^°l-92^i^''] State Secretaries' Reports. 233 



new Act regardiiii^ notices. The Game I)ill suggested that 

 sanctuaries should be only for those animals and birds specified 

 in the order of proclamation. This was unsatisfactory ; a 

 sanctuary must be seldom, if ever, disturbed if birds are to realise 

 their immunity. In gaining this point it was fair to concede 

 that the Minister should have power to issue authority to certain 

 persons to shoot in a sanctuary when necessity might demand it. 

 Otherwise, some of the present big reservations would have 

 to be unlocked, for no person is permitted to carry a gun in such 

 an area. Under the South Australian Act of 1919 (which seems 

 to be the only one to equal that of Queensland as regards sanctu- 

 aries), dogs are to be kept off reservations. This point was ex- 

 cised from the Queensland Act as being unnecessarily drastic ; 

 under it dwellers on reserved islands, for instance, could not 

 keep dogs. The penalties under the sanctuaries' clause are salu- 

 tary. For killing, or attempting to kill, or having in possession 

 any means for killing, animals or birds upon such an area, the 

 fine is to be not less than £2, and, in addition, not less than £1 

 for each animal or bird affected. A minimum penalty of £2 is 

 also provided for anyone who attempts to place poison in a 

 sanctuary or removes or defaces notices. Altogether, the pro- 

 visions relating to sanctuaries are an important section of the 

 new^ Act. 



There is also a penalty of £2 (minimum) provided for anyone 

 who unlawfully kills a bird or animal in a place other than a 

 sanctuary; but in such cases there is no additional fine based 

 on the numbers killed. Then there is the buying and selling 

 clause. A penalty of not less than ten shillings is provided in the 

 case of each animal or bird (or skin or carcase thereof) bought 

 or sold during the close season, with a total minimum of £5 for 

 a second offence. Dealers are to have ten days of the close 

 season in which to dispose of surplus stock of partially-protected 

 creatures. This concession has been proved to be a reasonable 

 one. The Minister is given power to grant permits to collect for 

 scientific purposes and for public gardens, etc., and also to 

 authorise specified birds to be kept in a state of domestication, 

 there being, of course, no objection to certain birds being con- 

 fined under proper conditions. Moreover, this innovation does 

 away with the bad old section, contained in practically every 

 Act of the kind in Australia, allowing persons to have a free 

 hand in confining birds. This is the point upon which the New 

 South Wales Act has recently been proved to be very weak.* 



A second weakness in the New South Wales Act is one that 

 could have been guarded against by a reference to the clause in 

 the old Queensland Act, allowing persons to kill protected birds 

 on private land, for the bona fide protection of crops and or- 

 chards. A provision of this kind enables birds that occasionally 

 eat fruit to be retained on the protected list. South Australia has 



* See "Emu," Vol. XXL, p. 73. 



