victoria was prepared by Christopher Davey for the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. It is an extensive document that draws together many of the issues in this chapter and has recommendations to address those issues. Fully presented in Appendix One, two issues are shown here as examples.

32‘Victoria has at this stage not taken a great interest in the development of mining equipment in spite of the fact that the Victorian manufacturing industry traces its origins to the manufacture of mining equipment from the middle of the last century.’ ‘Raising finance invariably requires holding a mining title. To obtain a mining title under existing Department of Information, Technology and Resources practice it is necessary to already have finance.’

PMAV Annual General Meeting, 1986 The AGM was held in Maldon on Sunday August 3rd. Activities for that day included a morning tour of Dick Crimeen’s mine in the nearby Nuggety Ranges. Lunch was at the at the North British Mine site followed by the unveiling of a memorial plaque to Doug Kemsley at nearby Carmens Tunnel and the presentation of certificates of Honorary Life Membership to Win Kemsley and Dick Crimeen. The plaque was unveiled by the former Midlands Member of Parliament Mr Bill Ebery with about 80 people in attendance. Carmen’s Tunnel was a restoration project substantially for tourism and driven principally by Doug Kemsley. The North British Mine site is being prepared as a historical display to explain mining relics; earlier work at the site has been supervised by Chris Davey and Peter McCarthy of the Association. The Annual General Meeting was held in the North British Mine Site car park. Activities listed for the past year included public protest, submissions, parliamentary briefings, media comment and participation in a wide range of government and industry committees. Key issues for the year: The continuing Conservation Forests and Lands removal of land for mining purposes (reserved land) under Section 7 in both the Mines Act and Crown Lands Act; Land Conservation Council Recommendations being ignored. State Parks being declared over gold areas. On going problems with the Exploration Licence, the Development Lease and the Prospecting Area Licence. New PMAV branches had been established during the year to decentralise the Association.

Development Lease Vs Letunica, Saga Conclusion, 1986 33After six court appearances, a Warden’s Court hearing and numerous letters to the Government, Mr Letunica has had the gold which was impounded by the Court returned to him. The affair has cost him many thousands of dollars and vast amounts of emotional stress. It has also cost his friends and the Association who have supported him hundreds of hours. The Mining Consultative Committee has looked into the problem that precipitated George’s demise and has made recommendations, which would resolve the situation. However the Minister so far has declined to act on the recommendations.

Victorian Chamber of Mines, Restart 1986 34The re-establishment of a Chamber of Mines in Victoria has been under way for some two years or more and reached finality on October 6th 1986 with the inaugural General Meeting. At the Inaugural General Meeting, which was held at BHP House Melbourne, the Executive Council was elected: President, Mr I. L. Gunn, BHP Ltd. Melbourne. Vice Presidents, Mr N. R. Towle, Triad Minerals N.L. Mr C. .J Davey, Prospectors and Miners Association. Ordinary Member Representatives. Mr J. Collier, Conzinc Riotinto Australia Ltd. Mr E. W. S. Tyler, Ashton Mining Limited. Mr J. E. Askew , Walhalla Mining Company. N.L. Mr T. E. Johanson, Western Mining Corporation Ltd. Mr W. M. Billinghurst, Australian Feldspar Corporation. Mr I. R. Johnson, Conzinc Riotinto Australia Exploration Proprietary Ltd. Associate Member Representatives. Mr P. L. McCarthy, James Askew & Associates. Mr K. S. McPaul, Imperial Chemical Industries Australia Limited. Service Member Representative.

32 AI86. Prospectors and Miners Association submission: Revitalization of Mining in Victoria' Christopher Davey July 14 1986 33 Eureka Echo, Vol.4 No. 5 November 1986. Page 4 34 Eureka Echo, Vol.4 No. 5 November 1986. Page 8-9 22 Mr F. L. Hunt, F. L. Hunt & Associates. Mr Gunn, our President, was born in Edinburgh and studied at the university of that city. He has been with Broken Hill Proprietary since 1962. As a mining engineer he has worked at a number of operations at management level and is now General Manager Manganese. He has taken courses at the Australian Administrative Staff College, 1973 and the Harvard Business School, 1980. He is Chairman Elect of the Manganese Centre, Paris. The new Chamber replaces an earlier Chamber of Mines, which commenced in 1888 but has not been active since 1949. The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria is a Foundation Member of the new Chamber and fulfils a role envisaged by the late Douglas Kemsley when in late 1984, just prior to his passing, he joined in plans for the formation of an interim body, the Victorian Mining Industry Committee. The Committee brought the Chamber to incorporation and in addition acted as an interim body through which various facets of the Mining Industry in the State made representations to Government. The Chamber joins with other similar bodies interstate and with the Australian Mining Industry Council in furthering the interests of the Industry both with Governments and within the Community in general. Working Groups have been established to carry out detailed work in each of the areas of: Town Planning, Conservation, Mining Legislation, Aboriginal Affairs, Education and Public Affairs. Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria members are active on each of these Working Groups. Currently, a substantial volume of new Legislation is occupying the Working Groups and a summary is as follows. Planning and Environment Bill - A Bill intended to replace the Town and Country Planning Act. The Bill in its present form does not address the problems of the Mining Industry with respect to Town Planning Provisions to any significant degree. The Chamber, with other interest groups, has sought the Adjournment of the Debate on the Bill and it is now being held over until the Autumn Session of the Parliament. The Chamber is in discussion with Government with a view to modifying Planning Provisions affecting the Mining Industry. Land Acquisition and Compensation Bill - A Bill to provide new procedures for the acquisition of land for Public Purposes. The Bill has been debated in both Houses of the Parliament and returned to the Legislative Assembly from the Legislative Council with Amendments to be considered. The Chamber has made representations in relation to a number of provisions. Aboriginal Land and Cultural Bills - A series of Bills to provide Land Grants to the Victorian Aboriginal Community and to provide a mechanism for protecting sites and objects of importance to the Community. The Land Bills, referring to Framlingham and Lake Condah, have provisions modifying Mineral Tenement Application and Compensation Provisions otherwise dealt with under the Mines Act. The Chamber has vigorously opposed these special provisions, while acknowledging that Land Grants as such are not a problem. The Bills have been opposed by the Opposition Party in the Legislative Council and have been adjourned. Their future is uncertain. Conservation Forests and Lands - A series of Bills to provide for the various functions administered by the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. These Bills are being carefully reviewed by the Chamber so that adverse effects on Mining will be minimised.

Minister for Conservation, Joan Kirner, Looks at Mining in Central Victoria November 1986 35On the 5th November, the Hon Joan Kirner, Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands visited the central area to look at mining. The visit was the result of a comment that she made to John Reynolds, then chairman of the Victorian Mining Industry Committee expressing concern about the activity on Miner’s Right Claims in Central Victoria. Mr Reynolds replied by requesting that she look at the area with people from the Industry to explain what she was concerned about. The tour was arranged by Conservation Forests and Lands. The industry was represented by John Reynolds, Executive Director of the Victorian Chamber of Mines, Ian Gunn, President of Victorian Chamber of Mines, Chris Davey, Terry Johansson and Mike Bell. It began with visits to the Western Mining Company Bendigo operations and Bendigo Gold Associates plant. Lunch was served at Kooyoora State Park where a number of people opposed to mining were waiting to speak to the Minister. After lunch Claims in at Kingower were visited. Rehabilitation practices were described by Neal Beachley, Inspector of Mines, and John Donovan from Conservation Forests and Lands. John Clancy and Alvin Reimers met the party at their respective Claims. Their explanations of their operations greatly impressed the Minister, and other members of the party. If mining is allowed to continue in the area, it will have a lot to do with the genuineness of these miners. The final visit was to the North British Mine Site at Maldon, where Conservation Forests and Lands have started some stabilisation work. The program was arranged by Conservation Forests and Lands and it was clearly intended to impress the Minister with the 'horrors' of mining. No rehabilitated areas were inspected. This is in contrast with the visit made

35 Eureka Echo, Vol.4 No. 5 November 1986. Page 4 23 recently by Jim Ramsey, the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, and Rosemary Varty, the upper house spokes person for mining. In spite of this the industry representatives felt that the mining case was well put. Instead of requiring detailed work plans for all proposed operations in State Parks, Chris Davey suggested that miners may reasonably be expected to have a certificate, such as the Third Class Mine Managers Certificate, which would include the requirement for knowledge about rehabilitation. The Minister was favourably disposed to this idea. As members will know the main problem with Mine Managers Certificates is the refusal of the Mine Managers Board to specify syllabi for applicants.

Madmans Lane, Maryborough, November 1986 Neil Saville was working a claim adjacent Maryborough when he had a surprise visit from Joan Kirner.

36One day, out of the blue, a car and a 12 seater bus turned up at the claim and a dapper looking chap got out of the car. He explained that he had Joan Kirner, the State Minister for the Environment with him. He apologised for the abruptness and explained she was travelling around, looking at mining, and would we mind if an inspection was made. We thought this would be a good chance to promote our cause and agreed. We had a good walk around the claim and Mrs Kirner had only the one interest and that was about what chemicals we were using. We explained that we used no chemicals but she kept asking the question and we kept up the response. She seemed impressed as to how we ran our operation and was interested in the gold shown to her. We were operating well within the conditions of the claim in that we only had a small amount of ground opened up at any one time. The Maryborough Advertiser turned up with a reporter and photographer and proceeded to interview her. We couldn't believe our ears when she was asked about the mining operation and she replied that ‘this is the type of operation we want to stamp out, as it is unsightly.’ You could have knocked me down with a feather. Before I could regain my composure they were back in the car and gone. I have never forgotten that. I got a letter from the conservation department in Ballarat thanking me for being so open and not having notice yet still taking the time to show them the operation of our claim. I still have that letter.

Regional Manager Conservation, Forests and Lands wants gold price drop, December 1986 The Weekly Times of December 3rd 1986 ran an article quoting the views of the Ballarat Regional manager for Conservation, Forests and Lands.

37For the sake of the Environment, Malcom Lee, Ballarat Regional Manager of the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands, would like to see the price of gold drop 30 per cent, a continuation of its recent slide. About a month ago, gold was $655 an ounce; late last week it had dropped to $590 an ounce, a fall of 11 per cent. ‘Attempts to win gold leave a major legacy of land degradation. Around Ballarat we have we still have mined out areas that have not recovered from mining 120 years ago,’ he said. Mr Lee was speaking during a media tour organised by the Department to inspect land protection projects in the Moonambel Valley, on the north western fringe of his region, and over the hills into the Richardson and Avon rivers towards Donald. ‘At Moonambel’, Mr Lee said ‘dry sclerophyll forest in that area, was often regarded as scrappy and scungy. But my forests man, Geoff Shepherd, says this forest has taken longer than that on the Errinunderra Plateau near Cann River. Just because it might look scrappy to you and me, because we might not appreciate it, doesn’t mean it hasn’t got just as much conservation value. It produces birds, marsupials, beautiful orchids, honey, long-lasting fence posts and firewood. I don’t want to see it destroyed (by miners)’ he said. Miners pay a royalty for timber on the country they want to mine and perhaps a restoration bond. Then they knock it over, and at Moonambel, are pumping water from the creek to sluice for gold. A range of country through Avoca, Dunolly and Maryborough is presently being mined: Mr Lee has a person solely engaged in monitoring mining activity and making recommendations to the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources on the way it might be handled to minimise impact on the landscape. ‘Under present legislation miners can tackle State forest. But as a manager of public land, I feel that forest has greater value than a resource for people to win gold,’ he said. ‘The world drop in grain prices has also helped pasture establishment and tree planting on private land, the best means for available for using water where it falls’, Max Grange, Senior Extension Officer said. He said quite a few farmers in affected areas had changed from mainly cropping to mainly grazing enterprises and had been able to

36 The Bennett Brothers This Golden Life No 5, Likely Prospects 2003, ISBN 0 9580214 4 9 37 Eureka Echo, Vol.5 No. 1 March 1987 page 17. Originally in the Weekly Times December 3rd 1986 24 utilise perennial grasses and lucerne more profitably ‘If grain prices had gone up, it might have been more difficult to get the perennial grass message across,’ Mr Grange said.

The response from John Reynolds of the Victorian Chamber of Mines was sent by facsimile to the Hon. Joan Kirner, Minister for Conservation Forests and Lands and to the Hon. Robert Fordham Deputy Premier and Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources.

Dear Minister, Members of the Victorian Chamber of Mines are dismayed and disturbed to read the attached article. It is quite inappropriate for a government officer, quoted as such, to express publicly his views in this manner. The comments as reported, lack the balance which should be expected of a public servant. They give an impression to readers that the Government is against mining development. Many would be excused for accepting this as the case. Mining operations, large and small, are subject to a battery of controls including environmental care. The industry accepts these, provided they are applied with a sense of realism and proper regard to the economic benefits which mining brings to local communities, the State and the Nation by creating new wealth. The views expressed in this article can only harm the efforts of your Department and our newly formed chamber to seek ways to foster exploration and mining whilst applying acceptable standards of environmental care. We hope that you will take appropriate action arising from this occurrence. Yours sincerely, John Reynolds, Executive Director.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Four Corners Program, October 2006 There is the apparent growing influence of environment policy from within the Labor party. This is a good a place as any, in time and events, to make a point. The following is an insightful extract from Sally Neighbour’s report “The A Team” broadcast on October 2nd 2006. This program was about the 1990s response from paper manufacturer Amcor to respond to the strong public influence of the greens in the forest debate. Derek Amos was the founder of “The A Team” and had been the Labor spokesman on mining prior to David White and worked intensely and honestly with Doug Kemsley on problems with mining law and its administration. Derek Amos made this comment in the program.

In the '70s and '80s the Labor Party in Victoria was infiltrated by the green groups and they set up green cells within Labor Party branches. In fact they called it the green network.

The comments made by Derek Amos suggest that the difficulties of prospectors and small-scale miners depicted in respect of the Cain-Kirner Labor Government and their attitude to environment were the result of deliberate policy. 25 Chapter 25. 1987

Synopsis. Rising conflict between private land holders and mining. Mines Amendments 1987. Chamber of Mines does not support small-scale miners. Public liability insurance. Ownership of tailings on private land.

Misunderstanding, Misinformation and Anti-Mining Complaints, 1987 A growing trend was the rise of land protection groups with people raising concerns over mining via letters to the editor. The use of inaccurate information or the assumption that mining methods had not changed was a common theme as was the “not in my back yard syndrome”. In most cases it was misunderstanding the facts and unrealistic expectations or incorrect assumptions; but some people were apparently driven by an anti-mining ideology and actively used the high level of community ignorance to manipulate opinion. An typical practice was associating past relatively unregulated mining practices with present mining projects, often using alarmist words and phrases such as “devastation,” “uncontrolled,” “wholesale destruction,” “toxic pollution” and so forth. This emotive manipulation even occurred at a Ministerial level; for example when Joan Kirner repeatedly asked Neil Saville when visiting his alluvial mine if he was using “chemicals” – see subject heading Madmans Lane Maryborough November 1986: in Chapter 24. The anti-mining argument frequently presented in letters to the editor often revolved around the effect, real or perceived, that mining affected the amenity of the area near the letter writer. Arguments could also focus on environmental damage, dust, noise, traffic, visual aspects and historical sites. These concerns can be managed but beyond doubt there will be some inconvenience: that is the price everyone pays to live in a society that uses commodities. In the early 21st century wind farms for power generation became another example. Anti-mining letter writers have homes built from mined and harvested resources. Those homes are a long-term use of the land. Pollution occurs through drainage of household chemicals and septic systems and since there is no real containment substances will work their way into the aquifer and travel. Changes occur to eco-systems through exotic garden plants or even native plants that are not indigenous to the area. People often have exotic pets and fences interfering with native animal movement, introduced weeds, introduced pest animals, the unnatural storage of water, firewood collection – usually selected timber species. There is the use and storage of materials on the property that contain toxic heavy metals; the pedantic letter writer complaining about mercury or cyanide does not consider the cadmium, lead or zinc as known dangers created by their lifestyle. Moving to land outside the property boundary there are influences such as roads permanently covering the land. The spread of weeds and diseases via vehicles, chemicals from vehicles into the air and soil. Erosion, power lines, electro magnetic fields; phone lines; roadside spraying, slashing, painting posts and line marking and on it goes – None of these conveniences to living seemed to matter to the complainants. Society must decide: it is not possible to build or maintain a lifestyle without consuming resources. Even with a very high level of recycling there are still losses and for growth to occur there will be a demand for resources. Those resources must be mined and grown from the ground and that must result in inconvenience for those who come into contact with the production of those resources or dealing with the unwanted material or effects generally known as pollution. History does not reflect the dreams and wonders of earthly paradise and an agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Farming provides existence, with a huge effect on the environment. Mining lifts us out of the stone-age; even then it can be argued that stone tools are prospected for, mined and certainly processed. The Eureka Echo March 1987 reports on a letter in the Bendigo Advertiser from Eileen Courtney of January 14th 1987.38 One issue raised is a commentary about a group from Monash University postulating about a mining operation and the large releases of mercury into Gaffneys Creek that would occur. There was no evidence for this, just an assumption that past practices were still employed, and that from supposedly educated people trained to think. The full story, when inquired into by the PMAV, was that when the Monash group went to check on the creek they didn’t find any mercury below the mine location. They then fished in a water hole at the alleged location of the pollution, ate the fish, which turned out to be the pets of an unamused worker at the mine. People do not realise that reclamation work in early gold mining times was socially frowned upon. The unrestored ground was left for further development or as an indication to others of what was done and where. That anti restoration culture back then has ironically resulted in the now preservation what was essentially seen as industrial rubbish and incorrectly named cultural heritage. This becomes even stranger by insisting that any modern mining work must be restored, thus breaking the time line of historic mining relics. 38 Eureka Echo Vol 5 No 1 March 1987 pages 15,16 26 A common false or ignorant claim in respect of small-scale gold mining is salinity. Areas actually mined amount to small areas, even in total. Salinity is a flat open country problem where changes have occurred allowing the water table to rise to the surface, the evaporation of which leaves an accumulation of salts, if present. An extract from Christopher Davey’s response to the Eileen Courtney letter of January 14th in the Bendigo Advertiser.

39I believe that the environment of country Victoria is seriously threatened, not by miners but by the vast amount of sub-division that is taking place, the use of pesticides, some farming practices and the land management practices of some government bodies and authorities. On top of this the Government is hoping to raise money for their mismanaged economy by selling off more Crown land. The area that miners temporarily occupy is minuscule by comparison and yet it is the focus of many people like Eileen Courtney. I think that people need to get things in perspective. This will be difficult. In 1985 the Prospectors and Miners Association had a protest at Wedderburn which was covered by all Melbourne's TV channels. The reporters were not prepared to turn their cameras on the neighbouring rehabilitated area to illustrate what we were talking about. They needed confrontation and sensation and successful rehabilitation is not in those categories. The national papers only wanted personal interest stories. Only the Bendigo Advertiser looked at the issue in any depth. The fear that Eileen Courtney has of occasional mistakes is understandable in a sub-culture that has lost its creativity and adventurous outlook on life. But not all Australians are like that. There is a saying that ‘If you have not made a mistake, you have not made anything’. We learn from our mistakes, that is, from a process of trial and error. In Victoria we are lucky because we have a vast amount of experience in mining rehabilitation which has been described in Government reports from before the turn of the century. The Government’s field officers have inherited much of this knowledge, but unfortunately senior bureaucrats in Melbourne have not and follow various uninformed policies for the sake of political expediency. If our society is not to die in a mire of unimaginative and dehumanising prohibitions, plans and policies, these people will have to go.

Staying on the same theme but jumping ahead to May 26th is this letter that appeared in the The Age and reproduced in the Eureka Echo May 1987.

40From J. Sendy, Secretary Kingower and District Land Protection Association. Minister Fordham, Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, has stated that the Mines Act is to be reviewed. This is welcome news provided that residents, farmers, land owners, state and national parks are given more protection against bulldozers than exists at present. The Miner’s Right should not be allowed to supersede all other rights. The Eureka men fought for greater democracy such as no taxation without representation and not for the right to bulldoze Victoria. The Victorian Chamber of Mines and Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria wants the right to mine on any land anywhere in the State. This cannot be allowed. Residents of the goldfields regions are worried. While most people acknowledge the need for mining, there is a groundswell of feeling against bulldozer mentality and growing belief that the Mines Act is weighted against ordinary residents in favour of miners. Recent public meetings in Castlemaine and Creswick are evidence of this growing concern. Huge areas are stacked with claims and leases. The potential for devastation is great. Indeed, much damage has already been done. The very large population of the goldfields region cannot be penalised because of where they live. Their quality of life is important too. Therefore the Mines Act should be amended to disallow mining on farm land unless the owner consents. Open- cut bulldozer mining should not occur in residential areas and close to houses. Mining should be banned on state and national parks and in places of environmental, scenic and historical importance. Such prohibitions need to be included in the Mines Act. The mining lobbies’ intensive and unreasonable demands for greater and easier access to land should be denied.”

There are several points that are incorrect. The assertion that “The Miner’s Right should not be allowed to supersede all other rights” is stating that the Miner’s Right overrides everything else which is simply untrue, but creates alarm in the reader. The assertion that miners want “the right to mine on any land anywhere in the State” is

39 Eureka Echo Vol 5 No 1 March 1987 pages 15,16 40 Eureka Echo Vol 5 No 2 May 1987 pages 21,22 27 absurd, if digging up Melbourne is considered in the broad assertion. Provisions in the Mines Act to protect buildings and infrastructure, pursuits such as cropping, orchards, market gardens and so forth are well documented and have been for decades. What is not understood is that land ownership rights are very limited. In fact you cannot own land, only a perpetual lease. (See Appendix Two in Part Two, article titled: “Who really owns the land”) For 120 years between 1855 and 1975 there was not a problem. Since the Second World War there had been subdued interest in gold mining and very low public awareness of land rights, with unfounded illusions being shattered by renewed mineral interest. Miners are interested in areas where there are realistic prospects of interest, which greatly limits the area in question. The truth is, there is a loosing battle to maintain access to land and opposite in effect to the assertion of “unreasonable demands for greater and easier access to land”. This history hopefully provides the reader some understanding of complex nature of what happened to mining in Victoria and how could a uninformed person understand the true state of affairs? It is easy to understand how the thought of “mining anywhere in the State” could be considered an honest belief. A map showing how Exploration Licences cover nearly all the State would seem all encompassing. Combine that map with the lack of public understanding that exploration by companies holding huge areas under Exploration Licence means nothing and it is easy to understand how public alarm could rapidly build. The sense of the public being overwhelmed by miners is reinforced by land speculating mining companies “real estating”, using the dysfunctional mess that is Victorian mining law. People actually interested in mining and using the attendant rights were the Claim and Lease holders and they formed far less than 1% of the area of Victoria as against a peak for Exploration Licence’s of over 90%. (See Appendix Three and article titled “What is the magnitude of the mining problem?”) Compounding the Exploration Licence problem was the growing problem of Development Leases as evidenced by Mr Sendy’s comment:

…huge areas are staked with claims and leases.

This is simply not true of Miner’s Right Claims and Mining Leases but very true of Exploration Licence’s and Development Lease’s. Note this assertion.

The potential for devastation is great. Indeed, much damage has already been done. A writing style often used; fear and alarm with no supporting evidence – it is extremely effective. Words are powerful and it is time consuming for individuals to consider the effects created by everything that is said or written, so we tend to take things at face value. Alarmist key words are inserted in the reader’s mind and concern grows – based on nothing. Another example is in regard to the review of the Mines Act:

This is welcome news provided that residents, farmers, land owners, state and national parks are given more protection against bulldozers than exists at present.

Again, those who have followed this history will be well aware of the spurious inclusion that suggests that bulldozers operate in State and National Parks. Note the emotive words in the next sentence.

The very large population of the goldfields region cannot be penalised because of where they live. Their quality of life is important too.

A misleading assertion about population creates an impression, but again the key words of ‘large population’, “penalise”, “quality of life” and “important” are the ones that create an attitude in the mind of the reader.

Mining Rights Verses Land Owner Rights, February 1987 The conflict and tension between landowners and miners continued to increase over the year. A letter to the editor of the Maryborough Advertiser dated February 21st and reproduced in the Eureka Echo March 1987, was written by Christopher Davey.41 The letter was co-signed by four miners in the Maryborough area and was in response to a February 18th article and photograph in the Maryborough Advertiser that depicts a sign on a fence: “Keep out, trespassers will be shot on site.” (Not known if the spelling of ‘site’ is a word play) Christopher Davey was critical of the Maryborough Advertiser report “as not helping the situation” and stated the Association was unaware of any miner defending his claim with a shotgun. He then reversed the possible context of the sign to that of a landowner making the threat.

41 Eureka Echo Vol. 5 No.1 March 1987 page 12 28 The photo referring to ‘trespassers’ fails to recognise that any person who obtains a Miner’s Right has the right to mark out private land for prospecting and cannot be considered a trespasser. This is a basic right of all Australians and along with most of our democratic rights was won at Eureka. The right was previously opposed in England by feudal lords and in Australia by nineteenth century squatters and now, it seems, by hobby farmers and Shire Councils. We believe that it is wrong that Australia’s resources should be locked up by short-sighted Shire Councils who advocate the sub-division of gold bearing land. In previous generations auriferous land had title documents that clearly stated the fact. It is lamentable that Australia is now to suffer because of the short-term gains of property developers who have not informed their clients of the situation. Mining properly conducted does not threaten the environment and there are many examples of rehabilitated land in the vicinity of Maryborough to demonstrate that fact.

The letter also points out that as Australia’s debt passes $100 billion it is the average small-scale miner who spends between $10,000 and $15,000 a month in the rural economy which is derived from 90% of the gold that is sold on the international market. The debt situation was a common theme argued by the mining industry; a response to growing anti-mining sentiment by pointing out the realities of international trade and debt problems.

Goldfields Action Information Alliance, 1987 Continuing the theme of land protection groups, there is an archived document of several pages produced by the Goldfields Action Information Alliance42 with a Maldon Post Office Box address. The acronym is GAIA and is printed in a stylish manner on the document. GAIA is a pagan earth god, although that could be coincidental. Goldfields Action Information Alliance provides a list of nine organisations it liases with and a further list of nine shires and areas followed by a request for people from areas not listed to make contact. GAIA aims: To collect and communicate information to assist local action groups with similar aims. To encourage the formation of local Land Protection Associations. To link up with groups with similar aims. To communicate common policies and strategies. To facilitate regional actions and communicate these more widely. It appears the Alliance was formed possibly in May 1987 as the first meeting is reported as being held on May 5th. The general spread of concerns are noise, ground water, salinity, soil erosion, reafforestation and chemical use. The key points raised repeatedly are noise and dust. Much is made of rehabilitation of mining sites; it is difficult to interpret the complaints raised about rehabilitation as there are no distinctions made as to what is mining work in progress or finished. An ironic anti-mining argument raised is the destruction of historic shallow gold workings by new mining development. Within the “mining community” it is a mining tenet, a cultural heritage, that finished areas become available for someone else to try; it has been that way since the early gold rush period. What is historic? That was a question often asked by the PMAV in relation to a lack of study on the subject. It was the Association that placed its expertise at work on significant sites at Maldon. It is that expertise that allowed decisions to be made as to what should be protected while anti-mining lobbyists trying to use every set of holes in the ground as an argument against mining is seen by the mining community as hypocritical. A further point is history and heritage are not the same. On goldfields the workings and other remaining relics are historical artefacts, while being able to have a small-scale mining operation in the same place is heritage. If the same historical protection arguments were applied to roads as to goldfields, then the Hume Highway would have historic protection and remain a rutted narrow track never to be upgraded. It is always reasonable to have concerns about what is going on; this is the “engagement” that offsets the apathy of the majority. People can organise in a manner that allows a public profile and then work to have their concerns dealt with. It is however not constructive to go down the path of fear mongering or misinformation to support a pre- determined view. For example the Goldfields Action Information Alliance newsletter reference to Porcupine Flat east of Maldon rolls out the salinity scare with an entirely new twist on ground water recharge.

