24^ Journal op the Department op Agriculture. 



mistaken idea, and so long as the efforts of officials are not supple- 

 mented by the best efforts of the sheep owner, scab will never be 

 eradicated. Therefore, the Advisory Board considers that the time 

 has come for inducing the closest co-operation of the sheep farmer by 

 holding out direct reward for success, and a personal loss, through 

 direct taxation, for failure, in the country's campaign against scab. 



The manner in which a direct tax will need to be imposed, taking 

 into consideration the fact that at present the cost of scab control is 

 paid for by the whole community through indirect taxation, appears 

 to be the levying of a direct tax from each sheep owner in a district 

 in which scab exists and according to the number of sheep owned at 

 a late, either fixed or sliding, to be agreed upon. Foi- instance, if 

 the cost of eradication is £2UU,0U0, a rate fixed at £5 per lUOO sheep 

 would cover the whole cost. But as the community as a whole 

 benefits from the measures adopted to extirpate the disease, it is 

 considered that not more than half the cost should be borne directly 

 by the farmers in scab-infested districts, and, therefore, that a tax 

 Oi about £2. 10s. per 1000 sheep should be levied upon them. The 

 remaining half of the cost could be met out of general revenue. The 

 main point is that while the farmer, under the present system, also 

 contributes, of course, towards the expenditure, he does so indirectly 

 in the same way as other members of the community, and is, speaking 

 generally, not aware that he does pay, and does not realize what the 

 presence of scab in the country is costing him as an individual. 



The proposal is that the direct tax would be levied on every 

 district which has not been clean for twelve months and on every 

 sheep owner within such district. As soon as any district thereafter 

 becomes clean and remains so for twelve months, the tax on that 

 district would be removed and the amount previously paid by that 

 district in direct taxation be made good out of revenue, if necessary. 

 If the district becomes reinfected the direct tax would be reimposed 

 until the district is again clean for twelve months. But at the same 

 time, once a district is declared to be clean, it would be the duty of 

 the Government to give it all the protection in its power to prevent 

 reinfection. 



That, in brief, is the system which has been recommended. At 

 the first glance it might give the appearance of penalizing the 

 innocent for the wrongdoing of the guilty and would be resisted for 

 this reason alone. This can be understood, for a fault of indirect 

 taxation is that the persons so taxed are either ignorant of the fact 

 or do not fully realize to what extent they are being taxed. As 

 already indicated, every sheep owner to-day is taxed for the eradica- 

 tion of scab, but few seem to appreciate the fact. If it were reckoned 

 out how much is paid out in indirect taxation for each large service 

 rendered by the Government a different impression would prevail. 

 It is maintained that, reckoned as a business proposition, the direct 

 tax should be welcomed by all. Under such a system, instead of all 

 the responsibility practically being upon sheep inspectors, it would 

 be thrown primarily on the owners themselves. Thus a man who is 

 a breeder of scab or negligent would, on conviction, be considered 

 a danger and expense to his district and be dealt with by the district 

 accordingly. At present it is not unusual for a man convicted and 

 fined to receive the sympathy of his fellow-farmers instead of the 

 opprobrium his action deserves, because his misdemeanour does not 

 affect directly in taxation the other farmers of the district. Under a 



