23 



Mr. ATKINSON said that his amendment was that the assessment should be on the carrying capacity, 

 and the carrying capacity be arrived at by the Boards themselves with the right of appeal by the lessee. 

 No valuator should be sent round. 



Mr. BROOKE (Boggabri) quite agreed with Mr.. Alison in every respect, but did not think they could 

 discuss this amendment without discussing the rest of his proposed amendment. Mr. Flanagan had said 

 that he had land which was utterly useless for sheep, and which cost 3 an acre to clear, and he would 

 be now taxed on what it cost him to clear it ; but then he ought to, because he would be proportionately 

 benefited. He would benefit to a greater extent than another man whose land was only worth 1 

 an acre. 



Mr. FREEMAN rose to support Mr. Alison's amendment. He said they all knew that the returns 

 of the stock on the 31st December, in the majority of cases, represented more than the carrying capacity 

 of the country, and though perhaps one man might not have a sufficient number of stock, and might not be 

 right up to the carrying capacity on the 31st December, his neighbour would probably be so much over ; 

 and so the thing would cut all round very evenly. Surely they had had quite sufficient for the last fifteen 

 years of people running all over their runs cackling about them. The proper way to take the assessment 

 was on the returns under the sheep Act. One might be a little more one year and another year less, but 

 in a number of years the thing would average itself. 



Mr. LAUBENCE (Balranald) would support the resolution that the assessment be made on the 

 stock returns. He considered it was the fairest way for the raising of funds. It would be most unfair 

 to put in the hands of a Board a large district to assess. The amounts the Boards would assess at would 

 be found fault with almost everywhere. It should be kept in the Stock Board's hands altogether, and by 

 taking the returns sent in to the Government under the Sheep Act would be the fairest way. 



Mr. TREFLE (Temora) rose to supporb Mr. Gibson. He thought Mr. Gibson's amendment should 

 be carried in its entirety. A short time ago he spoke in the interests of the small men, but now he spoke 

 in the interests of the large men. There waa no other course open than to assess the land on the carrying 

 capacity. The other way would be setting a premium on dishonesty. The suggestion by Mr. Atkinson 

 that there should be a power of appeal was a good one. Experienced men who were elected to the Stock 

 Board were not likely to make a mistake. There was no other way which would approach the fairness of 

 this system of taxing by the carrying capacity. 



Mr. Boss (Hume) said he would support Mr. Alison. 



Mr. BROOKE (Bogabri) said they had just had one valuation all over the freehold land in the Colony 

 by Inspectors appointed by the Crown, and look at the result. He did not suppose there were two men 

 who were satisfied. 



Mr. ALISON was quite astonished to find any difference of opinion in this matter. He only 

 proposed to adopt the mode that had been adopted under the Pastures and Stock Act and was now in 

 force. He was proposing no innovation, no revolution at all. It had been found to work fairly, 

 equitably, and correctly, and he did not see what they could do better than to adopt that principle. But 

 according to the principle which was proposed this Stock Board was to be composed of stockowners, and 

 they were to assess the carrying capacity of the lands in their district that is to say, that the members 

 of the Stock Protection Board were to be the judges of the value of their own properties. Now, he 

 would say that no body of men were to be trusted with such a responsibility. It would be dangerous. 

 It was most unusual to entrust eight men to value their own properties. When the judgments came out 

 he thought they would see some very curious anomalies. It would be much better for them to say they 

 would adopt the old simple plan under the Pastures and Stock Act, and they should adopt the same mode 

 of taxation. It was simple, easy, and equitable. 



Mr. GIBSON (Hay), in reply, pointed out that the right which Mr. Alison would deny to the 

 Rabbit Board was already possessed by the municipal councils. In valuing the property they held a 

 friendly Appeal Court, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred this friendly Appeal Court settled the 

 cases, and in the one-hundredth case they went to the Appeal Magistrate. He would like to point out 

 that the returns did not give a true statement of the holding of the run. In his district they had got 

 freehold lands abandoned ; they were in the hands of large monetary institutions, and these should pay 

 their share of any rabbit taxation. How were they going to get at the owners of these properties ? 

 They would not kill the rabbits, and they would not put stock on them, and Mr. Alison's proposals made 

 no provision to make them pay their share. 



Mr. ATKINSON said the valuators who would go out in this case would not be the same class of 

 men as those sent out by the Government to value the lands. These men would be appointed by the 

 Board themselves, the same as the municipal valuer was appointed by his own council. The people would 

 have the right to appeal, and the people would bring forth evidence and say what could be carried. That 

 would be the fairest way of getting at the revenue which should be derived from these lands. Many 

 people carried stock for certain periods of the year only; for instance, many people kept largo tracts of 

 country for carrying their stock during the winter season. They wanted to get at the acres which carried 

 rabbits. He thought, therefore, that they should be taxed on the carrying capacity of the whole run. 

 Mr. Alison had said that he could not see how anybody could follow any other course than his ; well, he, 

 for his part, could not see how anybody could go tor any other course than his own (Mr. Atkinson's). 



Mr. Gibson's amendment ivas put to the meeting, and lost by 28 to 15. 



The original proposal by Mr. Alison was put, and carried by 25 to 13. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said the resolution which had been passed necessitated an amendment in 

 line 29 of Clause 12. He would move that the words "private holdings " be struck out and the word 

 " stock " be inserted. 



Question put to the meeting and carried. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said in line 35 ho would move, and he was not wedded to the figures in 

 any way, that after the word "year" all the words in that subsection be struck out with a view to the 

 insertion of the following, l: that unoccupied lands shall be taxed on the basis of one sheep to G acres." 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) seconded the proposal, but would like Mr. Alison to give a definition of 

 what he meant by unoccupied lands. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) : Lands in the hands of the Crown that were not held under any form of 

 lease or license. He was quite willing to add that. It was advisable for them to deal with the different 

 divisions as they came up ; he wanted to deal with the lands in the hands of the Crown which were not 



tinder 