Within the next couple of years it is probable that there will be an increase in salinity problems in the district because the forest which has been cleared is in a primary ground water recharge area. Farmers and other landowners affected by the salinity would be unlikely to gain compensation from Triad Minerals.

42 F87. Newsletter: Goldfields Action Information Alliance May 1987 29 The Goldfields Action Information Alliance does demonstrate that public concerns is not imaginary. The following combined figures from a Goldfields Action Information Alliance survey conducted in Castlemaine and Bendigo on the 16th and 23rd of May 1987. Question: Should mining be allowed on private property without the owner’s permission? Of 1391 people 97% are in support of needing permission. Question: Should mining be allowed in Government declared State Parks? e.g Mt Alexander State Park. Of 1391 responses 74% were against mining in State Parks but the reference to a specifically named park in the local are may have skewed the result. A form letter provided in the Goldfields Action Information Alliance notes is addressed to John Cain. The letter argues that the increase in settlement and farming since the gold rush decline should be matched with appropriate changes in law relating to land. A good point has been made but not thought out; farming was now in decline as properties were being divided into lifestyle hobby farms and an eager but constrained mining industry was being artificially held back through Government policy. The clash between residential and mining is in accord with Christopher Davey’s earlier contention that this situation was a result of poor long term land use planning. When the Mining Board system was operating, the board declared auriferous Crown land could not be sold off. Substantial Crown land areas existing in the goldfields were protected from sale because of its gold bearing nature. A large amount of the land in State forests and subsequent parks throughout the goldfields exists simply because of gold. It is also a fact that these areas were used for supplying mining timber and more extensively for firewood to power the steam machinery during that industrial period. Old photographs show foundries, hospitals and mills of various kinds with huge stacks of timber for the boilers. There are also many old photographs that show denuded and heavily cut out areas that have no comparison to the regrowth that has recurred, often repeatedly. The history of these areas is often ignored in the environmental argument, which allows historically blinkered assertions to be made about an area being in “pristine” condition. In regard to the Goldfields Action Information Alliance newsletter there is an example of the complete misunderstanding of the mining title situation: A map was published in the newsletter showing 17 of the 20 “claims” pegged by Hewest Pty Ltd. The map certainly shows a substantial area pegged in a north-south strip centred on Chewton to the east of Castlemaine. However, none are Miner’s Right Claims; they are all Development Leases and Prospecting Area Licences with the exception of a Mining Lease over the Wattle Gully Mine south of Chewton and a Mining Lease on the Eureka Reef to the west of Wattle Gully. Readers who have followed the story of Development Leases and to a lesser degree the Prospecting Area Licence will realise that the land-holders had little to fear as nothing was likely to happen; the intention of people making these title applications was highly questionable. Goldfields Action Information Alliance quotes the Mines Act.

Any person who has applied for a lease on either private or Crown land and wishes to test the land covered by the lease application before the lease is granted may apply for a Prospecting Area Licence.

The Goldfields Action Information Alliance then asserts on the basis of the Act.

Hewest Pty Ltd. may at any time test the area they have pegged even though the Claim has not been granted.

That is a mischievous distortion because the Prospecting Area Licence application firstly must be approved and only applies to a Lease. Interestingly, the Goldfields Action Information Alliance has unwittingly pointed to the real problem, which is “real estating”. The assertion is that Hewest is a “shelf company” bought by McCabe Management for $545 on February 17th 1987 and names the Director as Marsha Chandler and the Secretary as Felicity Economo. The problems of land being pegged frequently had little to do with mining but plenty to do with real estating. The existing very poor mining law in this respect supported land lock up under various exploration titles, often with extended delays in the application process that caused legitimate uncertainty for land holders. It should not be a surprise that there were problems created by: Corporate attitudes that are apparently indifferent to anything but themselves; poor public awareness and understanding of land and mineral rights; poor planning of settlement and use of rural lands in regard to mineral resources; an anti-mining culture in government while espousing growth strategies and corporate activity tying up private land under uncertain mining title applications for many years, with no intention of mining. Is it any wonder landowners developed an anti-mining sentiment. 30 Title Granting Problems, PMAV Press release, March 1987 Extracts from the Eureka Echo March 1987. Christopher Davey wrote in a press release dated March 4th.

43The State Government has all but stopped funding for the title granting section in the Mining Division of Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. This is the final solution to the problem of gold mining. There are many in the Government who only support large corporate interests and who find prospectors and small-scale miners a nuisance and by withdrawing funding miners will not get titles and will not be able to operate legally. Recently Mr Davey was told by Hans Eisner, Director General of Industry, Technology and Resources, that the Government’s lack of funding for the mining administration did not mean that it did not support mining. Legally, Claims must be issued in 30 days but it is now taking 8 months and is still increasing.

Planning & Environment Bill to Replace Town and Country Planning Act, February 1987 Extracts from the Eureka Echo March 1987. The mining industry has been left without certainty with the preparation of a new Planning Act to replace the Town and Country Planning Act. The main thrust of the new Planning and Environment Bill is to shift essential decision making from Local Government to State Government. The idea is to achieve uniformity of decisions and rid Victoria of the parochial attitudes in planning schemes, the subsequent litigation and ill feeling. Christopher Davey observed.

44The mining industry has certainly suffered from many land owner dominated councils but to have decisions made by faceless bureaucrats in Melbourne is equally hopeless.

The PMAV concluded that almost every mining application will go to the Planning Appeals Board under the new Act. Most company operations will be granted major project status and will not be subject to the planning debacle. The planning issue had been running for some time with the PMAV choosing not to meet with Planning and Environment officials following an invitation to do so dated December 6 th 1986. The Association saw no point in attending as the Association did not support the philosophy of the proposed legislation. The Association made a few suggestions for making the Planning Appeals Board more effective against uncontrolled vexatious objections, a situation that generated this Christopher Davey comment.

…almost every mining application will go to the Planning Appeals Board under the new Act.

The Government should allow the cross-examination of appellants and allow the awarding of costs against appellants that do not substantiate the grounds for their appeals. The Government should allow supporters of a permit application to be heard and should limit the time between the lodging of an appeal and the hearing to 2 months. The Planning and Environment Act became law on February 16th 1987. The Eureka Echo May 1987 reported that the Planning and Environment Bill had been passed, with a lot of amendments. One of those amendments was recovering the costs for appearances at the Planning Appeals Board. Noted also was the Planning Appeals Board was to be replaced by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Christopher Davey wrote.

45It is difficult to foresee the implications of all of the Bill’s measures. All legislation that the government has passed since coming to office has made mining in Victoria more difficult and there is no reason to believe that this new Bill will be any different.

Chiltern Mine of Clive and Arthur Douglas, Update Report, May 1987 The Eureka Echo of May 1987 was critical of the Land Conservation Council and the Government attitude towards the Chiltern mine. The area was recommended by the Land Conservation Council as a Regional Park with mining to continue. However, the Government had not followed the Land Conservation Council recommendations and the area had been given the legal status of a National Park.

46Recently in a letter to Fred Ward, Joan Kirner rejected a suggestion of wider consultation on proposed parks and said, ‘A proper process of investigation, reporting and receiving of public submissions is carried out by the Land Conservation Council.

43 Eureka Echo Vol. 5 No 1 March 1987 page 6 44 Eureka Echo Vol. 5 No 1 March 1987 page 8 45 Eureka Echo Vol 5 No 2 May 1987 page 4 46 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 2 May 1987 page 5 31 The case of the Chiltern Park reveals that the only real function of the Land Conservation Council is to dissipate opposition and to free the Government to do what ever it likes. The Park has continued to be a source of fence posts for local farmers and the quarry within the park has also continued but not the Douglas mine. Department of Industry, Technology and Resources have written to Conservation, Forests and Lands putting the case. Clive Douglas and the Association have done likewise. There is support from local Conservation, Forests and Lands Officers and conservation groups for the mine to continue, but there is one or two individuals in the Melbourne Conservation, Forests and Lands office opposed to mining, and that is enough to stop it. No environmental reasons have been given for stopping the mine. Apparently they are not required. Clearly government statements about developing Victoria’s resources are only rhetoric. The mine would seem to have been shut down. In 1992 there appears in the Border Mail of January 24th an update on the mine concerning access to a State battery. See Chapter 30 subject: The future of crushing batteries February 1992.

Maldon and Government Plans, May 1987 From the Eureka Echo May 1987. 47Recently Joan Kirner stood in front of the Douglas S. Kemsley memorial plaque at Carmen's Tunnel, Maldon and launched the Maldon Historic Area Draft Management Plan. It is quite an impressive study, but not many Maldon locals or any miners are likely to be impressed. Many areas are to be excepted from mining. The Association will be making a detailed submission. In many aspects we could probably live with the statements in the Plan however, the Douglas case shows that Conservation, Forests and Lands statements can not be accepted at face value.

From the Eureka Echo July 1987. Extract from a PMAV submission on the Maldon Historic Area Draft Management Plan: 48It was members of the Prospectors and Miners Association who undertook the archaeological work at North British mine site. The presentation of the Draft Management Plan is commendable and its scope is good. However it has a number of major flaws. The banning of mining: The draft plan fails to justify the removal of much of the most prospective gold bearing areas around Maldon . It may be wise, for example, to except the relics at the North British Mine site, but that does not justify the exception of the entire Parkins Reef area from Carmens Tunnel to the Newstead Road. Maldon has a heritage of gold mining. The banning of prospecting and mining on the most important goldfields about Maldon reveals that the Department Conservation, Forests and Lands are not prepared to recognise the existence of that heritage. The treatment of the historic gold mine town layout is also disrespectful to Maldon's heritage. To ban mining along the main line-of-reef and then build low cost accommodation over an old mine site and across a historic tramway reveals a lack of commitment to the Burra Charter of the Australia International Council On Monuments and Sites, which is supposedly to be adhered to. Maldon’s town layout is historic. The destruction of the town layout at its very centre by building low cost accommodation units indicates that the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands is only prepared achieve its primary objective ‘to conserve the elements of the Maldon Historic Area’ where that objective thwarts the development of productive industry. Mining tenements: The understanding of mining titles in the draft plan is erroneous. Contrary to the claim on page 24, no mining title gives the holder ‘exclusive’ occupation. All mining titles allow multi-purpose land use. The ‘issues’ associated with Miner’s Right Claims indicates a complete lack of knowledge and an entirely anti- mining bias. It is not possible to legally use a claim as ‘cheap holiday accommodation’.. Nor is rehabilitation ‘automatically’ deferred on the renewal of a Claim. In fact a claim may not be renewed until the rehabilitation has been brought up to date. The consolidation of a number of claims is criticised. However it is precisely this mechanism that was used to develop quartz mining at Maldon in the 1850s. Any group genuinely interested in Maldon’s history, would be fascinated to see history repeating itself. Conclusion: It is the belief of the Association that there can be an approach to history which combines the living traditions with the cultural material which illustrates and commemorates the development of those traditions. However by failing

47 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 2 May 1987 page 5 48 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 3 July 1987 page 7 32 to accept and understand the traditions which brought Maldon into being, the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands has shown itself to be entirely unsuitable as a manager of the area.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Submission, August 24th 1987 From the Eureka Echo September 1987: 49The presently proposed legislation is likely to fall into disrepute because it has no safeguards to stop it being used by vexatious litigants who are ideologically opposed to mining and who have no genuine environmental data to support their case. The Advisory Committee appears to be bereft of mining expertise. It therefore can not be expected to consider species survival in relation to mining, as it is not aware of the nature of modern mining. The fact is that certain mining activities assists the survival of species. The committee does not appear to have any ability to address such issues. Another matter which should be addressed by the proposals is their economic impact. How much will the proposals cost to implement and how much income to the people of Victoria will be lost or gained as a result of them? Victoria now faces an economic crisis, which will cause much social hardship. How much will these proposals contribute to the increase of poverty in Victoria? A cost/benefit analysis is essential if Victorians are to consider these proposals fairly and rationally. The government's Social Justice Strategy surely requires such an analysis.

Alpine Area Planning Proposals, Submission, August 1987 From the Eureka Echo September 1987. 50It is clear from the sub-section on mining and mineral exploration, that the Planning Proposals have not had any input from people with a sound knowledge of modern mining and the proposed Advisory Committee has no mining expertise on it. In the light of this we would recommend that sub-sections 6.3 and 6.4 which consider quarrying and mining be omitted from the planning proposals and the administration of these activities be left to the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. This Department has the expertise and the legislative power to control mining.

Mines Bill (Miscellaneous Amendments), 1987 The Bill had been introduced in the Autumn session of Parliament. There had been no consultation with the PMAV which generated protest and lobbying. Lobbying seemed largely unsuccessful as was a mid September request to Minister Fordham of Industry, Technology and Resources for a meeting and being told this could not happen until November. Association Treasurer William (Bill) Kyte, B.E (Met) R.P.E.Q, M.A.I.M.M, made his own submission dated August 28th to David White regarding the mining amendments.51 In particular, access to mine tailings was a principal interest for Mr Kyte, especially as the problems of extracting gold was in his field of expertise. As he became further involved in the dispute over the ownership of tailings his attention also turned to matters of mining law, land law and generally standing up for the principal of a fair go.

Dear Mr White, Because of the lack of time to prepare a detailed formal representation on the Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 by The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria Inc., I am submitting this representation on my behalf rather than as Treasurer; nevertheless, the views are those of the Committee at its meeting this week. Land Valuation Board: This clause says that the Board can award costs only against the Complainant. In practice, this will always be the Miner and never the Landowner. Now there are instances when the Miner should have costs awarded against him, but there are many more instances, using the same criteria, when the Landowner should have costs awarded against him. Natural justice dictates that the Board should have power to award costs against either party, as other judicial bodies have. This is a clear case of bias, and all parties should be equal before the law. Pegging Crown land near private land: The effect of the new clause 9A is that it will be illegal to enter large areas of Crown land, especially in Central Victoria. The clause is a needless clause, because the Mines Inspector has sufficient power at all times, even before the Minister hears of the matter if there is a problem. There are ample discussion phases before and after the granting of a tenement for every party to make known his problem. The clause is quite unnecessary as a restriction

49 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 4 September 1987 page 11 50 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 4 September 1987 page 12 51 J87 Letter to Minister White from Bill Kyte re Mines Act Amendments August 28th 1987 33 on prospecting and mining, and is designed to appease noisy landowners. Crown lands are for everyone, not just the landed gentry. Windmill and bore:

The insertion of ‘windmill and bore’ for both Crown and private lands is not necessary technically. It must surely be a very rare occurrence for any prospecting or mining to affect the flow of water to a bore. If such an incident ever did occur, it is easy to plug the flow with cement. The real intention of the phrase is to create loopholes in the Mines Act. Mining Warden, hearing of bond objections: There have been successful objections to the amount of bonds; now the Crown wants to remove the right of the Miner to object in open court. The Mining Warden’s Court was established specifically as a cheap, simple and quick means of dealing with disputes between the Department and the Miner. I have frequently appeared before the Mining Warden on behalf of members, and his conciliation and arbitration powers are valued by the industry, so I am genuinely saddened that the erosion of his powers and influence is continuing by the very Government that re- created this historic post. The objection is probably still hearable in a higher court by writ, at much greater cost.’ Processing of present applications with future Acts: The effect is to backdate the legislation. If a Miner pegs a tenement application, he is entitled to the benefits of the legislation (or the harshness) in force at the time of pegging; he should not have to peg and then have to wonder under what terms he will be granted a mining title, because business and commerce have to know the rules in advance. I fought a case in the Court on this principle. Previous (and proper) practice was to have applications processed under the law applying at the time of pegging. There will be instances where the Applicant is disadvantaged by the amendments. Even though this amendment is legal, it is unsavoury, unless the Minister had first given notice of intention to legislate and the legislation is backdated only to the date of the announcement. Identical comments apply to the backdating of legislation for prospecting area licences.’ Tailing on private land: The effect of this legislation is to pre-empt decisions of cases now before the Court. The Crown Solicitor says that tailings is a chattel, whereas the Court may hand down decisions saying that tailing is part of the land. If the latter view is upheld, this legislation may be redundant and unsustainable. Extension of exploration licences: The term of an exploration licence is unlimited and the required area reduction is far too small. This is one of the two major mining problems in Victoria. There are huge areas of auriferous land tied up by exploration licences, and the Minister does not see any urgent action is needed to end this practice. Summary: Overall, the Bill is anti-mining in flavour. The amendments are against the interests of mining and are an attempt to appease landowners against time-honoured legitimate interests of mining. There is no shame in being a miner. A selfish, noisy section of the community should not be awarded these points just because they are noisy. The Miners have a role to play, just as Landowners have a role to play. Taking away the rights of the Small Miner is not an acceptable practice. My non-stop exposure to mining and its problems has convinced me that appeasement is not the answer. The Mines Act has stood the test of time, and tinkering is not a solution. More Mines Inspectors and more processing staff would go a long way to solving problems; as well, the Government should use its enthusiasm on halting the damage done to thousands of square kilometres by irresponsible farming methods. This huge salting disaster is a far greater menace than ever imagined for mining. The Prospectors and Miners Association and I work tirelessly on mining issues, so it is quite disappointing that we were not consulted or even advised on these amendments. Both The Association and I are always happy to advise on mining matters, and a better Bill would have evolved. Thank you for your interest. I am happy to discuss these matters in more detail, but my intention in writing has been brevity.

The Eureka Echo September 1987 reproduced an Association letter to Premier John Cain dated September 14th seeking his intervention in regard to the Mines Amendment Bill. Extracts include.

52We believe that the Bill as it stands will be most damaging to the development of a small-scale gold mining industry in Victoria. We have written to Mr Fordham, but he can not see us until November. We have written to the Caucus Committee of Industry, Technology and Resources and had no reply or opportunity to consult with the committee. We sought an explanation from senior departmental officers, but they were unable to give any reasons for changing the Miner’s Right Claim legislation. It seems tragic that after months of negotiation in 1982 and 1983, your government is now going to summarily undo its earlier good work. The complete lack of consultation about these amendments that your Government has

52 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 4 September 1987 page 6 34 had with the industry and as far as we can ascertain, with government officers responsible for mining inspection, leads us to conclude that your Government has been miss-informed. We believe that recent changes in Mr Fordham's Department may remedy this situation, however, the damage may be done before they fully take charge. The matter is serious and our Association has called a public meeting in Castlemaine to consider this and other matters affecting miners in Victoria. We look forward to your consideration.

Miscellaneous Mines Amendments, PMAV Press Release September 1987 Press Release September 16th 1987 reproduced in the Eureka Echo September 1987.

53The Government move to amend the Mines Act this month will threaten the gold mining industry in Victoria and make the Mines Act less fair, according to Prospectors and Miners Association President, Christopher Davey. The present amendments are a botched job, he says, some parts are nonsensical and will make the Mines Act even harder to use. The amendments attempt to give land owners an unfair control over the State’s mineral resources, and they will make the registering of Miner’s Right Claims a longer and more onerous process, according to Mr Davey. The amendments repudiate much of the Labor Government’s 1983 Mines Act amendments. Mr Davey believes that the Government has been poorly advised by a small group of senior bureaucrats who are opposed to the development of a small-scale gold mining industry. The Association has therefore called a public meeting for all people interested in prospecting and mining to express their concern. The meeting will be at the Castlemaine Town Hall on Saturday, 3 October at 7:30. Victoria needs less but more effective legislation to regulate mining and Mr Davey says that it is time that people interested in developing the State’s resources for the good of all Australians spoke up. Landowners and miners are not happy with the present legislation, and these latest amendments will only make matters worse.

Miscellaneous Mines Amendments, Report on Castlemaine Public Meeting October 1987 From the Eureka Echo November 1987. A public meeting was held in the Castlemaine Town Hall on October 3rd 1987 to discuss the Mines Act Amendments.

54As advertised in our last newsletter the Association had a public meeting at Castlemaine Town Hall on Saturday, 3 October. The meeting was attended by about 160 people and was to consider the issue of land access particularly as it related to the proposed amendments to the Mines Act. The meeting was ably chaired by Keith Sheehan. The meeting itself was fairly tame; the only life coming in response to some of the arguments put by Ewen Richards of Maldon. Noel Laidlaw spoke plainly about the options facing Australia and the culpable stupidity of those who are delaying gold production. This meeting calls on the Government to respond to Australia’s economic plight by implementing an efficient administration of prospecting and mining to give all Victorians fair access to the State’s resources while respecting the: general privacy and wellbeing of country residents; long term care for the environment; abandon the present amendments to the Mines Act; centralise mining administration under the Mines Act; allow all Crown land to be open to consideration for production of the State’s resources.

The President’s address to the October 3rd meeting by Christopher J. Davey is reproduced in full.

55It is important for us to understand the reason why the Prospectors and Miners Association called this meeting. We are concerned at the direction of government legislation as it concerns the use of the State's resources and we believe that they are avoiding the real problems facing Australia. Foreign Debt: Last year at this time I was in China. I enjoyed it immensely - partly because I saw a nation that was facing reality. This can be illustrated by their money system. The Chinese have local money and tourist money. If the Chinese wish to purchase something which has been imported, they have to pay for it with tourist money, that is money earned internationally by foreign exchange. People are therefore economically accountable. If they have not earned foreign exchange they can not spend it. If Australia had adopted such a system, we would not have a current account deficit or such a massive foreign debt. That debt has now exceeded A$110 billion; that is nearly $8000 for every man, woman and child in the

53 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 4 September 1987 page 15 54 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 8 55 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 9 35 country. Sir Roderick Carnegie said some years ago of Australia that we are selling our children into slavery. The fact is, most Australians are spending plenty of foreign exchange, but earning none. To get out of this situation we have to earn money on the international market, and while the longer term may require a revival of manufacturing, at the moment people in Central Victoria can pay their way by mining gold. The gold industry has developed in Western Australia but Victoria has sadly lagged. Much of the reason for this is opposition from people who have false perceptions of mining. Environment: Take the environment for example. There has been a good deal of mining in Central Victoria during the past seven years, but even now much of that is not evident. With progressive rehabilitation, many areas of degraded bushland have been rejuvenated. The outcry against mining is invariably about sites as they were mined. However the longer-term effects of modern mining are not a fraction of those of farming, with all its chemicals and sub-division with the increase in habitation. Land Ownership: Others do not like their land to be encroached upon by other people. Although they have not paid for the minerals which may be in their land, they want to control those minerals in the land, even though in our democratic society those minerals belong to everyone. What is advocated by those landowners is a return to a feudal society where the wealth of owning land is might. An elitist society where rights belong only to landholders. Even now the Mines Act favours landowners and if the amendments in Parliament are passed, the bias will be even worse. Complex Laws: To get a Mining Lease it may be necessary to advertise it seven times and before you start mining you may have to face seven appeals under five Acts of Parliament. The process is convoluted and if there is conflict almost unworkable. The present amendments are a case in point. They are almost incomprehensible in places. They have been brought in with no meaningful consultation with the industry. We will no doubt return to these. Conclusion: The most important issue facing Australia at present is the willingness of Australians to work together. Some people are willing to put up with the noise dust and fumes of traffic, but not a fraction of that noise when associated with somebody earning a living by mining. Peter Cox, a spokesperson from a Bendigo conservation group said recently on the ABC that he was not opposed to all mining, only mining near his place. How could anyone totally oppose mining in our society? Of course Peter Cox is willing to take the benefits of mining, but not the slight inconvenience that comes with it. This attitude is a form of colonialism. The Mr Coxes of this world happily use the utensils of modern life derived from resources dug up in someone else’s back yard, but not their own. While Australia is dominated by people who are so basically selfish, it will not pay its own way, and it will be doomed. We are here tonight because we want to work, we want a fair go and we want to help Australia.

Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments), PMAV President’s Report, November 1987 Extracts from the Eureka Echo November 1987, written by Christopher Davey.

56The dominant issue which is now before us is the review of the Mines Act which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, Robert Fordham, has promised to undertake before the next election in eighteen months time. As most people will know there are a number of groups in Victoria who are opposed to mining and who are gearing up to propose a very restrictive Mines Act. What is most disturbing is that if the direction of the government indicated by the recent amendments to the Mines Act continues, the anti-mining groups will probably have their way and the mining industry in Victoria will, inspite of the Government comments in their official documents, cease to exist. This is an issue which must concern all who draw their livelihood from prospecting and mining in Victoria. The fact is, if the industry continues to conduct its affairs in the way that it has over the last twelve months, it will soon be history in Victoria. At the moment the general apathy within the mining industry in Victoria with regard to its future is going to count seriously against it when the Government decides how it will amend or replace the Mines Act.

Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments), Bill Second Reading, 1987 57 The second reading of the Bill acknowledged that since the Bill was introduced in the Autumn session there was a further review of the inconsistencies and anomalies with further amendments to clarify the provisions of the Act.

56 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 1 57 O87. Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 Second Reading Speech 36 Key points from the second reading speech are the repeal of the Mining Development Act (Under which the State Batteries were set up). The removal of the time limit on the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources to register a Claim, because of the ever growing delays which resulted in Claim conditions being set before the Claim was even registered. The inclusion of windmills and bores in the 100-metre rule, including Miner’s Right Claims on Crown land. Exploration Licence applicants must be able to demonstrate they have financial and technical resources to carry out the exploration work proposed. The Eductor Dredge Licence commencement will be moved to September 1st to ensure the spring and summer months are fully available to dredgers. The removal of provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land. The Land Valuation Board to be able to award costs. Mines Act amended to ensure that landowners consent is required for the treatment of tailings on private land. (For some time there had been dispute about ownership of tailings dumps on private land. It was argued that since these had mineral content that could be treated they were property of the Crown and no landowner consent was required to reprocess these under a Tailings Licence. The Solicitor General ruled that such dumps are a chattel of the landowner and therefore permission must be sought from the landowner. The Mines Act did not adequately reflect this.) Clarification that a Prospecting Area Licence required the consent of an Exploration Licence holder. The Mining Warden can award costs to deter frivolous and vexatious objectors. The Mining Consultative Committee would have a landowner representative.

Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, Passed Into Law, December 1987 From the Eureka November 1987, written by Christopher Davey.

58The Mines Act Amendments were rushed though both houses of Parliament at the end of the spring session and become law on 1 December, 1987. There are many aspects of the amendments which do not make sense and we await with interest to see how they will be interpreted. The only thing that is certain is that miners are going to face even more frustration and uncertainty. Association members, however, can not complain too much. There was an opportunity to protest against the amendments at the recent public meeting, and most chose not to.

Victorian Chamber of Mines will not Support Miner’s Right Claims, November 1987 From the Eureka Echo November 1987, written by Christopher Davey.

59Submissions on the recent amendments to the Mines Act were lodged by both the Association and the Victorian Chamber of Mines. The Chamber’s submission was prepared by John Snelling of Western Mining Corporation and John Reynolds, ex-Western Mining. The Chamber submission concentrated on the changes to the private land provisions. Inspite lengthy representation from the Association this is what the Chamber said in relation to the changes to Miner’s Right Claims: ‘The Chamber has sighted submissions on this Bill to Parliamentarians made by the Prospectors and Miners which is a member of the Chamber. The Chamber has no additional specific comment to make. However we would observe that under the present Mines Act the removal of the 30 day period for registration will be a restriction on mining interests which would otherwise have used a Claim for quicker access to a small area than is available for other tenements as an expeditious means to initiate investigation work. (A later comprehensive review of the Act may remove this incentive to use Miner’s Right Claims. This is a rather cynical statement which says that the Chamber only supports Miner’s Right Claims as long as they are useful for Western Mining Corporation. Since its formation the Chamber has consistently and deliberately refused to support interests other than those of the major companies. The action of the Chamber is hard to understand. Its policy for lease granting procedures are precisely those that the Miner’s Right Claim had before the amendments. The only explanation can be that it intends to destroy the Miner’s Right Claim. The Victorian Chamber is different to the Chamber in New South Wales. At a recent gathering of the various Chambers of Mines, the executive director of the New South Wales Chamber, Ian Wiskin, said that New South Wales is aiming to encourage small-scale mining because it believes it to be very important both politically and economically. The short sighted major company monopolistic policy of the Victorian Chamber is a curious matter.

