26 



thought it would be better at once to mention them in order to avoid any misuuderntauding, because 

 there is a misunderstanding growing iip, and some think that the small man is to be shut out entirely. 

 I think we can bring these divergent views into harmony, and draft something which will satisfy all 

 parties concerned. And on the other point I have mentioned, I think a little reconsideration will show 

 you that it would he, perhaps, better to leave it to the varying requirements of the localities. I have 

 nothing more to say, gentlemen, and I would be very glad to hear, for a few minutes, if there arc any 

 other points on which there might be any need for mutual conferences. 



The CHAIRMAN read the resolution regarding the basis of representation. 



The MINISTER FOE LANDS continuing said : I do not think that resolution is a right one, because 

 the effect of it would be that persons who have not got the franchise under the Stock Protection Board 

 would be exempt from taxation. If you put it the other way round, that there will be representation to 

 all who are taxed, I have no objection to it; but if you are going to exclude people from being taxed, 

 simply because you are going to exclude them from having representation, you are wrong. That reads 

 the wrong way. I say at once that agriculturists who have no franchise under the Stock Protection Act 

 ought not to escape taxation that they ought to have the franchise, and that they ought as well to have 

 the burden of taxation. 



The Honorable KUPERT CAHINGTON said that he would like to say a few words, as he had been the 

 mover of the resolution which placed the control of the rabbits under the Stock Protection Board. He 

 opposed the proposal in the Bill of the Minister on the ground that we should have no taxation without 

 representation, and he most carefully brought that in, as it was the keynote of his amendment that they 

 should bring in an amendment so as to prevent any taxation without representation. They were dealing 

 with agricultural lands, and how they were to be taxed. He agreed with the Minister that nothing 

 would be worse than that a certain- number of people in a district should be taxed and a certain number 

 not taxed. He thought an amendment could be passed that would fairly meet the case. He thanked 

 the Minister for the very conciliatory attitude he had taken, and for the consideration he had shown to 

 the alterations which had been made in the Bill ; and ho sincerely hoped the Conference would be able to 

 back the Minister up very considerably in his efforts to produce a Bill that would meet the case. There 

 must be mutual concessions on both sides, and he, on his part, would be quite willing to withdraw the 

 resolution about taxation of the Crown. He thoroughly understood the Minister's objection to it, and 

 hoped the Conference would adopt the same attitude to the Minister, and by mutual concession strengthen 

 his hands and enable a Bill to be passed acceptable to him and to ourselves. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) thought the Minister did not clearly grasp his meaning. He stood 

 there as a representative of 11,000,000 acres of land ; therefore he felt it his duty to speak. There was a 

 clause in the Act (clause 32) that only allowed a maximum to be laid out by the Minister, and he took it 

 that that maximum sum was equal to the public lands as against the other lands. Take the public lands 

 as 20,000,000 acres against 2,000,000 acres; the Minister can only lay out a maximum of one-tenth of 

 what may be collected. He maintained that about 100.000 might be collected, and therefore the 

 Minister will have to spend 10,000. 10,000 would not suffice. The public lands were the worst 

 infested, and it would take a far larger sum annually than 10,000. The sum which the Government 

 limited themselves to in this Bill would not be sufficient. 



The MINISTEB FOB LANDS : Do you mean to tell me there are 20,000,000 acres within your 

 district. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) said he estimated that as the amount of public lands in the Colony. 



Mr. J. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) drew attention to the fact that the last speaker had yesterday 

 supported a motion that the Minister should be taxed by a sheep to 20 acres. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) : No ; a sheep to 30 acres. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said he stood there as a representative of the farming class. He had 

 supported Mr. Gibson's motion in the direction that the Minister has now said it should be corrected. 

 The farmers as a rule were apathetic. They did not take part in public meetings, but they would take 

 their part on the voting day, and defeat what was done at the Conference if they did not treat them 

 fairly ; and he could assure the Minister he thought there were very few delegates who doubted his 

 sincerity as regarded any proposals he might bring forth with regard to the Babbit Bill. Here was the 

 point that they prayed that Parliament would enact a law that would compel land-owners to at onco 

 commence to operate against the rabbit pest ; but Parliament would not enable the Minister to commence 

 the work. He would be delayed until Parliament granted the money, which might mean a delay of two or 

 three years; therefore, it would be unfair to land owners that they should be compelled to kill rabbits 

 straight away when the Minister would not be enabled to do his share of the work. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said he was very glad that the Minister for Lands had come there to 

 confer with them, and he thought the Minister would find they were very much in accord with him. They 

 were now dealing with the question of the voting and the franchise, and they intended to reduce that 

 franchise to the lowest possible reasonable point. They did not want to bring in a man who has only a 

 pet sheep or a man who has only a spring-cart horse. All land-owners and stock-holders who could 

 reasonably be called land-owners and stock-holders should have a vote. The present law allowed any man 

 who had ten head of large stock or 500 sheep to have a vote. If the small owners considered that 500 

 sheep was too high a limit, they could reduce that vote. It could hardly be conceived that anyone would 

 want to reduce the number of large stock from ten head. 



The MINISTER FOB LANDS : Supposing he had no stock at all, but about 300 acres of wheat land? 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) : They intended to deal with the wheat lands by assessing them on a basis 

 which would allow them a sufficient vote. They did not desire them to pay a very large taxation. As far 

 as possible, men who had cultivated their land should be very lightly dealt with in their contribution to 

 the rabbit fund. They thought that any man who had brought the land up from a sheep to 10 acres to a 

 sheep to 5 acres ought to escape taxation as much as possible, and they intended to make the taxation as 

 light as possible and his representation would be according to his taxation. He was sure the farming 

 members there would bo entirely able to say what taxation they proposed to pay. Under this Bill the 

 rate was not to exceed |d. per sheep. In any case the taxation would not be very severe on the owners 

 of cultivated land and they would have full representation in accordance with their taxation. He was the 

 mover of the measure that the meeting passed yesterday in regard to Crown lands, and their idea was that 

 the taxation should not be extreme on the Crown in any way. It was simple, and the Crown would pay 



just 



