31 



Mr. ATKINSON said Mr. Alison was more or less right. Any man in his district who was wire- 

 netted in must have the rabbits for his neighbour,-. Hut there was all the more reason why a man who 

 had been netted in for some time, and had had to kill, not only his own rabbits but also his neighbours 

 as well, should be let off without any tax, at all events until the other runs were netted in and had 

 gone through the fire. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) thought that Mr. Atkinson had given them one of the best arguments, 

 and he was of that opinion too. Rabbit proof fencing, except in very small, very limited, and well looked 

 after districts, was a farce. There was no such thing as a rabbit proof fence in a big area. They all spoke 

 about small men of G40 acres and so on, but were they thinking about the large holdings ? There was no 

 such thing as a run that was rabbit proof. Let them go round the country and look at them. Then, 

 again, they kept harping on the destruction of rabbits. This fund was not for the destruction of rabbits, 

 it was merely for the supervision, and although a run was netted in it would require the same amount of 

 supervision from the Board. This was not for netting, but for supervision of the land. If a man paid 

 this money he was paying to see that the rabbits were killed. It would be a great injury to hinrif the 

 rabbits outside were not killed, and therefore he should pay for supervision to see that they were killed. 

 Mr. Flanagan's part of the Colony was the most heavily stocked part of the country. They found that 

 although this was a heavily netted country the rabbits were equally bad there. A gentleman next to him 

 had had to turn sheep into his paddocks, because he could not keep them for his horses. It was only a 

 year ago, as Mr. Taylor could tell them, that they had had to spend a lot of money to clear away the sand 

 that had overtopped the fence in one run on the border of South Australia. 



Mr. OATLEY said he represented the estate of the late E. Flood. They had a district of about 

 60 or 70 acres of laud enclosed by wire netting, and he might mention to them that this day if they 

 went round they would see that outside the boundaries the grass was pretty well eaten oft'. On their 

 own run very few rabbits were found ; in fact not longer than a fortnight ago some gentlemen had 

 asked his permission to go down and shoot rabbits, and they told him they had the greatest difficulty in 

 finding any of them. Outside there were not one but thousands of them. 



Mr. GUMMING (Hillston) said that as they were commencing a new Act altogether let them 

 commence from scratch. If they exempted so manv of these people where was the money to come from. 

 He himself was netted, but unfortunately he had a bad class of netting. He thought it would be 

 dangerous to allow the clause to pass. The Boards had no power to see that the fences were in proper 

 repair, and they could not go on the land to kill the rabbits, because they were exempt from taxation. 



Mr. HEBDEN (Wanaaring) was opposed to Mr. Flanagan's amendment because he thought every- 

 body should contribute something. He also thought that the clause about a man who was going to fence 

 should not be left in. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar), in reply said he had already explained that fences were not necessary 

 in many localities. His motion was intended mostly for people who were going largely into cultivation. 

 He had already explained that in localities where the majority of owners were occupiers of land, they 

 should petition the Rabbit Board and the Stock Board to make fencing compulsory, or they could petition 

 to have the rabbits dealt with by compulsory destruction. Therefore a lot of the arguments used in 

 opposition to him were futile. He was a believer to a certain extent in co-operation, but he preferred 

 that where an individual could manage his own affairs it was far better management than they would get 

 in the co-operative style. Of course, if an Inspector noticed that a man who was fenced was neglecting 

 to kill, he could report and have him brought under the operation of the Act. 



The CiiAiiiMAN then put Mr. Flanagan's amendment to the meeting and it was lost by a large majority. 



Mr. BEOWN'S (Budgerabong) amendment was put to the meeting and lost, 19 voting for the amend- 

 ment and 22 against. 



As there was some doubt regarding the voting it was taken again and declared lost, the voting 

 being 21 for and 23 against. 



The CHAIKMAN then adjourned the meeting until 2 o'clock. 



On resuming after lunch the Chairman took the Chair at 2 p.m. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) moved that after the word " enclose " the words " or which may be in 

 future enclosed " should be inserted in line 50. 



Mr. GUMMING (Hillston) seconded Mr. Alison's proposition. 



Question put and carried. 



Mr. FHEKMAN moved, "That subsections D, E, and F, of section 3, clause 12, and the whole of 

 section 1 should be struck out." 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar), said that if Mr. Freeman would omit subsection D from his resolution 

 he would be glad to second it. He thought the Rabbit Board should have access to the returns. 



Mr. FREEMAN said he knew at the present moment that the Department of Agriculture and 

 other Departments who had no legal status called for returns from the different sheep owners of 

 the Colony, and numbers of people refused to give these returns, and altogether they were very careless 

 about making the returns anything like correct. These were not reliable, and seeing that they had a safe 

 return on which the tax w"as to be levied, he thought these subsections should be struck out. 



Mr. FEEEMAN'S motion lapsed for want of a seconder. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) proposed. " That subsections E and F of section 3, and the whole of the 

 sections 4 and 5 be elimiuated." 



Mr. McCoLi.ouaii (Deniliquin) seconded Mr. Alison's proposition. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar), held that they would be doing wrong if they struck out section 4. He 

 moved as an amendment " That section 4 be retained." 



Mr. NIXON (Gunbar) seconded the amendment by Mr. Flanagan. 



Mr. BROOKE (Boggabri) thought they were going too far in preventing the Board from inspecting 

 the holdings. There was no reason why a man should not be allowed to inspect them, because they 

 would not know whether a man with an enclosed holding was doing anything at all. They should be 

 simply inspected and a report made to the Board. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said Mr. Brooke could not be aware of the provisions in the Act. Further 

 on the powers of inspection were given. This power to inspect was merely with regard to the appraise- 

 ment of the holding, and they had struck that out, so that there was no necessity to retain this power of 

 inspection. In clauses 31 and 32 the Board had the fullest powers of inspecting, entering, and ordering 

 the destruction. Mr. 