The PMAV, after long debate at committee level, decided to remain a member of the Chamber of Mines. This was not an easy decision, as the Chamber did not reflect the Association’s interests, meetings were often long, unproductive and frustrating. However, if you are not involved then you are guaranteed to be ignored. The Association had this comment.

58 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 1 59 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 3 37

60The major companies are dominated by short-sighted economic rationalists. They do not have society at heart, or even the industry of which they are part. Unfortunately, the Victorian Chamber of Mines is dominated by people who are working for the Chamber in company time to advance the aims of their own company, not the general good of the industry.

In the spring of 1987 the Victorian Chamber of Mines released two glossy brochures highlighting the poor performance of mining in Victoria.61 The first is titled ‘Let’s Put Victoria Back On The Map’.

Victoria’s depressed mining industry refuses to throw in the towel - despite laws and regulations which continue to discourage development and cause this State to lag behind the rest of Australia. This is the message of an industry survey conducted among members of the Victorian Chamber of Mines during September and October. The survey revealed that over the next two years the Chamber’s Victorian explorers and miners expect to:  Substantially increase exploration and capital expenditure  Lift gold production from 60,000 ounces to over 300,000 ounces  Boost Victorian mineral production earnings from $63 million to $353 million, mainly as exports, thus helping Australia's balance of payments. While they are encouraging for the industry and Victoria, these developments have to be put into perspective. And that clearly shows the huge task still faced by Victorian miners as well as Victoria’s missed opportunities. Gold production in Australia is about to reach all time record levels with an annual output of four million ounces well within sight. But Victoria, which prospered dramatically in the mid 1800s, as annual gold production neared the three million ounces mark, is now contributing less than two per cent of the national output. By contrast, Western Australia is in the forefront of the boom. There, the industry has grown from just three gold mines to no fewer than 80 over the past ten years. In the same period only one significant gold mine has come into operation in Victoria. The sad and costly irony is that Victoria’s gold production potential is every bit as high as Western Australia. The questions all Victorians should ask themselves are: How big would the industry become in this State if it were allowed to operate under reasonable conditions? What would be the effects on Victoria’s economy and employment, particularly in support industries such as engineering and manufacturing? In short, can Victoria afford to miss out on the gold boom? The Victorian Chamber of Mines is committed to revitalising the State’s mining industry It wants to put Victoria back on the map. Given our colourful and prosperous mining history and existing potential, that’s where we belong. To achieve that goal the industry needs to have confidence in Victoria as a place where mining development can be achieved under reasonable conditions. That means balanced policies where the interests of industry are properly represented, alongside the interests of land-holders, environmentalists and the general public which, after all, stands to benefit from a better developed mining industry. It also means updating the laws and regulations to fairly reflect the modern industry’s ability and commitment to properly look after community interests as well as accepting necessary and reasonable controls. The Chamber’s survey shows that little or no progress has been made in these areas so far. Indeed most respondents to the Chamber’s recent survey felt that in recent months conditions had deteriorated, particularly in matters related to land-holder issues, environmental regulations and the speed with which titles were being processed by the Mines Department. However, significantly more than a third of respondents perceived an improvement in the State Government’s attitude toward the industry. The Victorian Chamber of Mines is confident that continuing dialogue between all concerned will lead to greater mutual understanding and foster the attitudinal changes needed to create a flourishing, socially responsible mining industry. An industry able to work in the interests of all Victorians.

The second brochure extract is more blunt with a title of: “How We Have Fallen Behind”.

The mining industry is Australia's principal exporter and earner of foreign exchange, accounting for 45 per cent of export income. Without the industry’s sales on world markets, Australia would be in deep trouble. And so would the States. Coal exports fire Queensland’s economy and iron ore underpins Western Australia’s prosperity. The logo ‘Premier State’ would ring hollow without New South Wales’ mining sector. Where does that leave Victoria?

60 Eureka Echo Vol.5 No 5 November 1987 page 3 61 R87, Two Booklets from the Victorian Chamber of Mines October 1987 38 By world standards Victoria is an important mineral province. That is especially true for gold. However, despite the recent good gold price, we are lagging behind the rest of Australia. And we are falling further and further behind as the gold mining industry surges toward all-time record outputs. Gold production in Australia increased by almost 400 per cent between 1980-1986, and the value of production 2,500 per cent! Soon Australian gold production is expected to reach four million ounces-the highest ever. But Victoria is having little of it. Only one significant gold mine has come into operation in this State in recent years, compared with the spectacular expansion of capacity in other States. In Western Australia alone the industry has grown from just 3 goldmines in 1977 to 80 in 1987. Most of this development has taken place on old goldfields – those generally thought of as mined out. Today these areas are yielding enough gold to edge out iron ore as Australia’s number two mineral export earner. But nothing is happening on the great goldfields of Victoria; the same goldfields that made Marvellous Melbourne and our other fine cities and towns what they are today. While the gold remains where it is, Victoria passes up opportunities not only in export income and employment but in support industries such as engineering and manufacturing, particularly in rural areas. A revitalised mining industry, for gold and also for other minerals, is the aim of the Victorian Chamber of Mines. We believe that Victoria could once again aspire to the heights of 100 years ago with a resurgent gold mining industry. We know that the gold is there to be found. What the mining industry needs is confidence in Victoria as a place where mining development can be achieved under reasonable conditions. This confidence can only spring from balanced policies. We believe that a more balanced approach to mining can be achieved in Victoria through providing the community with more information about the mining industry. We feel that Victoria and Victorians cannot afford to ignore our message.

The National Trust (Victoria), 1987 The Victorian National Trust had a publication called Trust News. Two issues in 1987 contained articles on mining and land access. The October 1987 issue had an article titled “Mining On Private Land” 62 and the November issue had an article titled “Mining On Public Land”63, both written by David Robinson. The October article opens with several paragraphs that amounts to landowners being unhappy with mining companies and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. A perplexed Department of Industry, Technology and Resources responds that it does not seem to be able to convey that landowners do not have the right to the minerals and therefore no right of veto over mining. Landowner rights are not all encompassing, water and building for example. Landowners are told they are entitled to compensation for the loss of use of the land but the landowners argue the compensation is not enough. The article asserts.

All over Victoria there exist examples of miners breaking regulations, and in a few cases aided by incompetence, ignorance or inaction of some local councils. Resources of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources are totally inadequate to police mining operations; only six Mining Inspectors cover the whole of Victoria.

The PMAV had increasingly expressed concerns about the quality of people making mining related decisions, especially in local governments and also expressed concerns with decisions being made by people in Departments who have no idea about mining. The result was confusion and ill feeling. This level of conflict does not seem to be a significant historical problem from 1884, when mining on private land was finally sorted out. The 12-year period from late 1975 to late 1987 had overseen a descent into chaos for the gold mining industry in Victoria; jointly destroyed by corporate interests and the anti-mining ideology that was infused into Government and its unelected Departments. There are three points of view expressed by other people as part of the article. One is by Les Simmons who for many years ran a tour of his private land just to the north of Fryerstown. His concern was that the relics on his land could be lost or damaged to renewed mining or exploration interests. Having been on a tour of this mining area I can sympathise as it is a remarkable place with a broad range of relics and plenty of them. The Les Simmons property is worth protecting, creates genuine tourism and makes a mockery of the persistent “noise and fuss” of heritage and history arguments that are applied to vast areas of public land with little more than holes in the ground. Christopher Davey’s argument is in accord with the previous paragraph when he pointed out that a lot of the problems with heritage is that interested people often had unrealistic expectations.

62 Q87 Trust News Vol.16 No. 4 October 1987 pages 15-18 63 S87 Pages from: Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Vol 292. Reprint of Trust News item from Vol.16 No 5 November 1987 printed December 9th 1987 39 David Plante, a farmer at Rurtherglen, had been busy opposing any sort of title applications over his grazing land and was vigorous in his opposition. His reasons were concerns over insurance should there be an accident, inadequate compensation and bonds to ensure rehabilitation. Mr Plante had some interesting observations on “real estating” and the danger of being left with the mess if the “company” goes broke.

64Government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act included a letter signed by a Department of Industry, Technology and Resources employee which asked that a particular company be granted an exploratory lease, stating that their financial capacity was adequate. However, another document indicated that the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources had no record of the financial affairs of the company and suggested that Mr Plante could contact the Ombudsman to investigate the irregularity. It seems that not everyone who forms a company and invites shareholders to invest depends on striking gold to make the venture pay. Mr Plante said that some people become directors of mining companies on fairly substantial salaries: They drill a hole somewhere and if they find gold, well, good. If they don’t, the company closes down, but they’ve been on directors fees for one year, two years, and so on. If you keep 20 of those on the go, you’d do quite nicely. It’s completely legal.

The final paragraphs in David Robinson’s article “Mining On Public Land” are a good summary of the chaos, except confusing heritage with history.

65The argument about economic gain versus landowner rights seems like a replay of the squatter-miner battles of the 1850s. Today the values underlying the debate look very similar but there are additional sets of values: concern for the environment and for the preservation of our heritage. And it’s not only on isolated areas of privately owned land that miner and landowner clash. Nor is the dispute solely between two-dollar companies or ill-informed miners and shotgun toting farmers. Some landowners claim that legislation which allows miners to enter onto private land to peg claims is outdated. Others want better policing of the present regulations by all parties involved in regulating mining on private land and more realistic compensation provisions and conditions. Miners want freer access to the gold that could lie under private land. They’re fighting changing attitudes to our environment and opposition to mining close to residential areas. The government wants the minerals out of the ground in the interests of the economy, but must also appear to be concerned about the environmental and social costs.

November 1987 article titled: Mining On Public Land. The article generally presents issues already covered as subject material of this book; access to land, rehabilitation and so forth. There are some helpful observations though as noted by the article’s author, David Robertson.

Miners face opposition from people with different values. Forests, animals and areas of historical value are as important to them as international economics. In some cases these things are more important.

Quoting Sue MacLellan, the Minerals Manager of Department of Industry, Technology and Resources.

It is fear of the unknown rather than fear of reality.

John Reynolds of the Victorian Chamber of Mines, speaking about people seeing some pegs in the ground.

There is a vision that the whole area is going to be ripped up. I can understand that. That is why I am glad to see Department of Industry, Technology and Resources putting out a booklet on the subject.

A contribution to the November article sub-titled ‘The Real Issues’ contains the reported comments made by Ken McGregor, a spokesman for the Victorian Land Protection Society. He was concerned at how the media was portraying the debate as a battle between pro and anti-mining interests in respect of the national economy. He asserts that the benefits of mining are questionable due to the foreign ownership of the companies. This argument is simplistic because even if all profits go overseas it is still only a part of the total economic activity. He argues that economic benefit to the community is limited as there is no tax on gold. This does not recognise that the lower business costs encourage investment with tax revenues flowing from a multitude of sources such as wages.

64 Q87. Trust News Vol.16 No. 4 October 1987 pages 15-18 65 Q87. Trust News Vol.16 No. 4 October 1987 pages 15-18 40 Ken McGregor argues the prospects for local business is poor as the mining venture will eventually close and people will move out. Early chapters of this book dealt briefly with the development of business and towns as a consequence of gold discovery and mining. This reflects the reality of human existence and the drive to improve personal circumstances and to take risks; the entire gold rush experience demonstrates that. The choice people have is to take advantage of a business opportunity when it presents, or to lobby Government to regulate to guarantee against future failure. The biggest points are choice and opportunity. There is then a series of assertions.

Large companies operate outside the present legislation.

That is a matter of enforcement.

Compensation levels are minimal.

This is a difficult area resulting from complex and poor legislation combined with landowners, often struggling in a poor economic climate, who see the chance to make big money for themselves thwarted.

Open-cut operations cannot be rehabilitated.

At first glance a huge hole in the ground is daunting and ugly but to say it cannot be rehabilitated is not reasonable. It is a question of what can be done and when. Altona Gate Shopping Centre in North Altona and a part of Highpoint Shopping Centre in Maribyrnong were built in disused quarries. There are probably many other examples. A quarry at Newport was transformed into a lake and reserve – with excellent fishing. Two large quarries either side of Grieve Parade at Brooklyn became rubbish disposal sites; if you did not know, you would never guess from the undulating parklands now overlooking Koroit Creek. A large quarry in Sunshine used as a tip ran a generator plant fuelled by methane.

Transportation of mining ore, ore treatment and waste disposal create problems for the environment and the local community.

It is true that dust and noise can be a problem as can road traffic if not managed and it is here that protection groups can help local amenity. The author was told in 2006, by a concerned individual, that the waste dumps from the Bendigo Mining operation would always be an eye-saw and an environmental problem. My response was it would only be a small addition to all the other dumps throughout Bendigo. I received a perplexed look then the question: ‘What other dumps?’ ‘The numerous huge dumps from the dozens of big mines and the hundred years of mining history in the city of Bendigo,’ I answered. I could almost see in his eyes the panoramic view of Bendigo as it swept through his mind – no mine dumps. I continued: ‘Could it be most of those dumps were used for other things such as road base and so forth? And that the sand dumps from the crushers, having a history of being retreated, had also been used?’ A pile of rock, a pile of sand or a hole in the ground can be rubbish and an eye-saw as a consequence of how we live; to others such things are assets and opportunities. Local planning schemes are being amended to allow mining in prohibited areas.

This does not take into account the administrative incompetence, ideological barriers and large corporate interests that are associated with many planning schemes and the consequent appeals that are a theme in this book. An absurd situation would develop in 1988 when the Bet Bet Shire (Dunolly) would impose severe restrictions on mining, including public land, ostensibly to protect large areas of old shallow alluvial workings and to regulate noise, dust and a range of other controls. It resulted in vocal protest and nearly violence – a sure sign of poor government.

Conservation safeguards do not have legal status.

Wrong, there is legislation and subordinate regulation under a multitude of Acts seemingly without end, all with legal sanctions.

Most of Victoria’s gold is located in residential areas and this creates special problems. 41 It certainly does create problems. The residential areas are there as a consequence of the gold and over time people have forgotten this simple fact and adopted the parochial view “not in my back yard” while subdividing the land into useless hobby farms as fast as they can.

Public Liability 1987 Association Treasurer Bill Kyte wrote to Frank Kopacka dated June 24th 1987.66 The letter advises that the PMAV had organised a bulk public liability insurance for members commencing July 7th 1987. Cover is for one million dollars and covered Claims and Prospecting Area Licences. The cost was $207 with a sliding scale for further tenements. Association Treasurer Bill Kyte again wrote to Frank Kopacka dated August 8th 1988.67 The insurance brokers say that the public liability insurance premiums for the Year 1988-1989 are now $260 for the first and $190 for each succeeding tenement. The letter states.

The steep rise is because pay outs on insurance claims have risen sharply lately, both in size and proportion.

The Mining Warden, Independence Concerns, 1987 The PMAV became highly critical of the Warden’s role and decisions. The following undated archive document titled “Is the office of Mining Warden Independent” suggests trouble.

68President, Mr Chris Davey, described the Office of Mining Warden as a ‘paper tiger’. Events in 1987 have shown this statement to be correct; in fact, the Office of Mining Warden is being applied as an arm of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Mining Division, not as an independent Court to settle mining disputes. Some cases before the Mining Warden's Court in 1987 have left a picture of non-independence with many miners, the legal fraternity and the entire Prospectors and Miners Association Committee. The time has come for some major changes to be made to the Office of Mining Warden, both in its structure and in its operation. This article examines those shortcomings, and has the unanimous support of your Committee. The concept of Mining Warden was one of the reform measures introduced after the Sandhurst rebellion of August 1853 and the Eureka Stockade rebellion of December 1854. The Mining Warden applied simple 'bush justice' without fear or favour in settling disputes on the Goldfields. Articles of the time indicate that the Mining Warden was feared and respected by everyone; above all, he was independent of the Government and the Public Service, just as our Judges are today. Appeals against his decisions were possible, and often made, but the independence and impartiality of the Mining Warden do not seem to be in doubt. As a cost-saving measure with the decline in mining activity, the position of Mining Warden was abandoned after decades of success. In October 1983 the Cain Government revived the position. Many of the Warden's powers were removed, with the result that the Warden's main function is to make recommendations to the Minister. Matters relating to the Mining Warden are written in sections 20 and 102 to 109 of the mines Act. The main functions of the Mining Warden are: (a) To investigate and determine any complaint made to him regarding the processing of and dealing with a tenement by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. (b) To investigate and make recommendations to the Minister about mining disputes between the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources and any person. (c) To investigate, arbitrate and settle disputes between miners. (d) To hold an inquiry when requested by the Minister, the Mining Registrar, Inspector of Mines or by a Complainant. The Mining Warden is bound only by the rules of natural justice, and is not bound by the rules of evidence (which other Courts are bound to). Lawyers may appear only in certain special cases, because the object of the Court is to settle mining matters with mining men. These principles may seem to be OK, but when they are applied, the weaknesses become apparent. Regardless of the intentions of the politicians when the Office of Mining Warden was re-created, the effects of the legislation are that the Mining Warden: has become an arm of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Mining Division, to endorse their decisions; is over-keen to endorse Government policy, even when that policy is changed or is against legal tenets; is using the loophole of ministerial discretion when the weight of evidence runs against the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources;

66 G87. Letter to Frank Kopacka from Bill Kyte re public liability cover June 24th 1987 67 H87. Letter to Frank Kopacka from Bill Kyte re public liability cover steep price rise Auhust 4th 1987 68 A87. Document: Is the Office of Mining Warden Independent 42 is breaking many rules of natural justice, especially by not hearing all evidence in the presence of all parties; makes decisions that are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. (In other words, only the Full High Court of Australia and the Mining Warden’s Court of Victoria can make un-reviewable decisions); decisions seem to have been reached before the Court hearing; is supporting the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Mining Division even when the evidence against the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources is overwhelming. These very serious allegations stem from a study of 1987 cases. Certainly, your Committee is extremely concerned about the matter. The Government is using the Office of Mining Warden as a public relations exercise to condone errors by the Public Service and to ‘keep the lid on’ controversial decisions likely to make political waves. The principles of natural justice, democratic rights and a fair go are being ignored so that the miner ‘does not rock the boat’. What are the remedies? The ultimate solutions may be a new Minister, a new Mining Warden and a new Manager of the Mining Division. Unless we see some changes, your Committee will call on you for your support to achieve these ultimate solutions. Meanwhile, we must have positive indications that: cases will be decided purely on the merits of the evidence and debate during the hearing; decisions will be handed down that are fully reviewable in a higher Court; (c) the rules of natural justice will be strictly adhered to; (d) loopholes such as ‘ministerial discretion’ and ‘Government policy’ will not be overriding factors, but will be only minor and supporting, when used at all. We need some teeth in the position of Mining Warden, partially achieved by restoring some of the powers recently taken from the Mining Warden. The Court should be a genuine Mining Court, strictly bound by precedents of higher Courts, with the Office paid from the Attorney-General’s Department budget-rather than the Department of Industry, Technology and Resource’s budget. The Mining Warden should not even be part of Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, because this has the effect of ‘appealing from Caesar unto Caesar’. The Mining Warden’s decisions must be fully reviewable on appeal to the County Court, which should be made equal to the Supreme Court for mining matters (to discourage expensive litigation). What should you, the miner (already persecuted by greenies, some greedy landowners, misinformed public servants, bank managers), do when you want to take an issue to the Mining Warden? As a service to members, the

Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria Committee intend to monitor every case for the time being . You should: (a) discuss the matter with a member of the PMAV Committee; (b) use the words ‘....request a decision and determination under sections 107 and 108 of the Mines Act’;

(c) advise the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria of progress and the result of the hearing. The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria and your Committee have always held a policy of reason, fair play and diplomacy rather than emotion and bullying, but this will change if we lose more ground. There are three groups with whom we are dealing: Minister – We helped to elect this Government after a promise to re-establish the position of Mining Warden . That was for the last election, not necessarily the next. Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Management - The Mining Division depends on mining for its existence and job satisfaction. Departmental management have been single-minded in their crusades against some of our members. Mining Warden - The Mining Warden depends on our support for his position just as we depend on him for justice. If we withdraw that support, his position becomes untenable. The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria continues to support the Mining Warden, but that support is under review.

Tailings Ownership 1987 Before reading on, it is important to have read “Mine Tailings on private land ownership dispute, 1985” in Chapter 23 Part 4. The tailings ownership dispute on private land was beginning to get bizarre. On December 11th 1987 Mining Warden Kevin Ryan wrote to Bill Kyte.

69I refer to your applications to me regarding Tailings Treatment Licence Application No 389 and Miner’s Right Claim Application no 873. Unfortunately I was unable to agree with your submissions in these matters and have recommended to the Minister that the files be processed in accordance with the Department’s recommendations.

69 T87. cover letter to Bill Kyte from Mining Warden re tailings on private land/tailings treatment licence 43 The summary and reasons for the findings is a rather bizarre document about a conflict between William Kyte who tried to peg a Miner’s Right Claim over tailings on private land. The owner of the land with the tailings had been selling the material and a third party, a company, wanting to buy the tailings from the landowner for treatment. At issue was competing interests for the tailings and a dispute as to ownership. The Warden accepted that tailings on private land were chattels, essentially because tailings have historically been sold separately from the land throughout Victoria. In this case the owner of the land had made a living selling and buying such material. With tailings as chattels the next step in accessing them can only come as a result of the land owners permission, who owns the tailings. The Warden wrote.

70Too much emphasis has been given to legal classifications throughout this dispute and in earlier disputes involving tailings. A definition of tailings, however inadequate, was included in the Mines Act 1958 and sections dealing with their treatment and disposal were later included and amended. Specific licences were brought into being to deal with the materials. While due regard must be given to the different law to be applied to various types of property, one cannot escape the fact that identifiable mining residue, as identified in the Act as tailings, are tailings and the legal difficulties are not overcome by attempting to squeeze them (not treat them) into a legal classification and then write volumes on the subject of their being unable to quite fit.

The Warden continued on in a sarcastic manner describing Kyte’s idea that tailings …revert to realty by standing idle on the land smacks of the ‘Kings new Clothes. The Warden’s conclusion is that since the material is named as tailings in the Mines Act it is distinct from the land and not part of the land and therefore has not reverted to the land. The Warden accepted the company argument that a Tailings Treatment Licence is needed and other titles are not adequate. That Section 300A(2) of the Act required landowner consent before granting a Tailings Treatment Licence. The Warden then writes.

If the above propositions are found not to be correct, section 75 and 82(3) operate to give the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources considerable discretion with respect to granting of licences, which discretion would extend to the requirement of the land owner’s consent.

That is quite clear: the Department can make up its own rules. Further comment says the Minister can do the same, so long as discretion is used lawfully and in accord with natural justice. In a submission regarding this matter dated May 31st 1985, William Kyte quoted previous cases regarding mine tailings and their ownership.

71Courts have held that tailings are still part of the land. In Mills vs Stokman (1967) 116 CLR 61, the Full High Court of Australia held unanimously that rubble slate in the heap was not chattel but was part of the land. It was held that either the rubble was not severed from the land or, after being severed, it became part of the land again. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation vs Henderson (1943) ALR 241-6, the effect of the judgment of the Full High Court of Australia is that tailings are not chattels but land that has to be mined. In Adamson vs Haves (1972-3) AALR 1224-53, the Full High Court of Australia (in a 4 to 1 majority decision) held that mineral claims conferred ‘interests in land’, despite a declaration in the W.A. Mining Act that that every mining tenement should be deemed in law to be a chattel interest. In the case Boileau vs Heath (1898) 2 Ch 301 it was held that waste of metal ore, piled on the land with the intention that it should again form part of the land, remains part of the land, and is not a chattel. In the case Ebbels vs Rewell (1908) 14 ALR 121-4, the Victorian Supreme Court held that, whether the slum remained a chattel or not, the freeholder and his licensees had no right to possession of the land for the purpose mentioned (to extract gold from slum on the surface of the land). Hodges J said: ‘I am not in a position to say whether some (tailing heaps) may be incorporated with the soil and some not; but I feel clear about this, that, whether they remained chattels or whether they did not, the owner of the land had no authority and no right to give other people leave to interfere with the possession of this land for the purpose of working gold on the surface or anywhere else.

In the case of Mills vs Stokman the Warden wrote it had little relevance to the matter; that Taxation vs Henderson shows that tailings treatment is a separate operation from the normal meaning of mining and that mining is

70 T8.7 Letter to Bill Kyte from Mining Warden re tailings on private land tailings treatment licence page 3 71 Y85a. Letter from John Winter and legal opinion from Bill Kyte re mine tailings may 31st 1985 44 generally a function performed on the land, not the unattached material on the surface. The Warden dismissively wrote.

In any event, where a specific licence is available to treat tailings, one would have to be very imaginative to conclude that a general mining lease or claim would do as equally well or better.

There was no comment on the other cases. The Warden continued.

If this argument fails, the evidence available and briefly set out on page 10 of the submission by Balmoral is overwhelming in its support of the contention that the materials are chattels.

The Warden’s final argument, if all else failed, was the opinion of a company that said that tailings dumps are recognisable and separate from the land, have been dealt with previously as chattels, are different in character such as quartz, a cryptic comment about the value of tailings at the time of extraction and about the size of the dumps. 45 Chapter 26. 1988

Synopsis Noel Laidlaw becomes the new President of the Prospectors and Miners Association. The Prospectors and Miners Association loses confidence in the Mining Warden. The battle between Bet Bet Shire’s troublesome planning permits and the miners. The Mines Act is reviewed throughout 1988.

Christopher Davey Resigns as Prospectors and Miners Association President, February 1988 In a letter to Association Secretary John Winter dated February 12th 1988, Christopher Davey resigned as President.

72 I hereby resign as President of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. With the passing of the 1987 Amendments to the Mines Act it became clear that the Government is not interested in considering reasonable argument. During my presidency the Association has maintained a conciliatory approach. However, both within the Government and in the Victorian Chamber of Mines this attitude has been construed as a sign of weakness, and so we have subsequently been ignored. I believe that it is time that the Association changed its strategy and I believe that a new president will be able to do that. The position will involve time, which I do not have. My employment continually involves interstate and international resource developments. By comparison, Victoria is a backwater and I cannot justify spending any more work time on Victoria until there is commitment in Victoria to economic development. I want to thank the members, and in particular, the committee of the Association for support during my 4 years as president. I think that I can say that during my presidency we always got our timing right. Our protests and the attempt two years ago to establish local groups through out Victoria were precisely what was required. It is interesting to see that the anti-mining groups have subsequently followed this pattern to great effect. The future of prospecting and non-major company mining in Victoria is now in the balance with the review of the Mines Act. I know that it is difficult after a hard day’s work to have to put effort into supporting the As - sociation, but that is what is required. The alternative will ultimately lead to unemployment. I intend to continue taking an active role in the Association as seems appropriate. Yours Sincerely, Christopher J. Davey

Noel Laidlaw Appointed Association President, February 1988 At a Committee meeting of the 9th of March 1988, Noel Laidlaw was appointed to fill the presidential vacancy left by Christopher Davey. The Eureka Echo reported.

73Noel Laidlaw is a miner and Miner’s Right Claim owner from Maldon. He has previously been chairman of the Mining Consultative Committee and was David White's adviser on mining matters. Noel takes up the position at a crucial time with the Mines Act in the process of being reviewed. During the preparation of the 1983 Amendments to the Mines Act Noel played a major role. It was expressed that a new President who lives in the country will facilitate increased support from country regions and that this support will be vital when it comes to the framing of the new Act.

