{"id":"C2004A00038","name":"Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs) Act 1973","slug":"queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":"206 of 1973","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":2690,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A00038-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-29","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs) Act 1973","content":"Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs)\n\nAct 1973\n\nNo. 206 of 1973\n\nAN ACT\n\nTo grant Financial Assistance to the State of Queensland  \nin connexion with the Construction of a Weir at Baralaba  \non the Dawson River, and of an Associated Weir.\n\n\\[Assented to 19 December 1973\\]\n\nBE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:—\n\nShort title.\n\n1. This Act may be cited as the Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs) Act 1973.\n\nCommencement.\n\n2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.\n\nDefinition.\n\n3. In this Act, “State” means the State of Queensland.\n\nGrant of financial assistance.\n\n4. (1) Subject to this Act, there are payable to the State, by way of financial assistance, amounts necessary to reimburse the State in respect of moneys expended by the State, after the commencement of this Act, in carrying out the works, and doing the other things, referred to in the Schedule.\n\n  \n\n(2) The amounts paid to the State under this Act shall not exceed, in the aggregate, Five hundred and fifty thousand dollars.\n\nPower of Minister to vary description of work.\n\n5. Upon request by the State, the Minister may, from time to time, direct in writing that this Act have effect in relation to a work referred to in the Schedule as if the description in that Schedule of that work were varied in such manner as the Minister specifies in the direction.\n\nProvision relating to carrying out of work.\n\n6. The State is not entitled to financial assistance under this Act in relation to expenditure by the State in carrying out a particular work—\n\n(a) where the Minister has requested the State to furnish information in relation to the design or construction of the work—unless the State has duly furnished that information;\n\n(b) unless the Minister is satisfied that the design and construction of the work are in accordance with the purposes for which the work was proposed by the State; and\n\n(c) where the expenditure was incurred under a contract providing for the expenditure of more than Two hundred thousand dollars— unless the contract was entered into with the approval of the Minister.\n\nInformation to be furnished by State in relation to expenditure.\n\n7. The State is not entitled to financial assistance under this Act in relation to particular expenditure by the State unless the State has furnished to the Treasurer—\n\n(a) a statement in respect of that expenditure in accordance with a form approved by the Treasurer, accompanied by a certificate of the Auditor-General of the State certifying that, in his opinion, the expenditure shown in the statement was incurred in carrying out works, or doing other things, referred to in the Schedule; and\n\n(b) such further information, if any, as the Treasurer requires in respect of that expenditure.\n\nAdvances.\n\n8. The Treasurer may, at such times as he thinks fit, make advances of such amounts as he thinks fit to the State on account of an amount that may become payable under this Act to the State.\n\nOverpayments.\n\n9. Payment to the State under this Act of any amount (including an advance) is subject to the condition that the State will repay to Australia, on demand by the Treasurer, the amount by which, at the time of the demand, the total of the amounts (including advances) paid to the State under this Act exceeds the total of the amounts that have become payable to the State under section 4.\n\nAppropriation.\n\n10. Amounts payable to the State under this Act are payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n  \n\nSCHEDULE Section 4\n\nMATTERS IN RESPECT OF WHICH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS GRANTED\n\n1\\. The construction of a weir on the main stream of the Dawson River at Baralaba, and of a weir on an anabranch of the Dawson River that flows out of that river upstream from the site of the proposed weir at Barabala and re-enters that river downstream from that site, being weirs of sufficient height to store approximately 11,000,000 cubic metres of water.\n\n2\\. The construction of outlet works in connexion with the weirs.\n\n3\\. The construction of access roads to the weir sites.\n\n4. The relocation of roads and other services that may be affected by the construction of the weirs and by the storage of water by the weirs.\n\n5. The clearing of timber from the area to be covered by the water to be stored by the weirs.\n\n6. The carrying out of works incidental to any of the works referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule.\n\n7. The establishment of construction camps required in connexion with the carrying out of any of the works referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule and the provision of services necessary for those camps, including the construction of roads and the provision of power, water, sewerage and telecommunication facilities.\n\n8. The acquisition of land that is required for the carrying out of any of the works referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule or may be affected by any of those works.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act is a single-purpose, tightly scoped piece of legislation. Every provision — the grant, the conditions, the ministerial powers, the financial safeguards, and the Schedule — is directly and exclusively aimed at funding the Baralaba weir construction project on the Dawson River. There is no evidence of scope creep or expansion beyond the original purpose stated in the long title. The Schedule comprehensively but narrowly defines the eligible works, and no amending provisions broaden the Act's reach."},"complexity_factors":["Only 1 defined term ('State') in the interpretation section — minimal definitional overhead","Short Act with 10 sections and a single Schedule — very limited length","Conditional logic in sections 6 and 7 is straightforward and flat (no nested exceptions or exceptions to exceptions)","Cross-references are minimal and confined to internal references to the Schedule and section 4","Financial mechanics (advances, overpayments, appropriation) are standard boilerplate found across Commonwealth grants legislation of this era","Plain dollar cap ($550,000 aggregate) and contract approval threshold ($200,000) are simple numerical rules with no indexation or formula complexity"],"plain_english_summary":"## Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs) Act 1973\n\nThis law authorises the **Commonwealth (Australian federal) government to give money to Queensland** to help build two weirs (small dams that hold back river water) on the Dawson River near the town of Baralaba in central Queensland.\n\n### What does it actually do?\n\n- **Provides funding up to $550,000** to reimburse Queensland for money it spends on the construction project. This means Queensland pays the bills first, then claims the money back from the Commonwealth.