30 



to pay as one rnan for half of the boundary fence. It would simplify matters very much if groups were 

 allowed to form their holdings into sub-district*. They could have their own little meeting, and each 

 would know what his neighbour was doing, and it would not be necessary to send a Stock Inspector 

 50 miles to inspect the holdings. 



Mr. J. M. ATKINSON said he would second the motion. He asked the Chairman if Mr. Flanagan 

 was right in saying that the Minister had the power to create rabbit districts without reference to the 

 boundaries of the sheep districts. 



The CHAIRMAN said that that was not come to yet. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) could not agree with the resolution proposed by Mr. Flanagan for this 

 reason, that he proposed that all owners or occupiers who fenced in should be exempted. He would 

 move an amendment that one single owner who fenced in his individual holding should be exempted. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said it was the same thing. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) sajd it was a very different thing. Perhaps Mr. Flanagan would accept 

 this amendment, " Provided also that no rates shall be levied 011 any holding which in the opinion of the 

 Hoard is surrounded by a rabbit-proof fence." 



Mr. FLANAUAN (Q-unbar) : Surely that would remain with the Board. They would decide what 

 would be a rabbit-proof fence. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) begged to move, " Provided always that no rates shall be levied on any 

 holding enclosed in a fence which in the opinion of the Board is rabbit-proof." That was substantially 

 the same thing as obtained in Queensland. He thought that an owner who fenced in his holding, whether 

 it was 640 acres or 2,560, or 10,000, or 100,000, if he went to the very large expense of putting a fence 

 round and keeping it in order he should not be called upon to go to any further expense in taxation. It 

 should be distinctly understood that he proposed this for individual owners. If it went in groups, these 

 groups would be more or less large, and there would be no taxation at all. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.P. (Budgeraboiig), said there were some difficulties in the way of Mr. 

 Flanagan's motion. He had contended that, in order to deal effectively with the rabbit pest by means of 

 wire-netting, they must have the holdings of as small an area as possible, and it seemed to him that, unless 

 under this resolution they made the country of a limited area, it would be no effective means of preventing 

 the spread of the pest. In the meanwhile he should move as an amendment the following: " That the 

 word 'quarter' be substituted for 'half,'" in line 49, clause 12, of the Bill. He thought the owners who 

 were enclosed would derive a certain amount of benefit from the operations of the Pasture and Stock 

 Boards, and that they should contribute something for the benefit derived, and while he thought the half 

 rates were too high he thought the quarter would be sufficient to cover the benefits received. 



Mr. FREUMAN rose to second the resolution which had been proposed by Mr. Bacon, but in 

 doing so followed Mr. Flanagan in all that ho said, but he would point out to Mr. Flanagan that where 

 he differed from his resolutions was in the words "rabbit-proof," and he would, like Mr. Bacon, wish to 

 substitute the words " reasonably sufficient." There had been a great deal of conflict of opinion as to 

 what constituted a rabbit-proof fence. It was laid down under certain sections of the Rabbit Act, and it 

 was found to work unjustly against people who had fences which were reasonably sufficient for the 

 exclusion of rabbits. If Mr. Flanagan would add that, probably Mr. Bacon would support him. He 

 would like to show gentlemen, that in many cases there would be no necessity at all to levy any tax, 

 because in some districts they were bounded by wire-netting, and subdivided like a piece of wire-netting 

 itself. There was no necessity that those who had borne the burden of the whole thing for the last 

 fourteen years should come in and pay contributions for the protection of the man outside, who had never 

 paid a penny and never borne any of the expense of this work. They were doing all that, and why should 

 they now be called upon to pay a tax for the protection of their neighbours. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) could not do what Mr. Freeman asked. The result would be this that 

 they would have several Boards giving separate decisions on several rabbit-proof fences. In one district 

 there would be one standard rabbit fence and in another district another standard. He preferred to let 

 Parliament decide what would be a rabbit-proof fence. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) withdrew his amendment. 



Mr. GOBMAN (Berrigan) would oppose Mr. Flanagan's amendment. In the first place, if they 

 carried this resolution, in his opinion there would be very few voters in the Eiverina to take part in this 

 Act. Nearly every large property there was netted, and some of them had been netted for two or three 

 years. The fact of having netted the properties did not do away with the rabbit pest. Personally lie 

 bad fenced in his property with wire-netting, but the difficulty still continued, and if they were not going 

 to have these people brought under the provisions of the Act, they could not compel them to kill the rabbits ; 

 and, if the resolution was passed, it would nullify all the work they had done for the past few days. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek) had much pleasure in seconding Mr. Flanagan's proposal. If a man 

 went to the expense of netting individually it was nothing to the outside owners whether they had rabbits 

 or not. If every owner would wire-net individually, and destruction was made compulsory, the difficulty 

 would be at an end. 



Mr. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) was thoroughly opposed to any change being made in the clause as laid 

 down, and the reason he opposed it was that the districts where the rabbits were thickest were the 

 districts where every holding or almost every holding was netted in. In his own part of the district, he 

 might say, every large holding was netted, and the only lessees to fall under taxation would be the home- 

 stead lessees, and the small men would bear the whole cost of administering the Act in this district. More 

 than that, he thought that a very great concession was made by the Minister here in order to promote 

 the erection of wire-netting fences, and he thought that if they only paid half rates those who were 

 enclosed were accorded a concession that ought to satisfy any man. 



Mr. BUOOKE (Boggabri) said that the motion seemed to propose that if a man were fenced in he 

 was not to be compelled to kill his rabbits. Now the intention was to make him kill, and therefore if he 

 fenced in he should not have to pay any taxation. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said that everybody was interested in getting the rabbits down. Whether 

 a man was fenced in or not lie would be interested in the barrier fences which were proposed. The 

 Minister said (by the Bill) that he was interested to half the extent of a man who was not fenced in. He 

 detied any man who was entirely fenced in, hut had rabbits all round his run, to keep the rabbits out. 



Mr. 