No Confidence in Mining Warden, February 1988 In previous chapters, and since the death of Don Elliott, the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria had expressed concerns about the office of Mining Warden. (See Chapter 25, The Mining Warden, Independence Concerns 1987) The relationship with the Warden’s office dramatically worsened. The Prospectors and Miners Association tried to point out, via letter, the problems being experienced and the growing negative perception of the office of Mining Warden. A copy of this letter has not been located, nor a copy of the Warden’s response dated February 4 th. However, the Eureka Echo Vol 6 No 1 March 1988 shows a serious breakdown in the relationship. The Association had been seeking documents about the appointment of the new Warden but the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources had blocked this. The Association was fighting this refusal in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The following letter written by John Winter was sent to the Mining Warden, Kevin Ryan, on February 15th 1988:74

72 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 1 March 1988 page 2 73 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 1 March 1988 page 2 74 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 1 March 1988 page 3 46 Christopher Davey has passed your letter of 4 February on to me. We agree that it is important that you retain the confidence of the industry, but unfortunately at present you are seriously in danger of loosing that support. It is your impartiality that is in question. Before your appointment Christopher Davey publicly criticised the fact that the Warden was being appointed by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. Our Association has sought through Freedom of Information the papers associated with the appointment of the position and they have been withheld by the Department. It seems that our fears are justified. Members have reported that you have arrived at decisions on the basis of evidence inspected in the presence of one party. The Association's case on tailings presented by Mr Kyte is of particular concern to us because although the Department did not present a case, you decided effectively in their favour. In another case, Departmental officers correctly told us beforehand what your finding would be. If this state of affairs continues it is unlikely that your deliberations will be respected and that administration of the Mines Act will fall into even greater disrepute. This would be tragic. We request that you review the operation of the Office of the Mining Warden. We would be happy to cooperate with any such review. Yours Sincerely, John Winter, Secretary.

The response from the Mining Warden dated March 7th 1988 was brief.

75Your letter of February 15th is extremely insulting and, of course, totally incorrect. I am seeking professional advice and will act on the same. My recent offer to meet with your Executive and membership is, as a consequence of your letter, withdrawn. Yours faithfully, K. Ryan, State Mining Warden.

A lot of the dissatisfaction with the Warden came about through William Kyte’s efforts to unravel the problems of tailings on private land. It was he who was challenging the Crown Solicitor’s opinion that tailings were chattels of the landowner and it was William Kyte seeking Freedom of Information regarding the appointment of the Mining Warden. Mr Kyte exposed incompetence and deceit as shown in his report in the Eureka Echo March 1988 titled More Democracy at Work.

76The following is a brief report on the protracted legal battles the Association has waged on the matter of tailings on private land. Way back in 1983 (Yes 1983!), Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria members were having difficulty getting mining title over tailings on private land. This followed a legal opinion from the Crown Solicitor that tailings is a chattel (that is, owned by the freeholder but not part of the land as realty). The gold by law dating back to William the Conqueror is owned by the Crown. In a written opinion that has been accepted almost unanimously by the legal profession, the Prospectors and Miners Association cited High Court cases (especially Mills v. Stokmen 1976) that appear to totally contradict the learned Crown Solicitor. Department of Industry, Technology and Resources legal staff and management refused to clarify the matter, and have even misled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Minister had to introduce legislation (effectively backdated as well) to cover the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources deceit and the Crown Solicitor's blunder. Successive High Court decisions held that tailings is part of the land, and is not normally able to be severed from the land. Consider the matter: how could a million tonnes of ore from the bowels of the earth, deposited on the surface of the earth, be anything but part of the earth? When the matter came before the Mining Warden, he gave a decision in favour of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources even though the case against the Department was massive, and was supported by solicitors and barristers. Above all, the Department did not present a case, yet still won easily! When the Prospectors and Miners Association appealed to the Supreme Court, the Department was found to have arranged another shock. Master Evans held that the Mining Warden's decision was in a form that is unreviewable. The Mining Warden wrote later that to have made modifications necessary to have his decision reviewable by higher courts exceeds his powers; in other words, the Mining Warden is equating his court with the only other court whose decision is unreviewable, the Full High Court of Australia.

75 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 1 March 1988 page 3 76 Eureka Echo Vol 6 No. 1 March 1988 page 10 47 The matter is still being considered by the Association’s Committee. The actions of the Government and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources are an affront to democratic principles. The procedures followed by the Mining Warden are outrageous.

Mine Tailings Ownership, a Long Running Dispute, 1988 William Billinghurst, Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria Vice President, received a letter dated May 18th 1988 from the Department of Industry, Technology and Resource’s Information Manager, G.M. Hannaford. Mr Hannaford was writing about Freedom of Information request 549 and the preliminary conference at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on May 4th 1988. An extract from the brief letter advises. 77Whilst it is clear that this document is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, after further consideration and consultation the Department has decided to fully release the opinion in the spirit of the legislation, and a copy is enclosed.

The legal opinion regarding mine tailings on private land was written by the Solicitor General, H.C. Berkeley, dated May 4th 1987 and contains 7 pages.78 The opinion is in response to specific questions from Keith Bowen, Department of Industry, Technology and Resources in a letter to the Solicitor-General dated September 16th 1986. Essentially the Mines Act in Section 291(2) says that gold in the land is the property of the Crown and it does not matter if the land is private land. There is no dispute about that. The Solicitor General wrote that material from a mine, when being processed or stored by the miner, is the property of the miner:

Sydenham Quartz Gold Mining Co. Ltd. v Ah Cheong 23 V.L.R. 441. While earth is being processed by mining machinery it is not land. Before processing takes place the miner may stockpile the material to be processed later. The miner does not by placing that material on the ground intend to abandon it so that it again becomes part of the realty. Until abandoned it still remains a chattel.

The opinion argues that after processing the material and it is dumped on the ground and abandoned it is returned to the realty with any gold remaining in the tailings belonging to the Crown. The argument becomes imprecise when the Solicitor General wrote.

Where tailings have been unloved or unwanted for a number of years it would be the proper inference that they have been abandoned and thus again become part of the realty. Mills v Stokman (1961) 116 C.L.R, Boileau V Heath (1898) 2 Ch. 301. It may be difficult to decide exactly when that happened. (The two separated references to Mills and Stokman have different dates and spelling)

The Solicitor General answers the first question from Keith Bowen. …when are tailings chattels? and he answers that they are chattels when abandoned by the person who produced them in the absence of some evidence that the miner intended further use. Somehow land is now left out of the equation leaving only chattels. Bowen’s next question.

If tailings have become part of the land again are they still subject to the tailings provisions in the Act (providing always that they can still be identified as tailings)

The answer is reproduced in full – and it is the reader’s problem to work out what it means.

If I lose a gold ring on private land after 30th October 1983 I do not think that Section 291(2) operates to vest that gold in the Crown. A person authorised to mine on private land is authorised to find and remove minerals. He is not authorised to remove tailings. (Presumably the Solicitor-General is drawing an analogy that the lost gold ring is the same as gold lost in the tailings.) When tailings first come into existence (immediately at the end of the processing operation) the tailings are still chattels. The chattel does not belong to the Crown nor to the miner it belongs to the owner of the private land. It is only gold (on or in the land) which is vested by Section 291(2). That sub-section says nothing about the ownership of gold which is contained in and is part of a chattel which has been lawfully severed from the land. Therefore:

77 AU88. Letter and copy of legal opinion to Bill Kyte re tailings ownership may 4th 1988 78 AU8.8 Letter and copy of legal opinion to Bill Kyte re tailings ownership may 4th 1988 48 Where the tailings are chattels the ownership of any minerals in them is vested in the owner of the chattel. Where the tailings have become part of the realty before 30th October 1983 minerals in the tailings are vested in the Crown by reason of section 291(2) and (3). If tailings have lawfully became a chattel on or after 30 th October 1983 (not withstanding that after that date they again become part of the realty) the minerals in those tailings do not vest in the Crown (provided always that they can still be identified as tailings).

Interim Development Order Amendments, Shire of Bet Bet, January 1988 As a consequence of the Planning and Environment Act being passed on February 16th 1987, replacing the Town and Country Planning Act of 1982, local government areas were required to improve their planning schemes. The Shire of Bet Bet Council, based at Dunolly, proposed amendment number 4 to the Shire’s existing Interim Development Order 1982.79 The amendment proposal mainly concerned mining and is 18 pages long accompanied by a map detailing areas including Crown land that would come under new restrictions. Bet Bet Shire Council’s eventually stated object was to force the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources to provide more Mines Inspectors arguing that rehabilitation was not taking place under the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. The unfolding story does not support gaining mines Inspectors as the intent of Council. But that aim became the justification for Council’s actions when open confrontation and threats of violence resulted. The various restrictions and requirements detailed in the proposed amendment were listed in a table with three columns. Column 1: Purposes for which land may be used or developed subject to specified conditions; no permit required. Column 2: Purposes for which land may, with consent, be used or developed; permit is required. Column 3: Purposes for which land shall not be used or developed. In regard to Column 1 and gold related activity not needing a permit, the following clauses are the only ones not requiring a Bet Bet Shire planing permit.

3.2b Mineral prospecting / exploration may be carried out provided it involves no site clearing, tree felling, road making or substantial alteration to the topography. 3.2c No process or activity in relation to mineral prospecting / exploring shall be carried out so as to cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of vibration, smell, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, ash or the discharge of waste materials of any kind.

Column 2 listings, restrictions requiring a permit, were to be imposed on mining activity within historic mining areas, flora reserves, areas of high habitat significance and township areas. There are 28 roads listed in the restrictions, the bulk are lengthy main roads. Added to this are 4 extensive bicycle routes that traverse many kilometres of bush. Those specified scenic routes, tourist roads and bicycle trails could not have mining activity within 60 metres.

‘Significant watercourses’ had restrictions, which meant no mining within 100 metres of the Avoca and Loddon rivers. ‘Other specified significant watercourses’ prevented mining within 20 metres; the list included Burnt Creek, Dunolly Moliagul, Waanyarra (Jones) Creek and Nuggetty Creek, near Tarnagulla. Each of the named streams included the tributaries, which effectively required a permit to access the majority of alluvial diggings within the Shire.

Column 3 is the prohibition column and this had only one item: the prohibition on the removal of mine tailings in specified areas. The Objectives and Controls of proposed Interim Development Order amendment No.4 quoted in full:

The objectives of the special controls over land subject to mining controls are to ensure that mining and related activities, whether prospecting, exploring, evaluating, developing, mining or removing or treating tailings does not adversely affect the character and appearance of historic mining sites, and other specified areas, and in particular. (a) To provide for the preservation, maintenance and enhancement of buildings, works objects, sites and landscape features relating to the historical significance of mining in the Shire of Bet Bet Conservation and Heritage Study.

(b) To provide for the preservation and maintenance of. areas of significant vegetation, such as the Tarnagulla Flora Reserve. (c) To maintain and enhance the historically significant landscapes along popular tourist roads, bike tracks and significant watercourses.

79 B88. Proposed amendment No. 4 to Shire of Bet Bet Interim Development Order explanatory notes & C88. Proposed amendment No. 4 to Shire of Bet Bet Interim Development Order. 49 (d) To ensure that all mining and related activities are planned and developed in a manner which maintains the value and special significance of areas that have been identified as having a high habitat value in the report: An Assessment of Habitat Significance in the Loddon-Campaspe Region 1982, prepared by the Ministry for Conservation. (e) To ensure that all mining and related activities are planned and developed in a manner which maintains and enhances the historical character of existing town areas. (f)To maintain and promote the tourist potential of the Shire by preserving and enhancing historic mining sites and areas, and by restricting the impact that mining activities have on areas of visual landscape significance. (g) To maintain the archaeological and historical research potential and tourist/prospecting potential of the mining sites preventing the removal of tailings in specified areas. In preparing this amendment Council has taken cognisance of the economic benefits of mining to the State of Victoria and Australia. As a consequence the amendment has been proposed in a manner which, Council trusts, strikes a balance between mining and related activities, and. the need to preserve areas of significance due to: historical importance, high habitat and flora assessments, and importance of cultural tourism in the Shire. Council believes that the amendment will streamline the processes for mining approvals in the future. Moreover, mining will be planned and developed in an orderly manner. At the same time specified areas will be maintained in their existing form and character as Council perceives significant long term economic potential from such cultural assets.

Recreational prospecting and exploration work had restrictions imposed in the proposal but no permit was required. Any further activity required a planning permit, even for Crown land, that imposed further restrictions on top of those determined by Department of Industry, Technology and Resources.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Bet Bet Shire, Media Reports, February 8th 1988 The objectives and controls of the proposed Interim Development Order amendment appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser of February 8th 1988.80 The article’s author is not named but Shire President Christopher Williams restated the key points that have all ready been made. An undated Maryborough Advertiser newspaper cutting written by Campbell Ward reported on the draft amendments.81 The article included these extracts:

… a representative of Charter Union Gold, which last week received a planning permit from the Shire to reopen the Cambrian Mine at Llanelly, said the amendments were a ‘very big worry to the company. From our point f view we have to object – it’s our lifeline.’ And it is not only the mining companies which are concerned. A number of Shire Councillors have also expressed doubts about the viability of the amendments. Councillor Alf Freemantle said another mining boom would bring ‘an enormous amount of money to this poor town. I’ve heard a lot about tourism but I think this mining thing is the way to go to employ our local labour.’ He said. Councillor Bob Raven, while agreeing with the need to have controlled mining within the Shire, said that he didn’t know that the Interim Development Order would work and labelled the amendments ‘a deterrent to stop mining. The way I see it you’re doing a lot of damage’, Cr. Raven told the council meeting. However, an advocate of the amendments, Cr. Graeme Brownbill said that while they were designed to specifically help the small miner, they wouldn’t stop any large operations. ‘Tourism and mining can work together,’ Cr Brownbill said. ‘The only thing they (the mining companies) are crook at is that they've got to come to council’, he said. ‘If you're a ratepayer you have to come to this council to do things. Why are these people different?’ Councillor Brownbill said that the council would not get mining prohibited in half the areas it had requested, predicting ‘we'll be lucky to get a quarter’. However, he said it was likely that the amendments would have to re-worded and further addendums put in. Councillor Williams also warned that the Council could expect to face pressure on it from mining concerns. ‘We've got to have consensus. I'm concerned that we're making a big public issue out of this’. The amendments are on display until March 2 at the Shire Offices in Dunolly, the Ministry for Planning and Environment's regional office in Bendigo or the Ministry's head office in Melbourne.

Interim Development Order Amendment Bet Bet Shire, Frank Kopacka, February 1988 Frank Kopacka and his wife Peggy responded to this issue quickly with a February 10th letter to Council that contains interesting observations on land usage.

80 F88 Bendigo Advertiser news clipping Shire seeks to protect triangle' & Shire ready for a fight February 8th 1988 81 F88 Bendigo Advertiser news clipping Shire seeks to protect triangle' & Shire ready for a fight February 8th 1988 50 82My wife and I came to Dunolly in 1976 to build our home and to prospect and mine for gold. We have brought money into this town. We have worked on our land and on our mining claims, and always to the satisfaction of all authorities, including the Mining Inspectors. While have found gold, a lot of gold - and we have made quite an important contribution to the export market of this nation, but mainly to the economy of this town. We have given work to the earthmoving contractors, engineers, mechanics and business to the local merchants and shopkeepers. We are astonished to find that the Bet Bet Shire Council wishes to destroy our endeavours, by taking from us the land (crown land) we are working now, and the land we might be working in the future. It is nonsense to pretend, that the Bet Bet Shire wishes to regulate mining if it takes from us all the land that contains gold. This so-called regulation means prohibition of all alluvial mining. The small miner can work only the ground where he finds gold already separated from its matrix. Hard rock is for companies with millions of dollars to spend. Dunolly’s Motto: Home of the Gold and Grain. The ‘grain’ is already lost - The silo is empty - The workforce dismissed. In the paddocks where once wheat and barley was growing, you will see some hobby farms, a lot of shacks, garages and dilapidated caravans. So much for the ‘grain’. Your above mentioned Amendment (if passed), will destroy the word ‘Gold’, appearing on that beautiful board you see just before you enter our town. These by-laws will create more unemployment, poverty and enlarge the ever increasing welfare bill, not mentioning ‘anger and hostility’. We also ask: How will this affect the wood and timber cutters, and the sportsmen - shooters? Will then the farmers be on their own - when this socialist government starts interfering and taking the rights to their land? Stop the tradition of gold mining, if you wish, deprive us, yourself and your children of this right but, gentlemen, never say: ‘We did not know -We have been misled or misused.’ We are telling you now: You are being misled and misused by people operating behind the scenes - the ones who prepared and put this insidious document on your table. Reject it, please. Sincerely yours, Patricia Kopacka & Frank Kopacka

The comments about shacks and caravans are referring to the increase in ‘blockies’ also known as hobby farmers. Farmers were experiencing hard times due to high interest rates and declining markets for Australian produce as the European Common Market farming sector increased its subsidised infiltration into our traditional markets. One response from farmers was to subdivide land and sell. Farmland was broken up and purchased by people seeking their little bit of paradise – people who were generally ignorant of the broader issues. Anne Doran, who became the Bet Bet Shire’s first woman Councillor in late 1988 spoke to the author in 2006 about the complex circumstances of the time:

…there were the farmers and miners who had been in the area for generations. With the gold came new miners to the area and the blockies came when the farmers sold up good productive land into useless patches. There were crooked company mining interests and vocal greenies. There were constantly shifting rules about mining that appeased nobody, the requirement for Planning Schemes that pleased none. In the middle of all this was a bunch of mostly farmers called the Bet Bet Shire Council. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, we (Henry and Anne Doran) have been farmers, timber cutters and earthmoving contractors as well as miners, so we know the problems.

The issue of hobby farms or blockies was not new. The Maryborough Advertiser April 7th 1981 had this article. (Author unknown). 83The impact of hobby farms on Australian Agriculture will be the highlight topic during the two day ALP conference to be held in Ballarat on Saturday and Sunday, April 11 and 12 The conference will be convened by the Federal Opposition spokesman on Primary Industry Mr John Kerin. He said that friction between hobby farmers and full time farmers was becoming common place and should be discussed openly. Mr Kerin said that although there was a wide acceptance of the rights of individuals to live in the country on their own block of land there must be recognition of the problems that arise.

82 E88 Letter to Shire of Bet Bet from Frank Kopacka re Interim Development Order February 10th 1988 83 H81a. Maryborough Advertiser author not named: Impact of Hobby Farms. April 7th 1981 51 The issue also arises in another Maryborough Advertiser article dated April 4th 1984. The article is a reprint of a letter to Mr Pekin of the Bet Bet Shire (Dunolly) from The Secretary of the Maryborough Welfare Group, Mr J.G. Kerr.

84I refer to your letter of 17th February, 1983, in relation to the problem of persons purchasing rural farmlet type allotments on developer terms at high interest rates. Whilst I acknowledge this is a problem in my Shire, in most of these cases we do not know these types of property have been sold until we receive a notice of Disposition from the developer (which is usually months after the sale has taken place). The usual story is that people (inevitably from Melbourne and suburbs of limited means) purchase these allotments without ever inspecting the land first. They then tend to make inquiries with us about building (usually sheds as they cannot afford to build a dwelling) and the like, quite often to be shocked by restrictions that are incumbent on that land. We will endeavour in future to warn people who make enquiries with us before purchasing these allotments of the difficulties they face.

The Welcome Record Vol. 3 No. 3 February 19th 198885, Dunolly’s local weekly newspaper, reported on the Interim Development Order overview and added that Councillor Williams made the following specific point in response to the numerous rumours.

Farmers will not be prohibited from grazing animals in the historic mine areas.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Bet Bet Shire, Response Submissions, February 1988 The archive contains a collection of submissions regarding the proposed Interim Development Order Amendment.86 They are presented in order by date: February 2nd The Rural Water Commission stated.

The Commission raises no objection to this proposal however please note that provisions of the Victorian Building Regulations should be complied with in regard to any development on land liable to flooding.

February 5th. Ian Parker, a miner from Moliagul, wrote that he had three claims: 709, 703 and 669. He wrote about his spending of $20,000 establishing open cuts and the setting up of plant and about the existing requirements under the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. He commented that visitors to the area seem non-existent and said that old diggings are of no interest to tourists. He also felt that the proposal had little to do with controlling mining but would instead stop it altogether. In reference to his claims and expenditure Ian Parker concluded bluntly.

There is no way that I will stop mining in these areas.

February 11th A brief letter from Mrs V. Galloway supported the proposal to stop bulldozing and open cut mining in Dunolly. Her address was Kangaroo Flat. (Bendigo)

February 15th A.G. Leech and K.A. Leech bought many tailings heaps on private land for road base and objected to the prohibition on removing tailings heaps.

Our objection is based on that these heaps were purchased to be used as required as material for our business. We have been using this material for many years and intend to keep on using it to earn a living.

84 I84a. Maryborough Advertiser: Letters re the terms and conditions of rural land purchases April 4th 1984 85 E88a. Welcome Record Vol. 3 No. 3 February 19th 1988 86 J88 Collection of submissions made to Shire of Bet Bet re Interim Development Order march 1988 52 February 17th The Bet Bet Mining Company.

Firstly because the proposed amendment would directly affect our lease around the Welcome Stranger Monument area. As this monument is already covered under a reserve the necessity for further restrictions seems unwarranted. Having already established an open cut and shaft operation, from which we extract ore to feed our 1.5 million dollar crusher at Eaglehawk. Any ban on mining would severely curtail our operations, which would in turn mean loss of jobs, and production starting in the millions. We would therefore have to claim compensation for the same. As we have several other leases in the area, compensation could become quite expensive. D.L. Cairns Company Secretary.

February 22nd The Daly family have been in Dunolly since at least the 1856 goldrush running a range of business activities over the decades. Tom Daly, who ran a general merchant store, wrote in support of what amounts to the Mines Act requirements, but with a specific point.

Policy makers should be looking to the future as this mini – mining boom will not last forever – agriculture will.

He was concerned that landowners would be left with the mess, expense and restoration problems. He pointed out that a rate-paying landowner should not have restrictions on the landowner’s decision to restore previously mined ground putting it back into agricultural production. This was in respect of old diggings on private land that now came under protection zones, not recent mining activities.

February 29th Russell and Gavin Stephens wrote in their submission:

We have read with alarm your Interim Development Order which intends to sacrifice miners and associated business for the tourist dollar.

They requested information about tourism surveys pointing out that tourists prefer places like Bendigo, Ballarat, Swan Hill and Warrnambool if interested in historical mining and early Australiana.

Dunolly would not collect much more than the dust of their tourist coaches as they passed through town heading for the larger centres. To be fair, how long can an old diggers hole or mullock heap hold the attention of your average visitor? It is the locals; farmers, forestry associated industries and miners who keep the town alive. Since your Interim Development Order clearly intends prevention of the removal of trees and disturbance of flora, only a very naive person would believe that with the expulsion of mining, forestry related industries would be allowed to continue.

The letter suggests the Government of the day appoint more Mines Inspectors rather than the Shire of Bet Bet taking on the role of Mining Warden and provoking expensive litigation.

February 23rd Ballarat Goldfields Ltd had some interesting points.

We take the view that the heritage of the old diggings is essentially due to the fact that gold has been mined on those areas. That is, the original value to European settlers was the gold content of those lands. This fact remains, and is evident in the prospecting and development activity in the goldfields within the Bet Bet Shire. The underlying cause is the geological environment underlying the Shire, and this will never change. Point 10.7 proposes to give the Council, through the planning mechanism, powers to over-ride those with authorisation to search work and prospect under the Mines Act. We submit that this power is excessive, and particularly as it involves judgements (as to amenity and other intangibles) which if made solely by Council on the advice of its officer's would be biased against proper utilisation of gold and mineral resources. We, for example, object to the inclusion of the areas around Moliagul as Historic Mine Areas subject to blanket controls (this is not the sole area subject to objection by us). We would not object to a site, which in truth can be shown to have special historic significance being set aside for reasons of tourism. Our knowledge of mining history 53 in the Moliagul vicinity suggests that the places of special significance are small in area. In our opinion the general landscape about Moliagul is one which, if it is to be held in a planning scheme as a discrete area, should be held for gold recovery as its primary purpose.

February 25th G.A. Travis for Ranger Exploration commences by noting the admirable objectives driving the amendments to the Interim Development Order, then details why implementing it would be a poor decision. Ranger’s focus of interest is the tailings dumps, particularly the slimes, pointing out they have been reworked and moved in doing so. The tailings, except the slimes, have little potential value remaining for gold and Ranger has no interest in the mullock heaps. They list the resources in those heaps; gravel, crushed quartz and land-fill material that would interest other people. They argue that the slimes could not be regarded as having historic or visual significance. They stated they have made a significant investment of money working towards treating slimes that exist on some private properties, including the purchase of two houses and employing people. Ranger concludes with an expectation that the Interim Development Order will be modified.

February 25th Henry and Anne Doran.

The Historic or Special Control areas outlined on map Sheet No.4 are all areas that have the most potential for alluvial gold mining in the Shire of Bet Bet. (archive does not contain a copy of the map) If these areas are to be totally closed to mining the remaining areas in the Shire will have very little attraction. The Hard Hill at Dunolly is one of these areas, which is producing gold at present. There is an amount of gold still to be taken out. The small alluvial miner on a Miner’s Right Claim must have access to peg in the areas outlined in this fourth amendment in order to promote gold production in our Shire. I do not believe that the Shire Councillors have the right to interfere in this, as the Mines Department have the necessary restraints, if they use them, to govern mining by imposing the necessary bonds ($1,500 Miner’s Right Claim) seeing that reclamation is done satisfactorily. We believe that the majority of your Councillors are not in any way involved in mining or even have a Miner’s Right. Therefore, if there is no involvement in this field, how can you give the attention to this matter that is required? As an earthmoving contractor and a miner, and having had experience with all types of mining in sluicing, testing and hard rock over the last five years, I believe I have sufficient knowledge expressing my opinion in this field. We strongly support the concern of the persons whom have signed the petition with regards to the proposed amendment, it is a worry to them that if they, as prospectors, were lucky enough to find the bonanza they could not make claim to it if mining is not allowed in all these historic areas. On further examination of this proposed amendment, we are of the opinion that Council is not going to be of any help at all to the promotion of mining. It is purely tourist promotion or support for the conservationists, because you state in your proposal the restrictions of removal of trees or shrubs and no dust to be allowed. This is all on page 12 of the Amendment. We strongly urge Council to disband the Amendment and leave the road open for a much better approach to this, whereby all the interests of miners can be considered, by perhaps a local Committee, set up specifically for this purpose.

February 29th BHP-UTAH Mineral International wrote a submission of 4 pages. They politely attack everything in the Interim Development Order as detrimental to mining and impossible to work with because the Interim Development Order requirements are incompatible with any mining activity. They point out the inconsistency of Council acknowledging the economic benefits to be derived from mining and then imposing these restrictions and then further unknown conditions in as yet unissued planning permits. A theme in their submission is that modern economic mining often requires open-cut methods because of shallow and relatively low grade but significantly sized ore bodies. Some key points from the submission general comments section.

In regard to restrictions on open-cut mining: One effect of the draft amendment would be that underground operations could conceivably be developed if all the conditions were met and the appropriate consents obtained. Due to the proposed restrictions on open-cut operations, it would be far more difficult, indeed almost impossible, to develop such a mine. This may be the Council’s intention. In regard to mining methods: 54 It simply does not make sense environmentally or economically, to pre-assign an appropriate method of extraction to a hypothetical resource, neither yet discovered nor delineated. In regard mineral location: Zoning is an inappropriate concept, given that the location of resources is not known prior to discovery. The concept of restricting exploration and mining to specific areas is unnecessarily constraining.