\n- The money covers a broad range of related costs, including:\n  - Building the two weirs themselves (designed to store approximately 11 million cubic metres of water)\n  - Outlet works (the structures that control water release)\n  - Access roads to the building sites\n  - Relocating existing roads or services disrupted by construction\n  - Clearing trees from the area that will flood\n  - Setting up workers' construction camps with power, water, sewerage and communications\n  - Acquiring (buying) any land needed for or affected by the works\n\n### Who is affected?\n\n- **Queensland state government** — it receives the money and must meet the conditions attached to it\n- **Residents and landowners near Baralaba** — roads, services, and land in the area may be relocated or acquired\n- **The Australian public** — the money comes from the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund (the main account of federal taxes and revenues)\n\n### Key conditions on the funding\n\nQueensland only gets the money if it:\n1. **Provides information** to the federal Minister if asked about the design or construction of the weirs\n2. **Builds the weirs for the right purpose** — the Minister must be satisfied the design matches what Queensland originally proposed\n3. **Gets approval** for any contracts worth more than $200,000\n4. **Submits proper financial statements**, certified by Queensland's Auditor-General (an independent official who checks government accounts)\n\n### Safety nets built into the law\n\n- The federal **Minister can adjust the description** of the works if Queensland asks — giving some flexibility if plans change during construction\n- The Commonwealth can make **advance payments** before all conditions are fully met\n- If Queensland is overpaid for any reason, it must **pay the excess back** on demand\n\n### Why does it matter?\n\nThis is a typical example of **Commonwealth–State financial cooperation** for infrastructure. The federal government provides money for a state-managed project, but attaches oversight conditions to make sure the funds are used properly and the project is built as intended."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"other","section":"Schedule, Item 1","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The long title, section 4, and Schedule Item 1's first reference all spell the town 'Baralaba'. However, the second reference in Schedule Item 1 — describing where the anabranch re-enters the river — spells the reference location as 'Barabala'. While likely a drafting typo, in a statute defining the precise geographic scope of a capital works grant, a misspelling of the anchor location creates genuine legal ambiguity about whether 'Barabala' is a distinct location or the same site. Any dispute about the anabranch weir's location could exploit this inconsistency.","confidence":0.92,"description":"The Schedule refers to the anabranch weir site location as 'Barabala' while the Act's long title and all other references spell it 'Baralaba'. This appears to be a typographical transposition error in the legislation itself, creating ambiguity about which geographic location is legally authorised."},{"type":"other","section":"Section 4(1)","severity":"low","reasoning":"This is a common structural tension in Commonwealth grant-in-aid legislation of this era rather than a true impossibility, but it creates a genuine logical awkwardness: the State must spend money it may not yet have in order to trigger the reimbursement entitlement, while simultaneously being able to receive advances that technically exceed its entitlement at the time of payment. The overpayment mechanism in s9 patches this but confirms the circularity.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The reimbursement mechanism requires Queensland to expend money BEFORE receiving the grant, yet section 8 allows the Treasurer to make advances BEFORE expenditure is incurred. The interaction between these two provisions creates an awkward circularity: the grant reimburses expenditure already made, but advances are paid before that expenditure becomes 'payable' under section 4. Section 9 then requires repayment of any advance exceeding amounts 'that have become payable... under section 4', meaning Queensland must potentially hold advance funds it cannot yet lawfully keep."},{"type":"other","section":"Section 6(c)","severity":"low","reasoning":"In 1973 dollars, $200,000 was a substantial sum, but constructing a weir capable of storing 11,000,000 cubic metres of water — a major piece of hydraulic infrastructure — would almost certainly require contracts exceeding that threshold. The drafting implies this is an edge-case trigger, when in reality it would apply to the core works every time. This is more of a drafting inelegance than a true absurdity, hence low severity.","confidence":0.78,"description":"The $200,000 ministerial approval threshold for contracts sits well below the $550,000 aggregate cap in section 4(2). Given that the Schedule encompasses at least 8 categories of major civil engineering works including dam construction, access roads, relocation of services, land acquisition, and construction camps, it is virtually impossible that the totality of works could be completed without at least one contract exceeding $200,000. This means ministerial approval under s6(c) is not merely a contingency — it is a near-certain practical prerequisite for any reimbursement to flow at all, yet it is drafted as if it were an exceptional condition."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Section 4(1)","section_b":"Section 8","confidence":0.72,"description":"Section 4(1) establishes that amounts are payable only to 'reimburse the State in respect of moneys expended by the State' — i.e., the entitlement is triggered by prior expenditure. Section 8, however, permits the Treasurer to make advances 'on account of an amount that may become payable' before any such expenditure has been incurred and verified. This creates a direct tension: s4(1) conditions payment on past expenditure, while s8 authorises payment ahead of any expenditure, meaning advances are paid under a condition that has not yet been satisfied under the principal grant provision."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Section 6(b)","section_b":"Section 5","confidence":0.81,"description":"Section 6(b) conditions financial assistance on the Minister being satisfied that 'the design and construction of the work are in accordance with the purposes for which the work was proposed by the State.' Section 5, however, expressly empowers the Minister to vary the description of any work in the Schedule — potentially altering it significantly from what Queensland originally proposed. If the Minister varies a work description under s5, it becomes logically impossible to assess whether the actual construction accords with the State's original proposal, since the legislative description of that proposal has been officially changed. The benchmark in s6(b) is thus capable of being erased by the Minister's own action under s5."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973","history":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973/history","analysis":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/queensland-grant-dawson-river-weirs-act-1973/documents"}}