29 



Mr. BACON (Brcwarrina) supported Mr. Alison's resolution, because it was a simple and equitable 

 way of meeting a difficulty. He would point out that in tins colony a system of mixed farming did not prevail. 

 "Without a man cultivated wheat the land simply lay fallow with the straw lying on it in the summer 

 until it was time to cultivate it again. The method proposed would be the simplest and the fairest and 

 cheapest manner of settling this. On the plea of economy he would advocate Mr. Alison's resolutions. 



Mr. TREFLE (Temora) supported Mr. Alison's resolutions. Although he did not agree with the 

 principle on which the land was valued, he thought it was better to tax lightly and use all that money 

 for the destruction of the rabbits than to have a greater tax and a heavy expenditure in getting it. He 

 must admit that valuation would cause a lot of expense. They must not raise a cry throughout the 

 country that the graziers were getting off too lightly. He thought it would be better to, allow the farmers 

 who were not stock-owners to be dealt with leniently, so as to avoid any friction which may destroy the 

 Bill. There were farmers with a few stock, a few killing-sheep, a few dairy cows, and a few horses. 

 Their returns under the Stock Protection Act would be very small, and they would get off taxation, but 

 he thought they would have to put up with the difficulty in that instance. Some gentlemen had made 

 remarks about the carrying capacity of the land, and one gentleman had remarked that 2 acres would 

 carry a sheep. In some localities, perhaps, it would, but his experience showed that 2 acres would nob 

 carrv a sheep. Thousands of acres of the back country land had been brought under cultivation, and ho 

 knew of land in many districts that had been brought under cultivation that would not carry a sheep to 2 

 acres. He thought that if they left the basis at 5 acres to a sheep it would show that they did not want 

 to tax the small men too heavily. 



The Honorable EUPEBT CAHINGTON (Jerilderie) would support Mr. Gibson's amendment. As to 

 expense, there need be no expense whatever. It was never proposed there should be experts called in 

 to value the land ; the Stock Boards being experts could value it themselves. Some men would have to 

 pay on their ten head of stock and then on their wheat land as well. They would be taxed twice. . 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), said that when he drew out the motion of which he gave 

 notice just now he did not know there was anything proposed on the same lines. 



The CHAIRMAN said he was just about to rule Mr. Brown's amendment out of order, because Mr. 

 Gibson's proposal and his were the same. 



Mr. BROWN (Budgeradong) withdrew his amendment and supported Mr. Gibson's. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said his idea was to allow those who had cultivated land to pay as small a 

 sum as possible to allow them representation. He did not want to see them taxed too heavily, because 

 the men who cultivated land were men worthy of a great deal of consideration, and he thought they would 

 be making the greatest mistake possible if they overtaxed them. He would sooner see them get off lightly 

 than that they should be taxed heavily. His proposition could not possibly injure anybody. His idea 

 was to let them off easier, because they were people who were not interested to the same extent as the 

 pastoralists. They were not affected so much as those who had stock. He was quite willing to have it 

 amended in any way, if he could be shown how it injured any farmer or any owner of cultivated land, but 

 he did not think it would. 



The CHAIRMAN here explained to the Conference that the original motion meant that if a man had 

 5 acres under cultivation he should pay on that at 5 acres to the sheep, and if he had 2,000 acres additional 

 he would pay on that according to the stock returns. 



Mr. GIBSON'S (Hay) amendment was put to the meeting and lost by 21 votes to 20. 



Mr. COOK'S (Beringerry) amendment was put to the meeting and lost. 



The original motion (one sheep to 5 acres) was put and carried by 22 to 17. 



Mr. ALISON (Canoubar) begged to move that all the words from the word " the" in line 39 down 

 to the word " stock" in line 48 be eliminated, that is to say the whole of subsection 2. 



The CHAIRMAN pointed out that that would follow on the last resolution. 



Mr. OATLEI seconded Mr. Alison's proposal, which was carried. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) begged to move that no rates be levied on any holding that had been 

 already rabbit proof fenced. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said that that was on the business paper in his name. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) withdrew the proposal. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) moved " that any owner or occupier of land within a rabbit district shall 

 not be called upon to pay any tax under the Babbit Act, in respect of any land of his already made rabbit 

 proof, or hereafter to be made rabbit proof at his own expense." He proposed this as an amendment of 

 clause 12. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) rose to a point of order. Mr. Flanagan was going too fast, he had got 

 from clause 13 to clause 22. 



The CHAIRMAN ruled that Mr. Flanagan was in order. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said he was a believer in this Act. He was a believer in rabbit fencing 

 in some districts, and a believer in destruction of rabbits in other districts. He came from Gunbar where 

 they had gone into cultivation to a very large extent. They found they could not by any means cultivate 

 their lands without a fence round them. He held land close to Burraga. It was all bush country. It 

 would not be just to compel people in that country to pay for fencing. If the people of that locality 

 sent to the Board to say they did not want compulsory fencing, then they would kill the rabbits. Fencing 

 was a necessity in some cases. Where nine farmers out of ten would vote for fencing then the tenth 

 farmer should be compelled to pay for half that fencing. He thought it would be wise to provide for 

 fencing clauses where the majority of farmers wished to have fences erected, and to compel their 

 neighbours to pay for half the boundary fences. He thought that, although now they might provide in 

 some cases for a boundary fence being placed round the holding, if six or seven farmers who chose to 

 form a group wished to be separated entirely from the jurisdiction of a Stock Board, in respect of that 

 land they should be allowed to do so. These holders should have the power within themselves of rating 

 one-another's land to kill rabbits within the boundary of that "special district," so to speak, and if one 

 man out of the seven did not do his duty in killing the rabbits, the same machinery that applied with 

 the Babbit Board to compel people under this Act to deal with the rabbits should "operate within the 

 holding if the majority of the holders within this "sub-district" wished. Tho holders within this sub- 

 district should have the power to compel the negligent farmer to do his duty in respect of his lands, and 

 if one of them elected to separate his holding from the other six, then the other six should be compelled 



to 