George H. White, Deputy Manager, Corporate Affairs for Western Mining expresses very similar views in the Western Mining Corporation submission.

F.B. Taylor, agent for Anglo Minerals, in regard to clause 15A.6 (c), raises a concern not mentioned in other known submissions.

No process or activity in relation to mineral prospecting/exploration shall be carried out so as to cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of vibration, smell, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, ash or the discharge of waste materials of any kind. Clause 15A.6 (c) of the proposal sets no criteria for the several effects set out therein and therefore the operator has no means of knowing when he may offend against the clause. …the area at Goldsborough nominated as a historic mining area appears to be a much larger area than nominated as a Historic Reserve of 7 hectares by the Land Conservation Council in the Final Recommendations for the North- Central Area of February 1981.

February 29th John Tully, known for his prospecting guides and work with the Dunolly Museum, had been in Dunolly for 8 years, fully engaged in prospecting and mining. His submission listed 11 Claims he was involved with:

All these claims are, when completed, reclaimed equal to or better than before I started. As a result there are now three good dams in the forest with ready access to fire trucks.

He issued the challenge to council to show that any of his claims have damaged the bush, citing the improvement he made to Miner’s Right Claim 1132, an area that council previously stripped for gravel, now restored by him and no longer visible. He then listed local business operators who benefited from his mining and asked what is the alternative employment if mining is shut down?

The local tourist industry will never employ what we had in the Knitting Mill or Big Silo let alone adding to it the miners, prospectors and associated industries. I spend my time in the bush and I am aware of what goes on. Quite frankly I consider the Council’s pride and joy in the Bicycle Track a complete white elephant. Only one of the tracks is used with the even the slightest regularity. The tourist interest and income generated from it would not employ a paperboy. The tourists that come to this area come here to find gold for themselves not to look at old diggings. They spend money in town. They are the tourist potential.

Mr Tully then wrote of the sales success of his prospecting maps, local maps that keep people in the area. He commented that Tullaroop and Maryborough City Councils are well known for opposing mining and that the Maryborough Caravan Park had its lowest Christmas attendance for many years while Dunolly Caravan Park was booked out. John wrote about the protected Simsons Diggings Historic Area near Maryborough and that Bet Bet Shire would now use the same Historic Area classification.

If you go there now you can see 2 signs, one saying ‘Keep Out’ and the other ‘Prospecting and Fossicking Prohibited Penalty $500’. What does this do for tourism?

Mr Tully wrote that the Interim Development Order amendment is based on the Shire of Bet Bet Conservation Strategy. He wrote that in studying the strategy he found it well presented but horribly lacking in fact. In a 2006 interview he said the strategy was in 2 volumes and not one page was without mistake. He wrote in his submission.

It has been compiled from secondary information predominantly from published books and Government records readily available in Melbourne. It was disappointing to see not one local identity listed in the credits.

55 He listed four of the more obvious errors.

Page 10 and 12. ‘The Harvest Home Dam and Queens Dam should be preserved as remains of dredging dams.’ Neither of these were dredge dams nor is it mining practice to dredge tailings from a battery. Page 33. ‘The Poseidon Mine should be preserved as it is from the last great alluvial rush.’ The site listed to be preserved is not an alluvial mine but Irvines Reef Mine dug about thirty years previous to the famous Poseidon Rush and nearly two kilometres away from it. Page 164. ‘In the Burnt Creek Valley Historic Area a split timber hut All 1 Sec IIID should be preserved.’ This is indeed a historic site being where the well-known Mt Bealiba Hotel was situated during the gold rush days. Only the foundations of this now remain. The adjacent hut recommended for preservation is not a hut but a shed and not made of split timber but built by Tommy Stevenson out of old railway sleepers. Page 29. ‘Burnt Creek No 1 Mine Historic Area Allotments 21 and 22 Section 1.’ This area was in fact prospected by the Grand Junction United Company and worked later as the Burnt Creek No 2 Mine. The Burnt Creek No 1 Mine is actually Allotment 40b Section 2. It is interesting to note also that of all the areas listed for preservation by the Land Conservation Council in 1982, only one has not been included in the fourth amendment. This is the Gooseberry Hill Tunnel near where the council is currently engaged in open-cut bulldozer mining for gravel.

Mr Tully described the transformation of Leonora in Western Australia over a period of several years due to gold:

…and have seen it grow from a run down dump to a neat little town of comparable size to Dunolly. The wealth generated by the mining has opened new shops, saved old ones and created jobs. In fact I know of three people from here (Dunolly) employed on good wages. To say that this could never happen in this Shire is a statement by someone who knows nothing of gold.

March 1st Mr J. Cahill, a geologist from Bendigo.

Of particular aversion to me, is the isolation of the Burnt Creek diggings which represent to me, as a geologist, one of the better alluvial mining prospects in the area. A conservative calculation of the potential $ earnings from the mining of Burnt Creek is greater than $10 million, using $15 per gram. The physical properties of the ground make it a simple operation to execute and monitor. This deposit is fairly unique in that it has a consistent base grade throughout the wash which will support a mining operation (at appropriate feed rates) rather than the usual nuggets or nothing alluvial mining efforts that have been undertaken in the past. Mining of the Burnt Creek lead would also present a prime opportunity for some major earth works in creek re- alignment, stabilisation and water storage. The subsequent rehabilitation programs could be tailor-made to benefit the Shire long after the operation has been completed.

March 2nd Mr and Mrs Godfrey of Seaford, a Melbourne suburb, wrote that they have been regular visitors to Dunolly for 15 years and have been working Claims to the satisfaction of the Mines Department since 1984.

I viewed with amazement the proposal to effectively ban mining, woodcutting and almost any activity other than the riding of bicycles and the running of car rallies through State Forest.

March 2nd Mr Richard Sandner of Bendigo Mining, who earlier assisted with legal work and Mines Act Amendments drafting for the Prospectors and Miners Association, presented a highly critical 8-page submission that reflects concerns expressed in many other submissions but in greater detail. He points out that since February 16th 1987, when the Planning and Environment Act came into effect, there are three planning layers to be dealt with: State, regional and local. He also points out the draconian nature because the Shire of Bet Bet Interim Development Order is not just about gold but uses the non-specific of “minerals” He then sets out various definitions under the Mines Act such as mineral production, evaluation and development, prospecting and exploration. The State does not treat hard rock and alluvial differently as does the Interim Development Order proposal and although the Interim Development Order refers to minerals, it is gold that is targeted with a blinkered approach. 56 Mr Sandner is critical of the wording used in the proposal; it is ambiguous and complex leaving it open to many interpretations. He writes that controls on land use should use simple language. He points out that the Shire’s claim that the Interim Development Order will streamline the process for mining approvals is an absurdity because the shire wants in advance planning information, methods and what plant will be employed ahead of knowing what is in the ground. Mr Sandner also points out that this Interim Development Order is public service usurping the power of the Legislature. The proposal uses Historic Areas based on Land Conservation Council recommendations as though they are law yet they have not been approved by Parliament. The encouragement of tourist prospecting on Crown lands within the Shire with metal detectors under clause 10.6 (g) offends because it is trite law that encourages another person to break a contract or commit a crime. This is because gold within a lease area is owned by the leaseholder yet the Shire has not recognised this in the proposed amendment. Mr Sandner provides this scenario of trying to get a mine started under these proposed conditions.

An alluvial miner submits the necessary methods and plant procedure and the Shire then issues the permit, an appeal is lodged, hearing held, panel determination given, permit finally issued. (The time the above procedure takes will be left to the reader’s imagination). The alluvial searcher, then with much boyish enthusiasm, commences searching and testing for gold, but alas finds alluvial deposits of low economic value. Then as if by divine intervention a hard rock target is located in the form of a quartz reef lined with indicator slate and ‘flat make' running off the main reef structure. In the excitement of such a find the Caldwell drill and excavator are removed from site and percussion drill or diamond drill summonsed to commence work. Alas notwithstanding the Mines Act tenement gives consent and the State Chapter of the Planning and Environment Act would consider it a consent use, the deposit is in the Shire of Bet Bet where a new permit would be required as the plant specified in the original permit is now altered. No longer a Caldwell drill excavator, but now a diamond drill’. The intrepid explorer rushes to lodge the new application for a planning permit with the Shire, which after due consultation with the following consultants; Landscaping 15A4.1(a), Historic 15A4.1(b), Botanist 15A4.1(c), Archaeological 15A4.1(d), Mining Engineer 15A4.1(e)(g), Occupational & Safety 15A4.1(f), Botanist 15A4.1(h), Reply form D.I.T.R. 15A4.1(i), Town Planner15A4.1(j)(l), Drainage 15A4.1(n), Traffic 15A4.1(p)(q), Health Officer 15A4.1(r) – issues the permit. There is an appeal, a hearing is finalised, a determination given, and a permit finalised. Once again the writer will leave the reader to imagine the time which has elapsed for the above procedure to occur. Let us not tarry. The explorer has his drill on site and there are two weeks before the Exploration Licence concludes its first two years. The importance of this is that ground must be dropped, and leases marked out, if protection of the find is to be retained by the explorer who found the reef. Drill results are obtained, they are encouraging, soil testing grid patterns show that the reef has changed course and is now proceeding from the Special Control Area Table 4 to Special Control Area Table 3, a scenic bicycle track is now only 55 metres away, but no, another change of direction of the reef to a Table 1 Historic Mining Area. Our explorer now walks with the familiar army of consultants to the Shire of Bet Bet to apply for a new permit to allow exploration in the Historic Area. The procedure detailed previously is repeated. Time has elapsed, but results have been encouraging and it is decided to test a developed mining phase to ensure the deposit is capable of sustaining a mining phase that is profitable to the explorer. Our explorer now writes to the Shire of Bet Bet lodging an application for an open cut hard rock development or trial mining phase and the necessary consultants reports are also sent by mail. For some inextricable reason the deposit traverses ‘Special Control Areas’ for (a) habitat (which has grown in area as a bird has now nested in a tree to eat food scraps left by the Exploration Companies ground staff), (b) Flora, (c) Historical, but has not traversed the town boundary. However, our deposit is now caught by clause 15A.7(i) for it is 1 metre below surface, 4 metres wide with a strike length of 2 kilometres and an expected mining grade of 6 grams per tonne gold, but for some reason does not penetrate to a greater depth than 6 metres. This means that it is not capable of being mined from ‘underground’ and may have something to do with ‘supergene’ enrichment. Thus because this deposit falls within the Shire of Bet Bet it cannot contribute its full potential to Australia’s balance of payments, (gold sold overseas) to employment in the Shire of Bet Bet, but it has created a monolith of consultants who do not contribute directly to employment in the Shire of Bet Bet. Consultants all live in Melbourne but ride off the coat tails of exploration projects in the Shire of Bet Bet, but then again where was the amendment No.4 written, Dunolly or Melbourne? 57 Interim Development Order and the Land Conservation Council, March 1988 A letter from the Land Conservation Council to J.A. Thompson, the Bet Bet Shire Secretary dated March 3rd 1988,87 reveals that the Land Conservation Council first received a copy of the proposed amendments on September 23 rd 1987. The letter states that the Land Conservation Council response dated November 4th pointed out that in August 1982 the Government had accepted recommendations for mining and prospecting on public land, which means the proposed Interim Development Order amendments needed to be modified to reflect those accepted recommendations. The March 4th letter notes that changes have been made to the Interim Development Order proposal but more changes are needed in respect of the prohibition on removing tailings. The Land Conservation Council inference in the March 3rd letter is the original Interim Development Order proposal was far more restrictive, as suggested in this extract from the Land Conservation Council letter to Bet Bet Shire.

While the amendment as it is now proposed no longer specifically prohibits certain types of mining, it nevertheless still prohibits the removal of tailings. Council believes that, in order that the Interim Development Order be consistent with the Government-approved recommendation, that tailings removal be removed from column 3 and included in column 2, thus ensuring that this activity, where not inconsistent with the Government-approved recommendation, will still be possible. Signed Sandra M. Whitty, Secretary.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Response, March 1988 T.A. Pratt, Acting General Manager, minerals, wrote to Bet Bet Shire on March 16th 1988 regarding the proposed Interim Development Order amendments.88 The 3 page letter can be summed up as a statement of objections to proposals that are inconsistent with the Mines Act legislation and guidelines. The Department objected to Council re-classing eductor dredges operating in streams from prospecting/exploration into evaluation/development because the licensing system for dredges did not involve any mining titles. The Department objected to introducing the word mullock into the definition of tailings, which is not consistent with the Mines Act. The Department felt that the site clearing provisions were too restrictive and not consistent with guidelines. They pointed out that a ban on open-cut mining and bulldozing in a range of planning zones would see those gold areas sterilised by such blanket banning. The Department wrote that the objectives and controls should first acknowledge the high mineral values then list the other values with the aim of the amendment to harmonise mining with these values. They were critical of the objectives to maintain the potential of archaeological research, historical research and tourist prospecting as it is a very broad objective. The Department advised that specific sites should be defined so that substantial areas are not sterilised from mining and was critical of the prohibition of tailings removal because it sterilises their mineral value. The Department advised that there is an interdepartmental committee convened by Conservation, Forests and Lands which studies historic mining sites, which should be consulted, not the Victorian Archaeological Survey and any such consultation should not delay processing of a permit. The seeking of advice from Conservation, Forests and Lands about habitat significance should not unduly delay processing a permit or allocate veto powers. The Department pointed out that under the Land Conservation Council, most of the Crown land area under consideration was recommended as hardwood production.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet Sub-Committee, March 1988 The Welcome Record Volume 3 Number 7, March 18th 198889, reported that the Interim Development Order amendments were to be referred back to a Sub-Committee with local business man Ken Roberts, well known miner Frank Kopacka and Terry Johanson from the Chamber of Mines on the sub-committee. Also on the sub-committee, Mr E. Jones for the Loddon Campaspe Regional Planning Authority, Ms A. Moroney for the Ministry of Planning and Environment and Dr C. McConville, Historian.

87 J88 Collection of submissions made to Shire of Bet Bet re Interim Development Order march 1988 88 P88 Letter to Shire of Bet Bet from Department of Industry, Technology and Resources re Interim Development Order March 16th 1988 89 Q88 Welcome Record Volume 3 Number 7, March 18th 1988 58 From the Welcome Record Volume 3 Number 7, March 18th 1988.

90 Councillor Williams said that it was important for Council to involve the views of all parties in preparation of the amendment. The Sub-Committee is to report its findings to Council on 27th April 1988. At this stage, Council proposes to exhibit a modified amendment after the 27th for four weeks.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, April 1988 Frank Kopacka received a copy of the previously considered March 16th Department of Industry, Technology and Resources letter. Frank wrote to Trevor Pratt, Acting General Manager of Minerals on April 29th about the dramatic April 27th meeting held at the Council chamber. He thanked Mr Pratt for the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources submission as it helped to defeat the proposal.91

This however did not stop the Council from making the goldminers life very difficult. They found another way: Every time your Department sends them the particulars of a Claim that has been granted by you and a bond paid to you they immediately ask the new Claim holder to fill in an application for a planning permit. As soon as he or she completes this very simple and innocent looking piece of paper they issue a planning permit with many restrictive conditions and a demand for a further $2000 as a rehabilitation bond to be lodged with the Shire. There was a Council meeting on the 27th of April. I was appealing against this order on behalf of one of these unfortunate miners (or better, victims). My pleas fell on ground made of hard granite. Your Department was being consistently attacked during the hearing by a number of councillors. Yet, when challenged, they could not give one example where you went wrong.

A brief handwritten note by Councillor Alf Freemantle dated April 28th to Frank Kopacka was in regard to the April 27th Council meeting.92 Councillor Freemantle expresses his dilemma at trying to help the miners by arguing to reduce the bond from $2000 to $1000, then finding that since he proposed this bond he must then support it. He states in the note:

I believe small miners should not have to pay for a bond. I would like you to make this clear to your members.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, May 1988 John Tully, in a letter dated May 3rd, thanked Legislative Assembly Member Bruce Reid for meeting with him on the previous Monday (May 2nd).93 The meeting however was an accident. John Tully, Thelma and Lindsay Rainbow were finishing off some minor reclamation work on a claim when Members of Parliament, Bruce Reid, David Kennedy and an entourage of Councillors arrived subsequent to an invitation made by Council. John found out latter that a person not named alleged the 60 metres buffer rule from a specified road was being broken. Rather than check first there was a surprise inspection to view the damage. John recalled that they were indeed surprised. In the May 3rd letter John writes about the Rainbows and Council activities.

Let me introduce you now to Thelma and Lindsay Rainbow. Like many others they fossick around and occasionally find a patch of gold. On one of these they have pegged MRC 2141 where we all met with you. Not having any equipment of their own, I am invited in on a share basis to work the claim. In short it is best if I list our problems and proposals. Three Mines Inspectors for Victoria are not enough. They are doing a good job but too slow. Bond money and mining equipment can be tied up for too long at a time. This is biased towards mining companies with ‘unlimited’ shareholders money and real estaters who don’t intend mining anyway. Council should not hold bonds on mining claims. On MRC 2141 (T.M. Rainbow) The Mines Inspector visited the site and read our working proposals. From his experience he could see it was not a case of removing the top one- metre off the entire hectare and requested a $1000 bond to cover the realistic cost of reclaiming the area if we walk away. If we did something irresponsible or beyond the Mines Inspector’s expectations then the Mines Department has the right to sue if reclamation costs exceed $1000. On this claim the councillors did not understand what we were going to do until it had been done. They are simply not qualified to judge in such

90 Q88 Welcome Record Volume 3 Number 7, March 18th 1988 91 AJ88. Letter to Department of Industry, Technology and Resources from Frank Kopacka re Shire of Bet Bet Council meeting & other notes April 29th 1988 92 AJ88. Letter to Department of Industry, Technology and Resources from Frank Kopacka re Shire of Bet Bet Council meeting & other notes April 29th 1988 93 AF88. Letter to Bruce Reid from John Tully re meeting about claims and Shire of Bet Bet Interim Development Order may 3rd 1988 59 matters. As David Kennedy admitted at the tour he had no idea how much it would cost to reclaim as it stood. Furthermore, the Mines Department will not issue a claim without prior consultation with the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Soil Conservation Authority and any others it considers involved. Basically, the system works don't change it. Rating of mining tenements. The Shire of Bet Bet proposes that all mining claims be rateable. These tenements are in fact leased Crown land (private land being already rateable) yet rates are not charged by the Shire on other Crown land that is leased for farming or grazing purposes. Restrictive conditions on claims by Council beyond Mines Department conditions. This power infringes the pecuniary interests some Shire of Bete Bet Councillors. These Councillors have Claims or Leases over their own land. There is the possibility of restricting a Claim, whether private land or not, to the extent of it being unviable, after which it is pegged by another. Or as is already happening in this Shire some landowners are receiving large compensation pay-offs by mining companies on their land. It is not good to place with Councillors the power to decide about a claim on personal financial grounds rather than by its own merits.

The comment that David Kennedy had no idea about the cost of reclamation is a concern given that David Kennedy had been subjected to extensive lobbying by Douglas Kemsley, Christopher Davey and many others over many years. The Welcome Record of May 20th 198894 contains an article by John Tully that informed the reader the visiting party was able to see and understand that mining involves only a portion of the claim and included progressive reclamation.

On this claim Councillor Brownbill stated that he ‘did not object to mining when it is carried out like this’ and ‘this claim will come back better than the ground not mined’. I find this attitude common amongst people when they first find out what mining is all about. To the person driving past a mine in progress it often appears to be an unorganised mess, much like a partly built house. But as each section of a claim is finished the disturbed land settles, retaining moisture, and regrowth becomes as good if not better than the surrounding ground.

The Maryborough Advertiser of May 4th 1988 has an article by Campbell Ward reported that a miner threatened to shoot Councillors: ‘Shoot Threat at Bet Bet’s Meeting.’ 95 The article reported that 30 miners were in attendance at the April 27th meeting in the Council chamber. Campbell Ward wrote of but did not identify John Everett,96 the man making the threats.

The conclusion of voting prompted several heated outbursts, with one man shouting at the Councillors ‘You’re not going to wreck the mining – if I have to shoot you!’ Addressing the Shire President, Councillor Chris Williams, the same man said he would ‘have your guts for garters before I’ve finished with you.’

Campbell Ward reported that outside the meeting the PMAV President Noel Laidlaw labelled the council decision a charade and said that the council was unique in the stance it had adopted. Noel Laidlaw said.

I expected the Council to show a bit of good sense, and obviously the good sense was not shown. The meeting took two hours including a period when Council met in camera. Frank Kopacka was reported as saying, during the debate in the morning, that Dunolly was already becoming infamous for its anti-mining attitude. Campbell Ward reported.

Frank Kopacka appeared before the Council on behalf of one of the miners who had lodged an objection over the question of the extra $2000 bond. He said the miner was an invalid pensioner with a severe heart condition who was now practically penniless after being forced to sell his caravan to pay the Department’s bond. ‘His only mistake was using his Miner’s Right and pegging a claim inside the Shire boundaries,’ Mr Kopacka said.

Councillor Colin Silke said the additional bonds were imposed because there were now so many eyesores in the Shire.

We became frustrated at the claims in the Shire not being rehabilitated. It was the only step we could take to ensure these problems became a lot less.

94 AP88 Welcome Record Vol. 3 No. 14 May 20th 1988 95 AG88 Maryborough Advertiser news clipping: Shoot threat at Bet Bet's Meeting, Campbell Ward May 4th 1988 96 Advised by John Tully. 60 Councillor Williams refused to give a specific example but said one claim had been left in a bloody schmozzle and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources had not done anything about it for two years. He described the Department as bureaucratic body that set rules in Melbourne and then didn’t want to go out and police them. Following this line of complaint, Mines Inspector Neal Beachley invited the Council to compile a list of claims not being worked and present this to the Mining Warden for action. Campbell Ward quoted Noel Laidlaw.

It was reprehensible of Council to use the prospectors as pawns in a bid to get the Department to enforce the rules out in the field. I would hate to think that a decision which, by the Councillors’ own admission, wasn’t properly considered. Mr Laidlaw said the council was taking action against the prospectors instead of where the buck stops, which is the Minister’s door.

In discussing the events of 1988 in 2006, John Tully told the author he was at the meeting when the threats were made. After the lunchbreak everyone filed back into the room. John described it as a small room for the size of the meeting, so a lot of people had to stand; John took up a position behind the chair of Councillor Brownbill. During the lunch break John had gone home then returned with a cassette recorder with a lead microphone. On seeing this recorder the councillors became very cautious of what they said as John clearly aimed the microphone toward various speakers. Councillor Brownbill, who was apparently not in a civil mood, did not notice as other Councillors tried to shush him. John does not know if the recorder had an influence on decisions that day but it certainly moderated their behaviour. I was very interested in this recording and asked him if he still had it. He smiled and said: “There wasn’t any tape in the recorder”. On the same date and in the same paper as the Campbell Ward article in the Maryborough Advertiser, May 4th, John Higgins wrote an article titled ‘Majority view is now heard.’ He reported that the Shire of Bet Bet had taken a stronger stand against mining because of the growing outrage by district people over the destruction of State forest.

97The State Government has refused to protect forest and in at least one controversial case, caused outrage by supporting a miner against Government officers who tried to prevent that miner illegally bulldozing an area of forest.

The article continues by stating that there is public pressure for a tougher stand against miners on the grounds of desecrated forests and that the miners destroying the landscape are not mainly local people and seem to be only interested in a quick dollar. Inquiries by the author failed to find if a list of mining offenders was ever compiled or any material that supported the words ‘majority view’ in the article title. The article by John Higgins used strong emotive key words to bias the article: “destruction”, “refused to protect”, “outrage” and “desecrated”. He reported that Government would support the illegal activity of a miner illegally bulldozing an area of forest. Asking around, this author learnt that John Higgins was not regarded as presenting a balanced view on mining but Campbell Ward was well respected. In asking what ever happened about the eye-sore mining claims the author was told that there were cowboys among the miners, but not many. The eyesores alluded to by Council were generally small companies that went broke and just walked away leaving the mess. A company is a legal entity and if it goes broke or ceases to exist the people involved have no claim against them. Some of these company failures were on 5-hectare Claims and so by default Claims were seen as a problem, as was the lack of Mining Inspectors. In truth it seems that Victorian mining law was woefully inadequate in controlling or holding small company mining operations responsible for their actions, or inaction as the case may be. The Welcome Record of May13th ran a letter about mining and unsightly areas written by Dunolly district resident Dave Haden.

98 Dear Sir, I was not very impressed with the attitude of some Councillors regarding unsightly areas caused by gold miners in the Shire. I refer to remarks made by Councillors Silke and Williams in the Maryborough Advertiser of May 4th. For starters, if these gentlemen wish to see unsightly areas they should visit the Council dumping site at the rear of Dunolly Hospital. Then take a trip to Bromley and view the dredge heaps where Council removal of gravel has left a mess deserving more expletives than those used by Councillor Williams. Boyds Hill is another example along with those described by other contributors to the Record.

97 AH88. Maryborough Advertiser news clipping: 'Majority view now heard', John Higgins May 4th 1988 98 AP88. Welcome Record Vol. 3 No. 14 May 20th 1988 61 What effort has Council ever made to rehabilitate any of those areas? If Council intends to extort bonds from miners, will they expect ratepayers to pay to reinstate their mistakes? Only recently I conducted a Tourist Coach around the Shire and Dunolly Township. Driving from the Catholic Church down Alice Street the tourists likened the Council Depot to a wrecker’s yard, which I could not deny. How do you describe this to a coach load of tourists? No matter what their views, all tourists are needed in Dunolly and are mostly interested in gold mining. If prospectors are going to be denied their rights to pursue prospecting operations it must surely be harmful to Dunolly and the Shire as a tourist area.

In a letter dated May 9th 1988 sent to Frank Kopacka, Trevor Pratt of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources responded to Frank’s letter of April 29th. The letter states the Department is aware of and is concerned about mining within the Shire.

99Of particular concern are the rehabilitation bonds being placed on operations by the Shire in addition to those imposed by the Department in consultation with the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands.

An A4 size flyer appeared advertising a miners’ meeting at Dunolly’s Railway Hotel for Tuesday, May 10th 7.30pm. Extracts from the poster.

100Several months ago the Shire of Bet Bet said that three new Miner’s Right Claims within the Shire should have planning permits on them and they asked the miners to apply for permits. This they did and the Council put $2000 bonds on each Claim and imposed more conditions. On Wednesday the 27th of April a further meeting was held at the Shire Offices. The miners along with the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria and the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources appealed to the Council to remove the bonds and other restrictions. The Council refused to do so. They reduced the bond to $1000. They admitted they had not visited the sites. They said they were doing it to make a point to the State Government about the lack of Mines Inspectors. By their own admission the Council is playing politics with the money and the affairs of the miners. The Council has neither the experience nor the knowledge to involve itself in these mining affairs. It does not have the power to demand this money.

This notice followed the May 7th inaugural meeting of the Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group. A list of names notes that 54 people were present.101 The Council held a special meeting on May 11th to deal with several matters. One those matters recorded in the notes for the meeting was the placement of bonds on Miner’s Right Claims.

Following the decision of Council at the last ordinary meeting it has come to the attention of Council Officers that in defiance of the Planning Permits mining operations have commenced on at least one Claim (Rainbow). Council will recall that operations were not to commence until the surety is paid. Not withstanding that the Claims may be being operated in accordance with the Mines Act, the Planning and Environment Act is being contravened. In the case of the Rainbows they have been alerted to this fact. Clause 126 of the Planning and Environment Act stipulates that it is an offence to use or develop land in contravention of a permit. Any person found guilty of an offence is liable to a penalty of not more than $4000 for a first offence and not more than $6000 for a second or subsequent offence.

A letter from the Bet Bet Shire dated May 16th sent to Mrs Thelma Rainbow.

102Dear Madam, Re: contravention of conditions - permit no. 150/1987 It has come to Councils attention that you are operating your Miners Right Claim No. 2141 in contravention to condition No.7 (as amended) of Planning Permit No. 150/1987. Council has directed that the surety of $1,000 be submitted to the Shire Office within 14 days from the date hereof. If the surety is not submitted within the stipulated time period Council intends commencing prosecution proceedings in accordance with the powers vested in it by the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

99 AJ88a. Bet Bet Mining Group inaugural meeting names list may 7th 1988 100 AL88. Miners' meeting, public notice for the Railway Hotel, Dunolly May 10th 1988 101 AI88a Bet Bet Mining Group inaugural meeting names list May 7th 1988 102 AT88 Letter to Mrs Rainbow from Shire of Bet Bet re planning contravention May 16th 1988 62 I would advise that the said Act states that any person found guilty of an offence is liable to a penalty of not more than $4,000 for a first offence. If the contravention is of a continuing nature, a further penalty of not more than $400 applies for each day during which the contravention continues after conviction. Signed J. Thompson, Shire Secretary

Also on the 16th of May 1988 Anne Doran wrote to three politicians, Bernie Dunn, Ken Wright, both of Bendigo and the Premier John Cain regarding the Bet Bet Shire Interim Development Order.103 In the letters, which are essentially the same in content, she writes of the formation of the Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group, of which she is secretary and now under the umbrella of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. Anne Doran asserts that Interim Development Order Amendment No. 4 is based on a study by historian Dr C. McConville and at a cost of $35,000 was designed to stop mining and other activities such as timber cutting and sporting shooting over most Crown lands. She advises that Council was not satisfied with that and imposed a $2000 reclamation bond on top of the $1,500 bond imposed by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. Anne Doran wrote.

104The nine Councillors of the Shire of Bet Bet are made up of seven farmers and due to the fact that a small miner happened to peg on one of the farmer-councillor’s land, we feel that Councils decision by imposing the bonds and planning permits was done with a vested interest and not as an unbiased Council decision. We, the small miners, strongly oppose Council for interfering in the control of mining, as the Councillors have neither the knowledge or nor the experience to deal with such matters.

Contained in the same letter Anne Doran advised that the small mining group strongly supported Minister Robert Fordham in retaining complete control of mining. Also raised as a concern by the new mining group were comments made by Mr Johanson of the Chamber of Mines, an employee of Western Mining, telling the group the Miner’s Right is to be abolished. (No one realised then that this threat was genuine) On the same date, May 16th, Frank Kopacka wrote again to Trevor Pratt of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources.105 He advised Mr Pratt about the additional bonds and the threat of legal action by the Bet Bet Shire Council. The Department of Industry, Technology and Resources responded in a letter dated June 7 th that cryptically advises:106

A new approach to the setting of bonds by Department of Industry, Technology and Resources is now being considered.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, June 1988 The potential for legal action was taken seriously by the new mining group and a legal opinion sought by Frank Kopacka. The following extract was sent to Frank Kopacka from B.T. Heydon and A.M. Wright of Remington and Co, solicitors in Castlemaine, dated June 7th 107:

In our opinion on the facts presented to us by Mrs T. Rainbow we advise that the surety of $1,000 is ultra vires to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1958 No.6299. Part IX of the said Act deals with the funds and Revenues of the Municipalities and Section 243 deals with the ordinary revenue of the body corporate. Section 243 (1)(d) indicates that the ordinary revenue of every municipality shall consist of all other monies which the Council may receive under or in pursuance of this or any other Act not being the proceeds of any loan. Sub Sections (1)(a)(b) and (c) are not applicable. Before one turns to any other Act of Parliament we refer to Section 251 which is to be found in Part X of the said Act. Division 1 of Part X deals with Rateable Property which is all land except the following; (a) land the property of the Crown in the right of the State of Victoria which is unoccupied; (d) land used exclusively for mining purposes. Section 253 of the said Act gives you a definition of ‘land used exclusively for mining purposes’ and this means all lands held or hereafter to be held as a claim under a miners right for mining purposes, or included or hereafter

103 AQ88 Letter to Ken Wright from Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group May 16th 1988; R88 Shire of Bet Bet meeting march 22nd 1988, AS88 Letter to Bernie Dunne from Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group May 16th 1988 104 AQ88 Letter to Ken Wright from Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group May 16th 1988 105 Referred to in AZ88. 106 AZ88. Letter to Frank Kopacka from T.A. Pratt re rehabilitation bond on Rainbow Miner's Right Claim June 7th 1988 107 AY88. Letter to Frank Kopacka from Remington and Co Solicitors re Rainbow Miner's Right Claim June 7th 1988 63 to be included in any lease granted by the Crown for mining purposes. There are other matters covered by the definition. The Council proposes to proceed with the prosecutions pursuant to its alleged powers vested in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which would no doubt give it power to do so pursuant to Section 243 (1)(d) but we submit that Section 251 of the said Act would override this provision. We are unable to advise you further until the Summons has been issued and particulars in the Summons indicate how the Council is going to proceed. We would be pleased if you would inform Mrs Rainbow that she must not delay sending the Summons to us as soon as she receives it and we thank you for instructing us. We enclose herewith our bill of costs which we are sending to you because it did appear from the meeting that the proposed prosecution was of concern to all the miners - the Shire of Bet Bet. Please keep this letter confidential, it would not be wise to inform the Council as to how we propose to meet its case.

Interim Development Order Amendment, Shire of Bet Bet, August 1988 Nothing came of the threatened action against the Rainbows by the Shire of Bet Bet over paying the additional bond. Extracts from a newspaper report titled ‘Bet Bet Avoids a Fight,’ Maryborough Advertiser dated August 10th 1988. The author is not named.

108Bet Bet Shire Council has taken the last step for avoiding a confrontation with the shire’s miners. The miners, angry over the imposition of reclamation bonds by the Council on top of those already required by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, had vowed to disobey Council directives and keep working their claims, even under the threat of a fine or gaol term. But in the last meeting of the outgoing council, retiring Councillor Bob Raven’s notice of motion revoked the Council’s earlier decision. Councillor Raven said that although he disapproved of Council imposing the bonds in the first place, it had really gained a lot. ‘I feel bonds are necessary and it’s not Council’s responsibility to be placing bonds on miners, it’s up to Department of Industry, Technology and Resources’, Councillor Raven said. ‘It’s a shame that Council had to take that action.’ The Department has since written to the Council advising that it will consult with municipalities more before setting bonds in the future. It is also appointing extra three mining inspectors. Councillor Graham Brownbill said that although the clashes with the miners were unfortunate the Council had achieved what it set out to do. ‘We said all along we would pull out when Government Departments started to play the game,’ he said. Councillor Raven also said the State Government had ‘picked up their game enormously’.

The Eureka Echo May 1988 reported on the Interim Development Order in an article titled ‘Miners Defeat Shire Over Bonds’. The article outlines the history of the dispute and includes this information. 109The group met several times and contracted the services of an eminent barrister to fight the case. At the same time the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources was meeting with the Council to try and talk some sense to them and at the Council meeting in the last week of June, we found that all bonds and conditions had been removed. (May issue published late)

A submission to the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources from the Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group dated June 24th was mainly about the Mines Act review. The mining group submission has the Planning and Environment Act as the primary concern.

110The Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group wishes to make the following submission to the Review of the Mines Act. But first, we wish to explain why we have decided to do so. Our local Council, the Shire of Bet Bet , tried to have this area (the heart of the Golden Triangle) closed to all goldmining by proposing an amendment (No.4) to their Interim Development Order. All auriferous country was marked as Historic Areas or Fauna and Flora Reserves. The local opposition was so strong that the councillors were forced to abandon this proposal. However, they immediately invoked the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and imposed reclamation bonds of $2000 on some of the Miner’s Right Claims in addition to the usual bonds ($1000-$2000) already paid to the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. The Shire of Bet Bet encompasses the gold mining towns of Dunolly, Moliagul, Bealiba. Tarnagulla, Llanelly, Newbridge, Goldsborough, Bromley, Betley and Bet Bet.

108 BL88 Maryborough Advertiser news clipping: Bet Bet avoids a fight August 10th 1988. 109 The Eureka Echo page 3 Vol. 6 No. 2 May 1988 110 BB88. Prospectors and Miners Association submission on Mines Act Review June 27th 1988 64 The crux of the matter is: The Planning and Environment Act 1987, gives an unlimited power to local government to hinder any progress in mining in the state of Victoria. From our bitter experience we are absolutely convinced that any Mines Act in operation or preparation would be absolutely useless if the local government retains the power under the above mentioned Planning and Environment Act to frustrate the work done by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. The trouble is in the Planning Permits issued by Local Councils on mining tenements. The permits are being used, and will be used by anti-mining municipalities to stop this new developing industry. Some examples of planning permit conditions already imposed. 1. Not allowed to mine within 10, 20 or 30 metres of roads, bush tracks, fire breaks, creeks, ravines etc. This is in addition to conditions already justly imposed by 'the Mines Inspector. Trees required to be planted by the miner in natural, untouched State Forest outside his own Miner’s Right Claim boundary. 3 Miner made responsible financially and physically to erect tourist sign on alleged historic site.

An archive news item written by Campbell Ward for the Maryborough Advertiser, date not noted but probably late June or early July, is titled “Golden battle on political front”. The article is a summary of the Interim Development Order battle. There is a footnote to the article.

111At his final meeting before retiring last week, Bet Bet’s Councillor Bob Raven successfully put forward a notice of motion which revoked the Council’s earlier decision to impose its own bonds on mining claims. One Councillor said the Shire had ‘achieved what we set out to do’ after the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources had promised closer liaison with councils before setting bonds of its own and the appointment of three extra mining inspectors.

The Council claimed it was all a manipulative game to get more mining inspectors: no person directly involved that the author asked believes that was the case. Opinion says it was an anti-mining campaign led by a farmer dominated Council who did not foresee the resistance and consequences. Council oversaw the creation of uncertainty of livelihood in an already difficult time, caused fear and stress by an aggressive threatening of prosecution, the setting of interests against interests with a background of high regional unemployment (23 % in June 1987). The bicycle tracks are an idea first suggested by Ken Roberts in response to improve the district’s circumstances. Ken Roberts ran Finders gold prospecting shop in Dunolly. The bicycle tracks opened in autumn 1987 but were never a great success. Part of the bicycle track project was the installation of toilets, shelters and water at a camping ground near the Waanyarra Cemetery. The camping area became a very popular camping area for prospectors. Australian Bicycle Magazine April 1988 carried a story titled ‘The Council that bothered’ on pages 15, 16 and 17.112 The article says the Shire of Bet Bet commissioned a development group to examine ways of promoting growth in the area, using budget tourism in the form of bicycle tracks through the forest. In time and with plenty of Federal Government money the result was, a video, a detailed A3 sized map, several built or rebuilt creek crossings, a camp ground and 4 tracks ranging in length of 10 – 50 kilometres using existing bush tracks. In 2011 the markers for the tracks are well maintained; not so are the numerous ruts and washaways of the poorly maintained tracks. Prospectors are out there, without public funding, and on a rare occasion you might see a bicycle tyre mark. There are numerous bicycle tours that come into Dunolly and it cannot be argued that they are here for the trails: all the visitors have road tyres fitted. Although the bicycle tracks do not have much to do with gold they are part of the tourism philosophy and tourism will become a significant issue in further chapters.

Mines Act Review, February 1988 With the 1987 Mines Act Amendments implemented late in 1987, it was clear that no interest group was happy. In February 1988 the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, Robert Fordham, announced a major review of the Mines Act and released a paper “Review of the Mines Act – Issues for public consultation”. The Victorian Chamber of Mines may have had a good idea of what was coming as it had a response ready on February 17th with a 38 page document titled Legislative Issues”. The second page has only a few words on it but they magnificently summarise mining law in Victoria.

113A disinterested student of Victoria’s present mining law would probably conclude that its aim was generally to discourage the industry from doing anything.

111 BG88. Maryborough Advertiser: Golden Battle on a political front, Campbell Ward 112 Y88. Pages from Australian Bicycle Magazine April 1988 April 1988 113 Box Item 6 Victorian Chamber of Mines submission re review of Mines Act 1988 February 17 1988 65 The Victorian Chamber of Mines had this assertion on page one that should be noted because it was not correct in respect of the views being unanimous.

The views expressed represent all of the Victorian Chamber of Mines membership of miners, explorers and service industries.

The introduction section, after giving a brief history of the Chamber, said this about Victorian mining law.

By comparison with these other regions and States in Australia (and also many overseas mineral provinces), the legislative and regulatory framework in Victoria constitutes a very severe constraint upon the rate at which investment, exploration and development may take place. It certainly constrains and sometimes severely delays and or prevents realisation of benefits which otherwise would be available to the industry and to the Victorian community The Chamber believes that these constraints must be modified. Deliberate steps must be taken to express legislation in a way which both protects general public interest and constructively works to ensure that economic opportunities may be created and taken: that is, so Victorians can generate substantial net economic and social benefits from mining. The Chamber is conscious of, and respects the diversity of views and perceptions held in the Victorian community regarding the revitalisation of exploration and mining. It is concerned however that many of these perceptions lead to expressions of view, which in themselves demonstrate widespread lack of appreciation of the role of the mining industry in Australia.

The preface page had a paragraph devoted to explaining that mining is actually the process of work being undertaken to extract minerals. The next two paragraphs tell that the lead-up processes towards mining are often referred to as mining such as exploration, evaluation, development and the creation of a business based on all of this. The Chamber introduces the term “Mining Industry”. The section titled “The context of this issues paper” asserts that numerous conflicting interests are causing chaos which must be reviewed in the legislation. The Chamber believes that only strong legislation will provide the needed reform. There are several paragraphs describing appeals, reviews, constraints, time wasting and so on that can be simply described as a legislative mess. Mining is always a risky business and the Chamber sets out those normal risks then a list specific to Victoria that expands on the previous paragraph. The normal business risks include. Failure to discover a commercially viable deposit. Adverse price or cost movements during the life of the investment. Technical or marketing difficulties.

The risks which are seen to be excessive in Victoria.

Unforeseen or excessive time delays. Legal or regulatory uncertainties affecting the outcome of regulatory procedures. Changes to regulatory conditions during the life of a project. Absence of appropriate coordinating measures for the extensive and complex regulatory coverage. Absence of a Government Steering Committee with a clear directive from Cabinet to set up a system of approvals in principle.

Under the heading of Exploration Activity the Chamber asserts.

A quantitative perspective of the relative impact of the mining industry on the land should be kept in mind in dealing with land use issues. The excavation of supplies of stone, sand, clay, gravel, limestone and solid fuels (coal) in Victoria causes the greatest degree of disturbance to the land surface. These activities probably involve about one hundred million tons of material being excavated, relocated or removed, annually. Collectively these activities now affect many thousands of hectares of land surface.

“…greatest degree of disturbance to the land surface…” is simply not true; not considered are farming practices over huge areas of land or housing development in new estates or even road construction. Concerning Crown land access the Chamber does not support prohibition of access to land as this is a political response based on perceptions within the community. The restriction of access to land removes access to minerals of all types. 66 This constitutes a threat to the emergence of an industry which, elsewhere than Victoria, is a major component of the Australian economy.

In regard to Miner’s Right Claims and Exploration Licences – it is the same company rhetoric being repeated yet again.

The principal issue of concern in this regard relates to the exposure of Exploration Licence holders to marking out by other parties on Licence areas. The Mines (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987 has made Exploration Licence holder consent a condition for grant of all titles over Exploration Licence areas except Miner’s Right claims after one year of Exploration Licence tenure. If successful, a Mining Lease (or under existing law, other appropriate tenement) is expected to be obtainable in order that the risk capital applied to work on the Licence area may be recovered through commercial production and an adequate nett return realised. This outcome is by no means assured. In fact the probability of achievement of an adequate return is quite low for individual exploration initiatives. (For many years the company argument had been that the small-scale miner and prospector is an anachronism and hopeful opportunist that should be replaced by large-scale and modern techniques.) For explorations to be successful over time, the cost of exploration, most of which fails to identify commercially viable resources, must be borne by the nett proceeds of the occasional successful outcomes. If, to the exploration outcome risk is added the possibility that other parties may mark out leases, claims (or other tenements) over an area being explored, thereby establishing a contestable priority status over all or part of a potential discovery or a geological target area, the status of the Exploration License area is degraded in several respects. These include exposure to: Risk of losing access to part or all of a discovery which was the aim of the Exploration Licence Holder's exploration program. (If the company finds something, why not peg a lease themselves and prevent this from happening?) Risk of having to buy out an over-pegger who has exploited the presence or work of the EL holder in parasitic fashion. (Not relevant if lease pegged by company) Interruption of exploration work whilst priority rights of the EL holder and parties which have marked out over it, are resolved. (Not relevant if lease pegged by company) This has several aspects: Loss of time, which incurs establishment costs during the delay, possible loss of market opportunities due to consequent delays in commencement of production, risk of price fall, legal costs in resolving rights and priorities, possibly rendering the discovery non-viable. (No example of such an over-pegging is known to have occurred. There is nothing to stop the Exploration Licence holder from pegging a lease if they find something of interest. The land is immediately secure from other applications and does not prevent further exploration. The company position is the same spurious argument that Doug Kemsley fought against in the 1970s. There has never been a plausible mining related explanation for the over-pegging scare campaign.) The attitude of the Chamber to the Miner’s Right and the Miner’s Right Claim had been a concern to the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria for some time with the assertion that the Chamber represents the views of “miners, explorers and service industries” is clearly not true.

There is no evidence in the view of the majority of VCM members that the existence of EL’s in Victoria has been a cause of preventing access to establishment of mining businesses through the mode of leases, claims or titles other than EL's. The main elements of the present situation are: A. Miner’s Right Claims (MRCs) under the present Act require consent of EL holders for the first 12 months of the EL tenure, but consent is not required thereafter. The Minister is required to register an MRC subject to certain conditions being met. B. Holders of a Miner's Right are not prohibited from prospecting over EL areas. C EL holders are allowed to explore over MRC's marked out after the date of application for the EL provided there is no interference with operation on the MRC. D.MRC operations are limited to 25m depth unless the Mining Warden permits working to greater depth. The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria (PMAV), a member of the Chamber of Mines, opposes extension of consent provision because it denies access to surface deposits in prospective areas included in EL's. EL users wish the consent provisions to hold also after the first year and throughout their tenure. They argue that their interests are at risk for reasons already stated when they do not have the right to refuse access. The PMAV has argued that EL's can be a constraint upon the rate of mining development because their existence tends to deny 67 opportunities for small miners to make and work significant discoveries. EL users have responded by pointing out that selective location of MRC applications will deny access to important target areas within an EL. It can also create a situation in which the EL holder is obliged to buy out an MRC applicant or holder which has secured some form of priority in a critical part of the land area by applying for a Claim. Instances of this are known to have occurred. (Chamber never provided examples) In other cases a number of persons have combined in a series of MRC applications positioned to have the effect of denying access by an EL holder to a specific target area.

This suggests a conspiracy by claim applicants. The truth is that when a claim was pegged other people sometimes pegged out adjacent areas simply because the act of pegging the original claim attracted the attention of other people. But it still falls back to the EL to peg their own ground to protect it; but that relies on them actually doing some work and finding the potential site. How is it that the small-scale operator could do this and the corporate bodies with all their resources could not?

There is no evidence in the view of the majority of VCM members that the existence of EL’s in Victoria has been a cause of preventing access to establishment of mining businesses through the mode of leases, claims or titles other than EL's. EL users regard these risks as vexatious and unacceptable and seek reform to eliminate them. However, it is not the wish or intent of EL users that genuine prospectors and small scale miners be denied access where their actions and operations are compatible with their own. The consent mechanism is the means to determine compatibility. Exploration Licence holders do however have concerns regarding the density of Miner’s Right Claims that may be registered on EL areas and the provisions for MRC holders to be authorised to increase the depth of operations below 25 metres. In other States of Australia it is noted that the consent of EL (or equivalent) titleholders is required for MRCs (or equivalent). Discussion held within the Chamber of Mines have isolated the area of difference between MRC users, represented by PMA, and EL users, which constitute the majority of other Ordinary Members to this question of consent to MRC’s over EL areas after the first year of EL tenure. Discussions will continue with a view to finding a satisfactory solution to these problems.

A substantial body of this history is given to the issue of the Exploration Licence. It is abundantly clear that the Victorian Chamber of Mines is backing the earlier corporate call that the Exploration Licence be the senior title. The PMAV opinion of the Mines Act and recent amendments was reflected in the Eureka Echo.

114Already it is clear that the policy of sacrificing small-scale miners and individual freedoms to appease anti-min- ing groups will continue. This was the policy behind the 1987 Amendments to the Mines Act and it is clear from the Review paper that it will continue. The Association made and extensive official contribution to the Issues Paper, and although this was acknowledged by Mr Fordham, the Minister, it seems to have been ignored by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. Instead the Issues Paper attributes to the Association a stupid and, in the context, possibly libellous comment. The Association is seeking an explanation. A Freedom of Information request has already revealed that there are no documents behind the quotation. It seems that the comment is the product of a warped bureaucratic mind. Unless members of the Association deluge the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources and local politicians with comment on the importance of prospecting and mining, our future will be decided by these twisted minds.

The offending comment is reported as being on Page 35 of the Review of the Mines Act 1958, Issues for Public Consultation (no archive copy).

The Prospectors and Miners Association has expressed the view that Miner’s Right Claims should be maintained as they are associated with the historical principal that every individual has the right to make their fortune seeking gold.

114 Eureka Echo Vol. 6. No. 1 March 1988 page 5 68 John Winter wrote in a letter to Robert Fordham dated March 8th 1988. 115The Association has never made such a misleading statement and we wish to know the origin of this misrepresentation of our position. If this comment represents the attitude of Government bureaucrats to those who seek to earn a livelihood by creating national wealth, then we believe that you have a serious problem. How can such people frame a responsible piece of legislation to regulate the mining industry?

The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria submission on the review was presented in the March Eureka Echo116. Following the preamble were comments on land control, Miner’s Right, Miner’s Right Claim, Exploration Licence, Mining Lease, ancillary titles, operating approvals, environmental control, inspection and operating regulations. Key point extracts from each subject.

Land Control: There are always selected areas where society prefers not to conduct certain activities. Mining is no exception. The Mines Act should define where exploration and mining may not occur as of right. All other areas should be potentially available and the Mines Act should specify the procedures by which such availability may be determined and the conditions appropriate to that availability. The Mines Act should treat Victoria as a mature and democratic society capable of decision making, rather than restricting future generations by taking a ‘head in the sand’ approach and banning mineral development outright. This part of the Act should collect all legislation from other acts relating to access to land for mining, prospecting and exploration and it should specify the procedures associated with gaining access to such land.

Miner’s Right. It is the means by which the Crown enables all people to have access to minerals. Any other approach must be based on privilege and be inappropriate in a democracy. This section should specify the rights, privileges, obligations and the limitations of these rights and privileges for Miner’s Right holders.

Miner’s Right Claim. Mining legislation has always recognised the place of the entrepreneur. Many of Australia’s mining magnates of the nineteenth century began in a small way by means of Miner’s Right Claims. This is still happening today. The Mines Act should preserve the dual development patterns of either starting small and building a mine of considerable proportions on the basis of the cash flow generated from the small operation, or alternatively, starting in a major way after a successful and complete but comparatively expensive exploration program. The geological diversity of Victoria also means that a variety of titles are necessary to facilitate the appropriate scale of development. The Miner’s Right Claim provides comparatively inexpensive way of developing from small beginnings or mining a deposit of limited dimensions. Miner’s Right Claims should be granted in certain areas as a right and should be considered in other areas by a prescribed decision making process. They should not involve protracted decision making because they involve a restricted area and their environmental implications are comparatively insignificant when compared with activities on larger mining titles or the normal activities conducted by government Authorities, private developers or farmers. Environmental implications are normally perfectly obvious to the experienced government officer and miner.

Exploration Licence. As exploration begins to seek ore deposits which have no surface expression, regional exploration has become important. The Exploration Licence should provide the security necessary for the expenditure associated with the exploration. Unfortunately in Victoria, Exploration Licences have been used by large organisations to cover known goldfields and prevent competing organisations from undertaking development. This section should specify the rights and privileges and obligations associated with the exploration licence. Exploration Licences should be a secure title, should not be granted as of right, and should have commensurate obligations of expenditure associated with them. Exploration licences should not be unduly restrictive in size but their term should be quite clearly specified. The Victorian Government should seek to maximise exploration in the State and so extensions beyond the original length of two years for exploration licences should not be automatic, but depend on performance.

115 K88 Letter to Minister Fordham from John Winter re misleading comment in Issues paper on Mines Act Review march 8th 1988 116 Eureka Echo Vol. 6. No. 1 March 1988 page 5 69 Mining Lease. All major development and mining work should be done on a Mining Lease. Mining Leases should have comparatively long term and the capacity to cover comparatively large area. This section should specify the rights, privileges and obligations associated with the mining lease. Leases should depend for their continued validity on appended operating conditions determined under the Operating Approvals section of the Mines Act.

Ancillary Titles. There are occasions when mining operations require additional area to those specified within their mining tenement boundaries. This may be easements for the provision of water, drainage or power, there may be an easement for the provision of ventilation or for the location of treatment plants or the disposal of waste. It should therefore be possible to obtain ancillary titles which give access to the surface of an area but which do not confer the right to the minerals in that area. These titles should be considered in conjunction with the mining title to which they apply and their currency should depend on the fulfilment of the obligations of the associated mining title.

Operating Approvals. Mining is a complex system and the dependence of Australia is also complicated. At present exploration and mining in Victoria face a myriad of approval processes. The determinations of each of these affect the others, but there is no way of resolving conflicting requirements. The perspective of these approvals is often entirely parochial and the broader issues for Australia and Victoria are completely ignored. It is necessary to centralise all approvals associated with mining. In considering any mining tenement an operating approval should also be conferred. This approval may be for an advanced stage of exploration, for development, or for a mining operation. It should be possible for a person to obtain an approval in association with obtaining a mining tenement for one of these stages of a mining project. Subsequently, other approvals for more advanced stages of the project must be required by the title. This section should specify the procedures associated with the obtaining of all approvals associated with mining development. All individuals and government authorities affected by the proposed operation should be able to participate in the approval process and this section of the Mines Act should specify how their participation may occur and the limits of the influence on the decision making process that each group may exert. The approvals process should vary depending on the nature of the operation for which approval is sought, the area in which that approval is sought and the size of the area in which the operation is to take place. The appropriate process for a particular approval application should be specified at the outset on the basis of an initial application, by the Chief Mining Inspector. Where it is appropriate there should be time limits on the preparation of a detailed application for approval to operate, there should be one period for the exhibition of that application, one hearing of objections, one determination period and one opportunity for subsequent appeals associated with the determination. These appeals should only relate to the substance of the determination. Advertising should be limited to a notification of the exhibition of the application and one opportunity to appeal against the decision relating to the determination.

Environmental Control. Environmental control of mining operations must be associated with the procedures associated with the mining operation itself. Rehabilitation and pollution control must not be seen as an adjunct to the operation but an integral part of it. It is therefore essential that environmental control is exerted from the Mines Act. It is therefore proposed that a Mining Environment Board should be established which should oversee environmental control of all mining operations. That Board should be chaired by the Chief Mining Inspector. It should have on it a mining engineer, and expert in river environments, an expert in bush-land environment and an expert in pollution control of noise, dust and waste disposal. The Board should have ultimate authority for the laying down of principles associated with rehabilitation, the setting of bonds and the control of all forms of pollution and emissions from mining sites.

Inspection. Mining is a hazardous operation and it has the potential to damage large areas of the country side. It is therefore necessary that inspection of mining operations by skilled and impartial government officers continues. This section should give the authority to government officers to inspect mining operations. Such inspections should be done by people who are competent to police and regulate the entire mining operation and not just isolated facets of the operation. Mining is a complex system and the variation of one part of that system may result in an adverse variation of another part of the system. This section should specify the authority and obligations of Mines Inspectors and their means of employment. 70 Operating Regulations. Mining in unregulated circumstances has normally had a high accident rate. Regulations have provided a means of accumulating knowledge of safe practices. This accumulation of knowledge should continue and this section of the Mines Act should empower the making of regulations. The complexity of the mining system make it unwise to attempt to place mining under the regulation of general industrial regulations which do not address the real regulation issues. Regulations have normally been devoted to work practices, but it is now important that they also cover aspects related to the environment. Regulations should cover the appointment of Mine Managers and their qualifications and obligations. Other qualifications, shot firers, engine drivers, loader drivers etc, should also be specified.

Maldon Miners Meeting March 1988 The rise in anti-mining sentiment resulted in a pro-mining meeting being held in the Maldon Masonic Hall on March 10th 1988. A newspaper cutting, undated and unatributed, announced the meeting and quoted Noel Laidlaw:117

Mr. Laidlaw said there was a ‘disturbing element’ in the hopes for a broad expansion of mining, and that was a group of dedicated and vocal objectors to mining. The objectors were doing all they could to halt the proper and orderly development of the mineral industry in this region he said. The meeting was being called to show governments and policy makers there was a ‘silent majority out there whose support for mining must be listened to’.

No reports concerning the meeting have been located.

Mines Act Review, May 1988 The Prospectors and Miners Association responded in greater detail to Section 4 of the February review paper, which the Association felt contained key issues in the review. Extracts from the 7 page submission:

118Landowners Rights and Access to Private Land. The Association would disagree with the Review Paper that all minerals belong to the Government. Under the Mines Act, they in fact belong to the Crown, that is effectively to all Victorians. The Government has the responsibility for administering the Mines Act for the benefit of all Victorians. The assertion by the Review Paper has far reaching implications for the nature of democracy in Victoria and if it is the intention of the new Mines Act to vest all minerals in the Government, then that certainly is the key issue for debate in the review of the Mines Act. The following are our comments on the landowner's views. Land values are affected by the prospect of mining. The real problem is that under the uncoordinated legislative and bureaucratic procedures at present, land can be under application for mining for many years. This greatly exacerbates the problem for land owners who may wish to sell their land. The answer is to develop a system where mining applications can be promptly dealt with. Most of the landowners concerns would be catered for if this occurred. Mining may disrupt the lifestyle of residents but then it is hard to imagine any form of development in our society which does not cause some disruption to somebody. The Association believes that the protection of livelihoods is more important than the preservation of affluent lifestyles. Mining may disturb or destroy natural flora and fauna but it may also improve land. The fact is that on most farming land natural flora and fauna have long since been destroyed. Surface mining properly conducted gives and opportunity to improve the quality of land. A number of the views expressed by landowners are certainly elitest. Most land owners share in our modern society with all its conveniences and they should also share some of its inconveniences.

Compensation for Mining on Private Land Most of the other concerns expressed in the landowners section can be dealt with by the provision of adequate compensation The Association generally endorses the present heads of compensation in the Mines Act because they protect both parties from extortion. Any change to the heads of compensation will need to be carefully worded to prevent either miners or landowners being held to ransom.

117 L88 News clipping and press release advising of a miners meeting for March 10 in Maldon march 1988 118 AB88 Prospectors and Miners Association Submission re Mines Act review may 1st 1988 71 The Land Valuation Boards of Review has conducted conferences and hearings in such a way that the landowners are not disadvantaged because of their lack of knowledge of legislation. Nor do landowners need to spend large amounts in legal costs when appearing before the land valuation board. Legal costs have always been incurred when landowners have sought to use legal means to frustrate mining. That is different to determining compensation. The Association believes that compensation should be payable in stages, however the Land Valuation Board at present has no way of making such a determination.

Access to Crown Land The Association would disagree with the Conservation Council of Victoria. The blanket exclusion of land from mining is a head in the sand approach and expresses a complete lack of confidence in the decision making process. The Association believes that a decision making process which can adequately assess the environmental issues associated with mining should be in place and that blanket prohibitions should not be necessary. The Association believes that an Environmental Effects Statement should not be required for all mining. Much mining is conducted on very restricted areas and the effects of that mining are completely understood by the government officers who have had experience of the environmental control of such mining. The Association believes that the opinions of the Victorian Land Protection Association are completely unrealistic. Most of the forested areas, so called naturally vegetated areas of Central Victoria, are forested because they were auriferous land and were subject to mining rather than farming. They have been reforested once and they can be reforested again. Mineral Processing has taken place on Crown Land in the past and such processing has left behind many mining dams. These dams have improved the natural flora and fauna. The Association believes that to prevent the processing of minerals on Crown Land would be a short-sighted prohibition. The Association believes that the Mines Act should not be subservient to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Mining invariably involves the temporary use of a limited area of land and it is yet to be established that modern mining makes any change to well established eco-systems. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee has a very limited view of society and the environment in contrast to the Mines Act which is concerned with both the protection of the environment and the development of society. The Association agrees that there should be better enforcement of environmental standards but until the government is able to employ more Mines Inspectors that does not seem to be possible. Changes to the Mines Act could enable Mines Inspector to more efficiently operate.

Rehabilitation The experience of the Association is that the complaints of land owners in relation to rehabilitation generally cease to have any substance when they are investigated in detail. The Association agrees with the Victorian Land Protection Association that often land is left unrehabilitated for too long a period. However in many instance this is the result of protracted negotiations with various levels of government which have brought the mining operation to a halt. The Association believes that rehabilitation should be managed by the Mining Inspectors in consultation with Conservation Officers. Mining is a complex system and it is important that environmental control is incorporated into the entire system. Mines Inspectors are the only government officers with the experience and expertise to oversee such a complex system. If rehabilitation was managed by people without mining expertise other aspects of the operation, such as employee and public safety, and control of emissions would almost certainly suffer. The Association agrees that research is required on rehabilitation methods and re-colonisation rates, however on two occasions now the Department of Conservation, Forest and Lands have refused to help fund such research.

Title Administration and Approval Procedures. The Association believes that operating approvals should be obtained by a prescribed procedure. Interested parties should be involved in the approval procedure, however at present there are a number of overlapping approval stages and the deliberations undertaken in one set of procedures invariably overlaps with other procedures. The result is that miners often find that their operation is conditioned by a number of authorities with conflicting con - ditions. Claim holders are for example, being asked to pay bonds by at least two authorities and legislation has been framed for a third authority to start requesting bonds. Mining can not develop smoothly in Victoria until these procedures are combined into a coordinated system. The Association believes that mining operations should be different to other industry approvals because under the Mines Act consideration is being given to the democratic rights of Victorians to have an access to minerals owned by the Crown. That democratic right is not part of the planning process and while the issues of planning should not be ignored, the fact is, mining should not fall within control of planning authorities. 72 The experience of the Association is that most local authorities are incapable of assessing mining operations. Their involvement has been counter productive, has caused delays and in many cases a downgrading of the mining operation and subsequent rehabilitation. The Association agrees with the Victorian Land Protection Association that a more effective consultation process should be established but it also believes that this process should not be administered by Local or Planning Authorities. The Association disagrees with the Victorian Land Protection Association that all titles should be discretionary. Miners Right claims are of limited size and on such land a protracted decision making process is inappropriate and a waste of time and money. However, there should of course be areas on which Miners Right Claims are not issued as a right and where approval should be discretionary.

Environmental Safeguards. The Association is aware that most criticism of mining environmental standards has been made by community groups of mining methods of previous generations. The fact is that modern mining methods do not present the same hazards if they are properly applied. Chemicals and heavy metals need not be released into the environment at all.

Heritage Issues It may be true that many early mining sites are part of Victoria's cultural heritage but most sites are completely degraded and to date a comprehensive listing of those mining sites which are not degraded and the reason why they are part of Victoria's cultural heritage has not been made. This is in spite of almost two decades of work by the Land Conservation Council. Sites such as the North British Mine at Maldon have been identified as being significant. However even in spite of its pre-eminent position, the government has not been able to make adequate provision for the preservation and the presentation of it. The Association believes that until the government and the community can make provision for the preservation of historic mining sites the continuing mining heritage of its living cultural traditions are preserved by the continuing activity of the present day industry and should not be unduly inhibited.

The concluding section of the submission hopes that a new Mines Act will be written in plain English and provide a straight-forward system of administration. To be successful the Mines act will need to have the power to control the procedures and powers of other Acts that influence mining, a situation that has created chaos. The Association cautioned against drastic changes to the mining system and sought to remind the Government that the present Mines Act is the result of accumulated experience.

Mines Act Review, Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group Submission, June 1988 The submission dated June 24th was made to the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources by the Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group.119 Points raised in the submission have been reproduced as it is written by a group of miners. The exception is reproduced in the section dealing with the Shire of Bet Bet Interim Development Order which states that any review of the Mines Act is pointless when that Act is overridden by the Planning and Environment Act.

1. Regional Offices should have their own Inspectors and Registrars where needed and be able to process and grant mining tenement applications. Updated information regarding current and applied for tenements must be available at regional offices. This system exists in a similar form in Western Australia and Queensland. With the present computer link and FAX system, this could easily be implemented. 2. Miners Rights not be abolished. In New South Wales the Miner’s Right has been replaced by a Fossicking Licence with many restrictions. As a result of these restrictions many of the recreational, tourist or semi-pro- fessional people come to Victoria. 3. Miners Right Claim not be abolished. The Victorian goldfields are predominantly areas of small tonnage in both alluvial and reef formations. These are most suitable to small operations and are unpayable to large projects. 4. The Miner’s Right Claim be recognised as a legitimate way of small miners for earning a living. Small miners should not be treated as just recreational miners. 5. Work requirement of 8 hours per fortnight on Miner’s Right Claims be changed to a work requirement to the equivalent of 8 hours per fortnight on Miners Right Claims. It is impractical for most Miner’s Right Claims to be worked regularly all year round and this Clause as it currently stands in the Mines Act can be abused. 6. Heavy machinery (track mounted equipment) should not be discouraged from Miner’s Right Claims. Heavy machinery is a most economical and practical way of both mining and reclaiming. Heavy machinery can

119 BC88. Submission on review of the Mines Act from Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group June 24th 1988 73 successfully and economically remove topsoil and stockpile it a suitable distance from the mining operation. Without heavy machinery, dams for sluicing operations would be more expensive less efficient and more likely to break. Heavy machinery is also more suitable in levelling off large areas for reclaiming and ripping the surface to promote regrowth. Reclamation division could be established within the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources to contract reclamation for the miners upon request. Naturally, this would make the division responsible and work would be carried out to the satisfaction of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, miner and others concerned. 8 All mining titles be classed in accordance with the type of mining or exploration proposed, provided one category does not hinder another's operation. Two or more separate titles may be pegged on the same land. The five categories should be: 1. Surface or shallow alluvial. 2. Deep alluvial. 3. Reef mining. 4. Tailings treatment and/or removal. 5. Any two of the above. 9. Development Leases and Prospecting Area Licences be abolished. These are often misused as speculative real estating ventures, thus closing off the land to genuine mining operations, who would be able to peg Miner's Right Claims or Mining Leases. 10. Mining Leases not be entitled to the top one metre except in Specified Preference Areas. Many Mining Leases, both alluvial and reef, are only concerned with gold at depth and are restricting the recreational prospector and fossicker in access to large areas of often unwanted or unpayable ground. A specified Preference Area within the Mining Lease could be marked out by the Mining Lease holder, at no extra charge. 11. Miner’s Right Claim pegged within Mining Lease and outside Mining Lease specified Preference Area without consent subject to a one metre depth limit. 12. Immediate right to peg Miner’s Right Claim on abandoned or expired Mining Lease. A Miners Right Claim should be allowed to be pegged immediately a Mining Lease is abandoned or expired. The present Mines Act is biased in that only another Mining Lease can be pegged immediately a Mining Lease is abandoned or expired. 13. Exploration Licence granted or refused in a reasonable time. Uncertainty hinders mining progress, sometimes to the advantage of speculators, who don't actually want the title granted. 14. Miner’s Right Claim or Mining Lease refused consent from Exploration Licence holder should have the right of appeal to the Mining Warden. Some reasons for refusal for consent are totally unjustified.

Mines Act Review ‘The Green Paper’, December 1988 The Mines Act review, referred to as “The Green Paper”, was released in December 1988. It had 87 pages including the 7 pages listing the submissions received.120 The review does not get to anything of substance until page 9 where the principal of the Crown ownership of minerals is asserted. The review then works through a series of topics, for example. “What Crown Land Should be Available for Mining?” This is followed by quoting the existing law, then options are listed, followed by arguments for and then arguments against the options. To condense this review down would not convey the complexity of detail and since the review does not present the basis for a Bill it is not further considered here.

Land Protection Groups and the Victorian Farmers Federation, 1988 This section looks at the agitations of land protection groups and the farmers in relation to the miners. The general level of protest, complaint and newspaper articles throughout August and September 1988 probably had the forthcoming State election of October 1st as the driver. The Maryborough Advertiser of August 17th 1988 ran article by Campbell Ward titled ‘Anti-mine groups are increasing.’121 Campbell Ward writes that as interest in mining has increased so has the opposition from the environmental lobby. He wrote that the opposition was generally on two fronts: that of damage to the natural environment and the chemical contamination of water resources. He reported that miners say these concerns are needless but he notes the rapid rise of many land protection groups, which insist otherwise. He wrote that the first such group was set up at Kingower 3 years ago and there are now 45. He reports a member of the Victorian Land Protection Association, Ken McGregor, as saying:

…They have been a response to the really large-scale mining and pegging going on throughout the State and the fact that people have been unable to have a say in the uses of both private and public land.

120 BY88. Review of the Mines Act: Options for change December 1988 121 BM88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Anti-mine groups are increasing August 17th 1988 74 Further comments made by Mr McGregor are that the groups are not anti-mining but want to have a say in how mining should proceed at the local level. Mining is not the only issue Mr McGregor reports but it is the one taking up most of the time. He is sceptical of mining being the saviour of small towns and argues the need to develop self- sustaining industries and that a lot of small towns are being revived by secondary and tertiary industries. The Bendigo regional representative for the Victorian Chamber of Mines, Peter Hargreaves, was adamant that mining and conservation were not at loggerheads. Hargreaves said that people think that conservationists represent bigger numbers of people than they really do and is in reality a minority in the community. Western Mining’s resident manager Colin Cruickshank points out that Victoria is densely populated compared to other States; it does not have remoteness, which makes it more environmentally sensitive. He felt that because Victorians have not had the same exposure to mining they are quite naïve. Colin Cruickshank said.

It has been the aftermath of mining that has left a bad taste in people’s mouths.

The news article continues. … that Australian Mining Industry Council draws a distinction between conservationists and the ultra- conservationist or preservationist movement, which it says wants more vast areas designated as wilderness.

Campbell Ward then raises the topic of pollution. Pollution of waterways is another hot topic, especially at those mining sites where chemical treatment of nineteenth century tailings dumps is occurring.

Several paragraphs are then given to explaining that cyanide can’t exist in water with a pH value lower than 9 and that the small mount of cyanide, 0.025%, in the treating solution mostly breaks down within 24 hours. 122 Mercury can be dangerous; it is inefficient and not used in modern mining.

The Maryborough Advertiser of August 24th ran an article reporting on the PMAV in which the President, Noel Laidlaw, warns that this may be the last generation of small-scale miners in Victoria.123 Noel Laidlaw was concerned about militant conservationists doing everything possible to squeeze out the small- scale miner and prospector.

Until the greenies can start offering real economic solutions they cannot be taken seriously.

The Maryborough Advertiser of August 28th ran an article titled “Farmers want protection from mining.”124 The article reports on the views of the Victorian Farmers Federation.

Land Use Committee Chairman Mr Alex Arbuthnot said agriculture was the backbone of the economy and the Victorian Farmers Federation sought an assurance that agricultural productivity was sustained. ‘The Government’s commitment to reject mining in National and State Parks must threaten agricultural land even further,’ Mr Arbuthnot said. Under the current Mines Act landowners do not have any rights to the minerals within their title and have no saleable rights regarding access to their land for the purpose of exploration and mining. … there is no incentive for landowners to allow exploration or mining. It is Victorian Farmers Federation policy that landowners should own minerals within their titles and nobody should have access without the consent of the landowner. The Victorian Farmers Federation believes that if mining is going to occur in Victoria a climate needs to exist where there is an incentive for landowners to respond positively to miners wishing to explore and mine on their land. Unless this is fostered the current negative climate towards mining will not disappear.

The Maryborough Advertiser of August 28th reports on the Nationals candidate for Bendigo West.125 The candidate, Barry McNaught, spoke of opportunities for school leavers flourishing in mining and industry with unemployment eliminated by reactivating the gold mining industry. He spoke about the red tape, over regulation and the neglect of a disinterested and frightened Labor Government. He said the industry had been left floundering with the abolishing of the Mines Department. The report tells of Mr McNaught meeting with mining companies in the previous week and visiting Miner’s Right Claims.

122 See Appendix 4 in part 3 for Sodium Cyanide articles. 123 BN88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Miners say they are threatened August 24th 1988 124 BP88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Farmers want protection from mining September 1988 125 BP88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Farmers want protection from mining September 1988 75 The Maryborough Advertiser of August 28th reports on the views of the Victorian Chamber of Mines.126 John Reynolds of the Chamber says it is naïve of political parties to try and separate the environment from community needs in formulating land-use policies. He said:

The Chamber is alarmed by a trend in this direction in Victoria, which is arbitrarily placing ever increasing areas out of bounds for mineral exploration or development. This is happening at a time when economic activity in rural areas and small towns is either in a decline or a no-growth situation. Proposed land uses must be judged on the merits of each case, not overruled or outlawed on the basis of high sounding perceptions.

Triad Minerals v Maldon Land Protection Association, May 1988 In Chapter 25 of this book, the rise of land protection groups is explored. One such group was in the Maldon area under the chapter sub heading of ‘Goldfields Action Information Alliance, 1987’. The extract presented was about salinity and Porcupine Flat east of Maldon. Triad won the battle but the same argument was presented again, this time for a reefing development on the south end of Goughs Range, between Maldon and Newstead.

127Triad Minerals won its second planning battle recently. The local so-called Land Protection Association ob- jected to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the intention of the Maldon Shire Council to issue a Planning Permit to Triad to mine the Welcome Reef area. Triad are already mining their open pit mine on Union Hill. The objections were based on the alleged adverse effects on the environment that mining would have, in-crease to salinity, and traffic hazards. To some extent this was a re-run of the last case that Triad fought. The same old tired arguments. The Tribunal concluded that ‘no evidence was produced that the proposed operation would cause a salinity problem’. The Tribunal was critical of the objectors saying that their case was emotive in tenor and was unsupported by any evidence produced to the Tribunal. Ross Baring, a representative for Triad, estimated that the cost to the Government of the objection would have been over $500,000. Add to this the cost to the company, and the cost to Australia of lost production, and the enormity of the situation starts to become apparent. In countries such as New Zealand there are very precise planning procedures. If objectors are unable to provide evidence to support their objection, they pay everyone's costs. While small groups of self-righteous and incompetent people are able to stop others working for no other reason than their own half-baked ideology, it is time that such a system was introduced in Victoria. Until the so-called Land Protection groups become accountable, anarchy will persist.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Bill, July 1988 The Eureka Echo reported that the previous session of Parliament had passed the Fauna and Flora Guarantee Bill. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 was assented to on 24 May 1988. The following key point extracts were written by Christopher Davey.

128This Bill could be the greatest disaster which has befallen the mining industry in Victoria, because it gives the Minister for Conservation the power to stop any activity and to suspend any lease or licence. Before this is done the relevant Minister, in our case, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, has to be consulted. If any of you can remember Luigi Mariniello, he had a one hectare Claim on the edge of a recently proclaimed 33 square kilometre Flora and Fauna Reserve. Luigi’s Claim pre-dated the Reserve and was adjacent to private land which was subject to sub division. Inspite of repeated requests and FOI searches, no evidence was presented or discovered to show that Luigi's Claim had any significant flora and fauna associated with it. The only reason given for stopping Luigi was that the Land Conservation Council had decided that the area should be a reserve, and that was that. Submissions can be lodged with the Director-General for Conservation after everything has been stopped! The Act specifically says that the Director-General has to consider the submissions, confirming what we have always known: that submissions are normally ignored. Many will know that this is ‘dissipative consultation’ in which people's anger is dissipated by writing submissions to bureaucrats who then make themselves useful by shredding them. Well it seems that now someone has to read the submissions before they are shredded - Sir Humphrey would call this a ‘novel idea’.129

126 BP88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Farmers want protection from mining September 1988 127 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 2 May 1988 page 4 128 Eureka Echo Vol. 6 No. 3 July 1988 page 5 129 Sir Humphrey Appleby, a fictional senior civil servant in an English television political sitcom Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. 76 The Act does give a review period after activity has been stopped, but there is no requirement for the Minister to explain the Interim Conservation Order. There is no accountability of the government as in Luigi's case. Once the Interim Conservation Order has been declared the Minister for Conservation becomes Minister for everything in the area. If you want to mine, you will require a permit from the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee has priority over all Planing Schemes. That appears to be game, set and match to the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. It has certainly been an interesting interdepartmental battle and whatever the outcome of the election, we will not be left wondering about which Department would come out on top. Actually there was really little doubt after the last ministerial reshuffle. About the only piece of sanity in the Act is the provision for compensation, but who determines the compensation? No prizes for guessing, the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands! They must think we are stupid! There is no doubt that this Act will be used very carefully against the politically powerful land owners, shires and large Companies. But what about the Luigi’s of this world? The Aussie battlers who are prepared to give life a go and do not expect to rely on government handouts. The bureaucrats, with the government's Social Justice Strategy in their hands, can continue to do away with such people. It was like that before this government came to power and it will be like it under the next. At least the other lot are not so hypocritical about it! Good night Victoria. Christopher Davey.

PMAV Annual General Meeting, August 1988 The lead up to the Annual General Meeting presented some important issues to consider in a flyer in respect of the Mines Act review:

1301. The PMAV re-affirms its policy that to hold the Miner’s Right is an inalienable right of all Victorians, and The PMAV will not tolerate the weakening of the Miner's Right. 2. The PMAV reaffirms its policy that the Miner's Right Claim is the right of every holder of a Miner's Right in Victoria, and that The PMAV will not tolerate the abolition or even the weakening of the Miner's Right Claim. 3. The PMAV is quite dissatisfied with the operation of the Exploration Licence system, because exploration and mining are being stifled. The PMAV proposes the following rules for Exploration Licences: a. An Exploration Licence shall operate for a maximum of three successive years; in very special cases, to be a rarity, a fourth year may be granted. b. One-third of the area, represented as peripheral sub-graticules, shall be relinquished at the end of the first year. c. A further one-third of the original area, represented as peripheral sub-graticules, shall be relinquished at the end of the second year. d. A sub-graticule may not be applied for within one year of being relinquished. e. No other tenement may be pegged within the existing Exploration Licence without the Licensee’s consent. f. A final Exploration Licence report shall be released for public viewing within six months of the expiry of the Exploration Licence. g. The total expenditure requirement for the second and later years shall be twice that of the first year. h. An Exploration Licence shall be operated independently of any other Exploration Licence.

Evan Walker Becomes Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Minister, October 1988 On October 1st 1988 the Labor Government was returned to power. Robert Fordham resigned shortly after the election with Evan Walker taking over as of October 13th 1988.

Miner’s Protest Rally, Dunolly, December 1988 The concerns for the Miner’s Right and Miner’s Right Claim were not helped by the December report on the review process. The removal of these historic rights was an option in the report. The Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group organised a protest to make the miners’ feelings known. The rally was reported in the Maryborough Advertiser of December 7th 1988.

131Southern Cross flags were flying again out on the goldfields last weekend and the Miner's Right was again the centre of the miners' anger. But their latest rally had nothing to do with the anniversary of the Eureka Stockade. These were present-day miners fighting what they perceived as a present-day injustice. At heart is the possible abolition of the Miner's Right and Miner's Right claims, one of a number of options in the State Government’s current review of the Mines Act.

130 BK88. Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria motions for Annual General Meeting August 7th 1988 131 BX88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Miners' rally at Dunolly December 7th 1988 77 But several hundred people at Dunolly last Sunday made it perfectly clear that they wanted them retained, as well as an end to the possible ban on gold dredging in Victorian rivers and streams. The rally was addressed by several prominent people in the mining industry. Among them were the President of the Prospectors' and Miners' Association of Victoria, Noel Laidlaw, the executive director of the Victorian Chamber of Mines, John Reynolds, the State Shadow Minister for Planning and Environment, Michael John, and Michael Arnold, the former State MP now working as a consultant on the Mines Act review. It also unanimously passed a three part resolution which: 1 Expressed concern with the future for Miner's Right holders and dredgers in Victoria. 2 Called on the State Government to guarantee Miner's Rights, Miner's Right claims and dredger's licences ‘to ensure the small mining industry has a future in Victoria’. 3 Established a fighting fund.

One of the organisers, John Tully, said that the significance of the date of the rally (one day after the Eureka Stockade anniversary) hadn’t been ‘that much of a coincidence’. He said miners today were still fighting similar problems to their counterparts of 134 years ago. ’The main thing today was to get people out of the woodwork and have them stand up,’ Mr Tully said. ‘The Government doesn’t now how many people are looking for gold. They have no facts or figures.’ A number of the miners present also expressed strong anti-conservation sentiments, which Mr Tully said was ‘caused by the problems we get’ from conservationists. The Eureka Echo February 1989 has a different view on John Tully’s remarks.

132Thumbs down to the Maryborough Advertiser when they misquoted John Tully as saying that ‘there was a strong anti-conservation feeling at the rally’ What a lot of rubbish Mr Higgins. The attitude of misrepresenting our media statements is a misuse of media powers which is being shamelessly misused against the small miners by some newspapers. These people know who they are and should be bloody ashamed.

In 1998 Mike Lester published a book titled “The Second Telling”.133 It is a complicated book in which Mike Lester clashes with John Higgins principally in regard to the fight to save the Dunolly Hospital and the accuracy of Higgins’ newspaper articles. To be fair in the mid 90s Higgins did begin to accurately target his concerns rather than generalise.

The Eureka Echo February 1989 reported on the Miners’ Rally held at Dunolly on December 4th 1988. The meeting was a product of the PMAV and the Bet Bet Shire Miners’ Group. The rally was held adjacent the Dunolly Town Hall and included numerous exhibits. No representatives of invited Government Departments were present. The meeting opened with a minute of silence in respect of those fallen at the Eureka Stockade. There had been many speakers invited to the rally but most declined. The Liberal Member for Ballarat East, Mr Michael John, did attend and speak. Another speaker was Mr Graeme Brownbill, ‘who gave us an informative view on what it was like to be a farmer with a M.R.C. on his property, something he had no problem with at all. This was in stark contrast to his position in 1988 that resulted in conflict with the mining industry over Bet Bet Shire planning amendments. Councillor Graeme Brownbill’s dealings with John Tully changed his views from anti mining to very supportive now that he understood that it was not the small-scale miners causing the problems. Dick Sandner of Bendigo Gold spoke on the effect that gold has on the economy and community, citing Bendigo of the past and present. The Chairman of the Mines Act Board of Review, Michael Arnold, spoke at the meeting announcing that the green paper would soon be released. There were a great number of questions put to him, in particular the phasing out of eductor dredges in the next two years in spite of no findings being made of harm to the environment. A large contingent of dredge operators were in attendance who had travelled a long way to fight for their rights. The consensus was the removal of dredges was to please greenies. Questions were asked of Mr Arnold about the future of the Miner’s Right and Miner’s Right Claims, but again there was no clear information. The meeting passed unanimously that the Miner’s Right, the Miner’s Right Claim and eductor dredging be retained. A fighting fund was started titled the Small Miners’ Fighting Fund and was targeted at supporting individuals rather than corporate companies. The Victorian Chamber of Mines President John Reynolds spoke at the meeting, as a photograph shows,134 but his comments were not reported in the Eureka Echo. The Victorian Chamber of Mines’ lack of support for the small-scale miner suggests the setting up of a fighting fund is a vote of

132 Eureka Echo Vol 7 No 1 February 1989 page 3 133 The Second Telling Mike Lester ISBN 0 646 36256 9 134 BX88. Maryborough Advertiser newspaper clip: Miners' rally at Dunolly December 7th 1988 78 no confidence in the Victorian Chamber of Mines and that the Bet Bet Mining Group were not going to tolerate the situation. At the conclusion of the meeting, when the crowds had dispersed, Legislative Assembly Member David Kennedy arrived. He was shown the photograph displays that vast tracts of land are not being bulldozed and in fact in most circumstances land was being returned in better condition than prior to mining.

Eureka Echo December 1988 Extracts from an editorial by Noel Laidlaw: 135 With the recent State election dust settling, we now have an opportunity to more closely analyse the results and see the way ahead so far as the mining industry is concerned The Government was returned with a reduced margin – almost defeated. Its weakness was in country areas Bendigo West, Ballarat South, Morwell and, at one stage, some of the seats in the Geelong area all appeared very close to changing hands. We can ask why. I would like to simply say that the mining votes had swung against the Government perceived to be anti-mining. This was not entirely the case although there was certainly an element in it as far as Bendigo West was concerned. The general swing against the Government in all country areas reflects a deep concern at some of the programs and policies that have been initiated in the city but feel their effects in the country and provincial towns. Logging, mining, introduction of National Parks restrictions of grazing rights, etc. Quite rightly country people are very wary of many of the policies of a government that interferes with their right to recreation. To look at the other side of the coin, for a Government to be seen to be nurturing the forces within our communities that wish to stop these rights to a living and to recreation puts the Government into a position where it is seen to have the same objectives. A little more bluntly, I can tell the Government that it has an image of being anti-mining. There is no doubt that the gun lobby has made large inroads into traditional Labor votes. As long as the State Government continues to give money to extremists in the conservation movement that are trying to kill the mining industry or to stop people from indulging in a traditional recreation or a host of other campaigns that the greenie fringe have targeted, then they are going to continue to lose traditional supporters in country areas. For every one greenie vote that they pick up, they have lost ten others. There is still time for the Government to stop the backlash, but they must act now.

Survey Shows Support for Mining December 1988 136An attitude survey of community views on mining in the City of Bendigo and surrounding districts has shown strong support for goldmining. The poll results indicate that 71% approve of the extended project for the Central Deborah Mine in Bendigo. It also showed 62% in the survey either approve or strongly approve of goldmining with a high percentage of the people recognised Western Mining and Bendigo Mining as the principal operators of the Bendigo Goldfields. The telephone poll, which was conducted for Bendigo Mining, was done by the national market research company Reark Research Pty. Ltd. The survey was conducted amongst residents in five separate localities. Reark Research undertook the research from Melbourne. A total of 400 people were interviewed in the computer-assisted survey. The sample base surveyed included residents of the City of Bendigo, residents living along arterial roads that may be used as ore trucking routes, residents living in the townships of Inglewood and Dunolly and farmers identified as having more than 20 hectares of land. Two thirds of the residents overall showed support or strong support of gold mining. The most positive support for goldmining came from residents of Inglewood and Dunolly, where the approval rating was 71%. The responses from the City of Bendigo was around the 66% The survey towards the individual companies in Bendigo showed that there was a high awareness of the companies active in the industry in the area. WMC was widely recognised in the area. Bendigo Mining which is a much smaller company was well known amongst groups polled. A very high 81% were aware of the companies' activities in de-watering and rehabilitation of the Central Deborah Mine. 71% of Bendigo people surveyed supported the reopening of the mine and the resumption of underground mining on the Deborah Reef. It is felt that this type of market research is of great assistance and encouragement to the mining industry. Mr. Dick Sander for Bendigo Mining said that he believed that there is a strong silent majority support in the community for mining. People can obviously see the benefits of capital investment, employment and the growth of support industries which come from exploration and the development of new mines. Mr Sander said that he hoped that the whole mining industry in Central Victoria would take confidence from the results of the survey.

135 Eureka Echo December 1988 page 1 136 Eureka Echo December 1988 page 2 79 Appendix One

Revitalising of the Goldmining Industry in Victoria by Christopher Davey, 1986 137 One industry that can address Australia’s present crisis in the balance of payments is the gold mining industry. This industry would provide not only export income but also considerable income for States such as Victoria have large gold deposits. In reviewing a strategy for developing Victoria's gold mining industry two aspects which should be borne in mind. Firstly, by world standards, Victoria's gold mines have been small and high grade. Rarely has a mine produced over ten thousand ounces a year. The largest of Victoria's gold mines produced total outputs of only three hundred ounces of gold and the surface area of such mines was only between one and two hectares. Secondly, in Western Australia the recent revival in gold mining industry has occurred largely on gold deposits discovered and partly developed by prospectors. This is the way Victoria’s gold mining industry developed originally in the 1850s and 1860s. It is therefore reasonable to believe that Victoria's gold mining industry may once again develop in a similar way with larger mines growing out of smaller mines. The present high cost of capital makes this progressive development most suitable. However Victoria's gold mining industry faces many disincentives and hindrances and this paper seeks to identify those particularly as government controls them. Access to Land: Gold is where you find it and the more people who look for it and the more land they have to look on the more chance there is of discovery. Unfortunately in Victoria large areas of the state have over the last 15 years been removed from prospecting and exploration. Some of these areas are known goldfields and would almost certainly support mine if they were opened up to prospecting and mining. Land is removed from prospecting in a number of ways: 1. Land is excepted either under Section 7 of the Mines Act 1958 or Section 7 of the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act. This removal of land has taken place since 1900 and many of the exceptions are no longer relevant. It is therefore recommended that: all land excepted from occupation for mining purposes under any Miner’s Right be reviewed and where no justifiable reason exists for the continuation of the exception, the exception be removed. 2. Conservation Forests and Lands activity. The Department of Conservation Forests and Lands have progressively removed land from mining and prospecting since the establishment of the Land Conservation Council. Although the Land Conservation Council has often recommended prospecting to continue on areas, Conservation Forests and Lands have regularly ignored those recommendations. It is therefore recommended that: (a) Section 7 of the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act be repealed and exceptions only be made under the Mines Act, (b) Access to State Parks be provided for prospectors and miners and (c) In accordance with the promises of David White the boundaries of National Parks which include known goldfields be re-drawn. 3. The third main denial to access of land is Exploration Licences. These are large titles and when placed over known goldfields they have achieved nothing except exclusion of other people from exploring. It is therefore recommended that Exploration Licences on known gold fields be either disallowed or only issued for small areas. 4. Ungranted lease applications. The introduction of Development Leases and Prospecting Area Licences has resulted in large areas of the gold fields being tied up under applications for indefinite periods. It is therefore recommended that Prospecting Area Licences and Development Leases be discontinued as titles and Mining Leases remain the main lease title. Delays in Miner’s Right Claims are presently being granted in reasonable time except where there are difficulties relating to the status of land. For example if it is necessary for the applicant to get an agreement with the landowner delays before the Land Valuation Board can be between three and six months. The main delays are being experienced with leases. To satisfy the Department’s requirements, lease applicants have to obtain a large number of consents and provide a number of detailed proposals. The procedures are complex, interrelated and often very difficult to resolve. It is recommended that the title granting procedure be simplified that: (a) Only one opportunity to object to a mining title be allowed and that be administered under the Mines Act (b) Planning involvement in granting a title be discontinued, except within municipal boundaries, (c) Once an operator's expertise is assured the title is granted and negotiations occur with Inspectors of Mines, Shire Engineers etc at the operating stage, (d) Operating regulations be clearly defined, and finally 137 AI86. Prospectors and Miners Association submission: Revitalization of Mining in Victoria Christopher Davey. 80 The administration of title granting be computerised. This latter measure is vital, as there is no accurate way for people to ascertain the status of land with regard to mining tenements. 5 Prospecting and mining expertise: Many prospecting and mining skills have been lost in Victoria. These need to be regained and new skills associated with the introduction of new ‘hi-tech’ equipment need to be developed. The Bendigo Tertiary and Further Education course is the only Certificate gold mining course in Australia. It has not generally been supported by the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources and attempts to train students for mining explosive tickets have been thwarted by the Department. It is recommended that the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources encourage development of such courses and that it encourage Department of Education to adequately fund courses in gold mining. Prospecting and mining equipment: Throughout this century mining equipment for large-scale operations has been developed to a sophisticated level. Small-scale equipment however has lagged in improvement. Such companies as Minelab are leading the development of sophisticated small-scale mining equipment from their South Australian base. Victoria at this stage has not taken a great interest in the development of such equipment inspite of the fact that the Victorian manufacturing industry traces its origins to the manufacture of mining equipment from the middle of last century. It is recommended that Department encourage at least one educational body, maybe RMIT Technical College to undertake the research and development of small-scale mining equipment in Victoria. Finance for mining: Raising finance invariably requires a title, but to obtain a title under present Department practice it is necessary to already have finance. It is therefore recommended that the Department cease to concern itself with applicant’s financial standing and that instead it concentrate on the performance requirements of the various titles. The small-scale mining industry requires an effective way of raising local capital without the high legal cost of being listed on the main board of the Melbourne stock exchange. It is therefore recommended that the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources encourage the reactivating of the Ballarat and Bendigo Stock Exchanges and the establishment of regulations which would allow the listing of small-scale companies without excessive expenditure on legal requirements. Conclusions: The revitalisation of Victoria’s gold mining industry partly depends on a change in apparent government policy. The policy of treating mining development in a ‘one-off’ fashion is both time consuming and does not allow for the development of a dynamic industry which can respond to geological and market opportunities. Success depends on numbers and if every developing mine has to be given special treatment, then either the time and administrative costs will be astronomical, or as is now the case, very few titles will be granted. Secondly, it is noted that social attitudes are generally against mining. These attitudes are often supported by government reticence to endorse and licence miners and so the public's ill informed attitudes to mining are often reinforced. In the 1930s the government actively assisted mining and a list of the measures they took is in Appendix B. The result of that positive encouragement was a ten-fold increase in the output of gold in Victoria within a five- year period. While it is not suggested that the social conditions of today would allow success from similar measures, support by adoption of the foregoing recommendations will, we believe, provide comparable stimulation to the industry. Christopher Davey.

Appendix Two

What is the magnitude of the mining problem? William Kyte 1987 138 The Mines Act places limits on the size of a mining tenement. A claim usually is a maximum of 1-ha, but with the minister’s consent may be up to 5-ha. (Consent is the exception.) Leases may be up to 260-ha or more with the Minister’s consent (very rare). Exploration licences may be up to 560 square kilometres. Virtually all of Victoria is covered by exploration licences (seven years for the one licence is common), yet hardly anyone except other miners is affected directly. There are about 1200 claims, with a total area under 2,000- ha. There are about 500 leases, with a total area under 100,000-ha or 1,000 square kilometres. This is equivalent to an area of 32 km by 32 km for all leases and claims for the whole of Victoria, and is much less than 1% of the area of the State. Most mining has a good to excellent record of industry and rehabilitation. By comparison, farming and similar land usages are devastating on a horrific scale. Consider the Ministerial Statement (Hon. Robert Fordham, Foreword to ‘Ground water Victoria’): 138 U87. Collection of writing on mining issues by William Kyte 81 ‘Rising saline water tables have already ruined 2,400 square kilometres of farmland and are threatening another 4,000 square kilometres.’ In other words, irresponsible farming methods have devastated three times the total area of all mining leases and claims, and the problem is still increasing. Not even the harshest critics of mining say that mining devastates more than a small proportion of the mining tenement, and there is evidence that very little damage is done. Even by the most adverse consideration, problems from mining are negligible compared with the problems caused by other land users. This is where the efforts should be directed. The silence on salinity, erosion, land clearing is deafening. If Victoria is to be the Garden State, then we need a new attitude to the Garden. Land clearing has been practised on such a scale that Victoria now has massive land problems. Trees and stumps are removed so that land can be ploughed, grasses grown for stock, and we permit urban sprawl. Commonly, there is not a tree in a paddock, leaving stock without shade and soil, without tree roots to bind the soil against erosion. There are two results – salinity of the soil and erosion of the topsoil. This man made problem applies to both Crown and freehold land, and exists in all parts of Victoria, but the classical cases are in the Wimmera-Mallee regions of Kerang, Shepparton, Horsham, Mildura. By any standard, this is a national scandal. What action are our noisy greenies taking against this widespread rape of our countryside? Some reasons are: * The problem has now passed beyond control, so find an easier target to carry the flag for the environmental cause. * Erosion on the landowner’s property is his business alone; furthermore, he owns the land and may do as he likes with it. * An anti-mining cause is ideologically suitable to promote the environmental cause. The salinity problem was known a century ago, and the basic causes understood. The greed and selfishness of the landed gentry for over a century has made salinity and erosion by far the most devastating environmental problem today. Successive Governments have done nothing to halt the problem, let alone cure it. Even such a simple partial solution as tree planting has not been done. If a miner causes erosion, he is ostracised by the Mines Inspector; anyone else may do so without fear of prosecution or even censure. Salinity turns land into deserts of salt, but no action is taken to cure the problem and no prosecution is made of those still contributing to the causes. Erosion and salinity are on a scale not vaguely approached by mining, but the standard cure is to add more clauses to the Mines Act. If other Land Managers were subject to the same strict controls and public scrutiny as the Miner is, a major national scandal would have been avoided. Restoration – is it being done? Clauses in the Mines Act make the lodgment of a bond compulsory for the observance of restoration. The bond for a 1-ha claim is currently nearly always a minimum of $1,500, but is greater if the locality has special requirements that make reclamation more expensive. Greater areas, such as a lease, have substantially greater bonds. The bond figure is set by the Mines Inspector after consultation with all Land Managers and the Miner. The system has worked well since its development in 1983. The Mines Inspector has the power to increase the bond if he believes that circumstances have changed; presumably, he has the power to decrease the bond, too, but this does not happen. In addition, progressive restoration and reclamation is usually insisted on for alluvial operations. Over 90% of all tenements are restored by the miner to the satisfaction of the Mines Inspector and the Land Managers. The Miner then applies for the release of his bond. In the few remaining cases, no instance has been reported to the PMAV where the bond was too low. It is noteworthy that the Miner can change the land in a number of ways, depending on the instructions of the Mines Inspector: The land can be left as is; The land can be restored to its original condition; The land can be altered, for example, to build a dam or build a terrace for erosion control or to level or contour the land. It is not widely known that, in earlier mining times, restoration was socially unacceptable. By leaving the shafts, tailing dumps etc. available for the next Miner, the cost to the next Miner was substantially reduced. Community pressure has changed to the opposite view now. Alphabetical Index A.G. Leech and K.A. Leech...... 51 Castlemaine...... 18, 26, 29, 34, 62 Aboriginal...... 3, 4, 5, 22 Caucus...... 33 Administrative Appeals Tribunal...... 30, 45, 46, 47, 75 Chamber of Mines....13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, Alderson...... 1 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 57, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75, 77 Alex Arbuthnot...... 74 Charter Union Gold...... 49 Alf Freemantle...... 49, 58 chattel...... 33, 36, 43, 46, 47, 48 Altona...... 40 chattels...... 43, 44, 46, 47, 48 Altona Gate Shopping...... 40 Chiltern...... 11, 15, 16, 30, 31 Amcor...... 24 China...... 34 Amos, Derek...... 24 Chinese...... 34 anarchy...... 75 Colin Cruickshank...... 74 Anne Doran...... 50, 53, 62 Colin Silke...... 59 Ansett...... 10 Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources...... 10 Ashton Mining Limited...... 21 Conzinc Riotinto...... 13, 19, 21 Great Boulder Gold Mines...... 10 Councillor Williams...... 49, 51, 58, 60 Attorney-General Jim Kennan...... 9 County Court...... 6, 7, 42 Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy...... 10 Court of Petty Sessions...... 6 Australian Bicycle Magazine...... 64 Courtney, Eileen...... 25, 26 Australian Feldspar Corporation...... 21 Crimeem...... 18, 21 Australian Gold Mining Council...... 2 Criminal Investigation Branch...... 10 Avoca...... 7, 23, 48 Crommelin...... 11 Ballarat...... 10, 23, 50, 52, 77, 78, 80 Crown land.....15, 26, 29, 32, 34, 36, 48, 49, 57, 59, 65 Barry McNaught...... 74 Crown Lands (Reserves) Act...... 79 Barry Steggall...... 17 Crown Lands Act...... 21 Beachley, Neal; mines inspector...... 13, 22, 60 cyanide...... 18, 25, 74 Bendigo....9, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 35, 40, 49, D.L. Cairns...... 52 51, 52, 55, 62, 74, 77, 78, 80 Daly...... 52 Bendigo Advertiser...... 9, 17, 25, 26, 49 Dave Haden...... 60 Bet Bet Shire..9, 40, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 57, 61, Davey, Christopher..2, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 62, 63, 77 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 45, 46, 59, Bicycle Track...... 54 75, 76, 79, 80 Bill Galbraith...... 2 David Cooney, Journalist...... 9 Bill Heffernan...... 13 David Kennedy...... 17, 58, 59, 78 Blanche Barkly...... 9 David Lee...... 17 blockies...... 50 David Robinson...... 38, 39 Bob Hird...... 18 Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands 11, 12, Bob Raven...... 49, 63, 64 15, 17, 22, 31, 32, 59, 61, 76 Boileau vs Heath (1898) 2 Ch 301...... 43 Department of Information, Technology and Border Mail...... 31 Resources...... 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 21 Broken Hill Proprietary...... 13, 22 Department of Labour...... 12 Bromley...... 60, 63 Department of Premier and Cabinet...... 19, 20 Brooklyn...... 40 Development Lease...... 1, 6, 7, 11, 19, 21, 27 Brownbill...... 49, 59, 60, 63, 77 Development Leases...... 5, 27, 29, 73, 79 Burnt Creek...... 48, 55 DITR...... 8 Burnt Creek No 1 Mine...... 55 Douglas...... 11, 15, 22, 30, 31, 59 Burnt Creek No 2 Mine...... 55 Doze and detect...... 9 Burra Charter...... 31 Dr C. McConville...... 57, 62 by G. Ham...... 6 Dunolly....1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23, 40, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, Cain Government...... 41 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 76, 77, 78 Cain-Kirner...... 24 E. W. S. Tyler...... 21 Caldwell drill...... 56 Ebbels vs Rewell (1908) 14 ALR 121-4...... 43 Campbell Ward; journalist...... 49, 59, 60, 64, 73, 74 Ebery, Bill; parliamentarian...... 21 Carbon-in-Pulp...... 18 Elliott, Roydon John, Mining Warden...... 10, 45 Carmens Tunnel...... 21, 31 Errinunderra...... 23 Carr Boyd Minerals Limited...... 2 Eureka Echo 3, 5, 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, Joan Kirner...... 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 63, 67, 68, John Clancey...... 17 75, 77, 78 John Clancy...... 18, 22 Eureka Reef...... 29 John Drew Ridge of the Department of Geology, European Common Market...... 50 University of Florida...... 17 Ewen Richards...... 34 John Kerin...... 50 existing Interim Development Order 1982...... 48 John McCormick...... 8 Exploration Licence...5, 18, 21, 27, 36, 56, 66, 67, 68, John Reynolds...... 22, 24, 36, 39, 75, 77 73, 76 Jolly...... 19 F. L. Hunt & Associates...... 22 Judge Lazarus...... 6 Fauna and Flora Guarantee Bill...... 75 Kalgoorlie...... 10 Federal Resources Minister Senator Peter Walsh...... 2 Keith Bowen...... 17, 47 Felicity Economo...... 29 Keith Sheehan...... 18, 34 Finders...... 64 Kempson Tunbridge...... 6 Five Hectare Claims...... 5 Kemsley...... 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 31, 59, 66 Four Mile Creek...... 1 Ken Roberts...... 57, 64 Framlingham...... 22 Ken Wright...... 8, 17, 18, 62 Frank Jones...... 17, 18 Kinex Pty. Ltd...... 2 Fred Ward...... 30 Kingower...... 9, 11, 22, 26, 73 Freedom of Information...... 12, 19, 39, 46, 47, 67 Kooyora State Park...... 20 Freemantle...... 58 Kopacka, Frank or Patricia....8, 41, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, Fryerstown...... 38 61, 62 G.A. Travis...... 53 Koroit Creek...... 40 G.M. Hannaford...... 47 Kyte, William...... 10, 32, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 80 Gaffneys Creek...... 11, 25 La Trobe University...... 16 GAIA...... 28 Land Conservation Council...4, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 30, Geoff Shepherd...... 23 31, 54, 55, 56, 57, 72, 75, 79 Geological Survey of Victoria...... 16 Land Valuation Board...... 32, 36, 71, 79 George Letunica...... 5, 6 Legislative Council...... 8, 15, 17, 18, 22 Godfrey...... 55 Les Simmons...... 38 Gold Dredgers Association of Australia...... 18 Loddon...... 48, 49, 57 Goldfields Action Information Alliance...... 28, 29, 75 Lubo Todorov...... 18 Graeme Brownbill...... 49, 77 Luigi Mariniello...... 5, 75 Grampians...... 10 Magistrates Court...... 6, 10 Hans Eisner...... 20, 30 Malcom Lee...... 23 Hansard...... 11, 15 Maldon...... 18, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 34, 45, 70, 72, 75 Harvard Business School...... 22 Maldon Historic Area Draft Management Plan...... 31 Harvest Home Dam...... 55 Maribyrnong...... 40 Havelock...... 1 Mark Smith, journalist...... 2 Hewest Pty Ltd...... 29 Marsha Chandler...... 29 Higgins, John...... 60, 77 Maryborough Advertiser....1, 2, 23, 27, 49, 50, 51, 59, High Court...... 42, 43, 46 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 Highpoint Shopping Centre...... 40 Maryborough Post Office...... 1 hobby farmers...... 28, 50 Masonic Hall...... 70 How Tan...... 17 McCarthy, Peter...... 21 Hume Highway...... 28 McGregor, Ken...... 39, 40, 73, 74 Ian Parker...... 51 Mercury...... 74 Imperial Chemical Industries Australia Limited...... 21 Michael John...... 17, 77 In Adamson vs Haves (1972-3) AALR 1224-53...... 43 Mike Lester...... 77 Inglewood...... 10, 78 Mills vs Stokman (1967) 116 CLR 61...... 43 Insurance Council of Australia...... 8 Mine Managers Board...... 10, 23 Interim Development Order.48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, Minelab...... 80 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 72 Miner’s Right...4, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, J. Cahill...... 55 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 53, 54, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, J. Collier...... 21 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79 J. E. Askew...... 21 Miner’s Right Claim....4, 9, 15, 33, 36, 42, 43, 45, 53, James Ramsay, Liberal for Balwyn...... 11 54, 64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 76, 77 Miners Right Claim No. 2141...... 61 Robert Fordham...5, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 24, 35, 62, 64, Mines Act1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 68, 76, 81 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 52, Rod Mackenzie...... 15 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, Ron Clark...... 17, 18 76, 77, 79, 80, 81 Rosemary Varty...... 23 Mining Consultative Committee4, 6, 13, 14, 21, 36, 45 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology...... 18 Mining Development Act...... 36 Rurtherglen...... 39 Mining Lease...... 2, 7, 29, 35, 66, 68, 69, 73 Rushworth...... 6 Mining Warden....6, 10, 19, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, Russell and Gavin Stephens...... 52 47, 52, 60, 66, 73 Ryan, Kevin; Mining Warden...... 42, 45, 46 Moliagul...... 48, 51, 52, 63 salinity...... 26, 28, 75, 81 Monash University...... 16, 25 Sandner, Richard...... 55, 56, 77 Moonambel...... 23 Sandra M. Whitty...... 57 Morning Star Mine...... 10 Saville, Neil...... 13, 23, 25 Mr Johanson...... 62 sclerophyll...... 23 Mrs V. Galloway...... 51 Sendy...... 26, 27 Ms A. Moroney...... 57 Shire of Bet Bet....9, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, Mt Alexander State Park...... 29 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 76 Myers...... 9 Shire of Bet Bet Mining Group...... 62 National Parks Advisory Council...... 15 Sir Humphrey...... 75 National Party...... 18 sluicing...... 1, 53, 73 New Zealand...... 75 small-scale miners...... 2, 9, 13, 24, 25, 30, 67, 77 New Zealand Insurance...... 8 Solicitor General...... 36, 47 Newport, quarry...... 40 Sovereign Hill...... 10 Noel Laidlaw...... 34, 45, 59, 60, 70, 74, 77, 78 State Batteries...... 31, 36 North British Mine...... 21, 22, 31, 72 Stawell...... 11, 16, 18 Nuggetty Creek...... 48 Stehmann...... 20 occupational health and safety...... 12 Swan Hill...... 52 Occupiers Liability Act 1983...... 9 Sydenham Quartz Gold Mining Co. Ltd. v Ah Cheong over-pegging...... 66 23 V.L.R. 441...... 47 Parbo...... 17 T. E. Johanson...... 21 Passing Clouds...... 9 tailings....18, 25, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, Peek Mines...... 10 51, 53, 55, 57, 74 Peter Cox...... 35 Tailings Treatment Licence...... 42, 43 Peter Hargreaves...... 74 Tarnagulla...... 1, 6, 17, 48, 63 Phil Roberts...... 17 Tax Assessment...... 2 Pinex Pty Ltd...... 1 Taxation vs Henderson (1943) ALR 241-6...... 43 Planning and Environment...11, 17, 19, 22, 30, 48, 49, Tertiary and Further Education...... 80 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 72, 77 The A Team...... 24 Planning Appeals Board...... 4, 30 A-l Mine Settlement...... 11 Plante, David...... 39 The Bet Bet Mining Company...... 52 Poseidon Mine...... 55 The Second Telling...... 77 Pratt, Trevor...... 57, 58, 61, 62 Timor...... 1 Premier John Cain...... 33, 62 Tommy Stevenson...... 55 Prospecting Area Licence...... 7, 21, 29, 36 Town and Country Planning Act...... 17, 22, 30, 48 Prospectors and Miners Association....3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, Triad Minerals...... 13, 21, 28, 75 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, Tully, John...... 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 77 42, 45, 46, 47, 55, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 70, 76, 79 University of Melbourne...... 16 public liability...... 8, 9, 41 VCM...... 13, 66, 67 Queens Dam...... 55 Victorian Farmers Federation...... 73, 74 Railway Hotel...... 61 Victorian Land Protection Society...... 39 Rainbow, Thelma or Lindsay...... 58, 61, 62, 63 Victorian Mining Industry Committee...... 13, 18, 22 Ramsay...... 11, 12, 15 Victorian National Trust...... 38 Ranger Exploration...... 53 Waanyarra...... 48, 64 real estaters...... 58 Walhalla...... 11, 21 Reark Research...... 78 Walhalla Mining Company. N.L...... 21 Reimers...... 9, 17, 22 Walker, Evan; DTIR Minister...... 76 Warrnambool...... 52 Western Australia...... 2, 5, 12, 35, 37, 38, 55, 72, 79 Wattle Gully Mine...... 29 Western Mining Corporation...... 10, 11, 12, 21, 36, 54 Wedderburn...... 1, 11, 13, 26 White, David...... 19, 24, 32, 45, 54, 79 Welcome Record...... 51, 57, 58, 59, 60 Wilkes...... 19 West Australian School of Mines...... 10 Winter, John...... 16, 17, 20, 43, 45, 46, 68