34 



should stick to the words, " municipalities, towns, and villages." That was intended to define the 

 centres of population practically, and large farms, which were within the population areas, would not be 

 included. 



Mr. FHEEMAN said he was quite willing to withdraw his suggestion, because he saw that the 

 interpretation clause said that population areas came within the term " public lands." 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) suggested that the words, " infested by rabbits," should be left out. 



Mr. OAKDKN (Cobar) thought the word " included " should be put in, for towns were often within 

 the sheep districts. 



Mr. VAKCOE (Hillston) said he would like to point out that the Eabbit Act was to be administered 

 by the Stock and Pastures Board. How would the Rabbit Act be administered in the municipalities if 

 there were no Pastures and Stock Boards in those municipalities ? 



The Honorable RUPERT CAUINGTON (Jerilderie) said clause B did not give the power to towns, 

 but it gave power to municipalities and boroughs. It was not proposed to constitute authorities that were 

 not representative, and therefore had no power to tax. 



Mr. BROWN (Narrabri) thought that could be provided for when they caine to clause 13. 



The CHAIRMAN then put the motion, that the following be an addition to subsection " a," "That 

 all municipalities, towns, and villages shall be declared separate districts, and shall not be attached to 

 sheep districts, even if adjoining or within the boundaries of sheep districts, unless with the consent of 

 the Pastures and Stock Protection Boards." 



The motion was carried by 31 to 6. 



Mr. ATKINSON wished to know whether that included the lands within the control of those towns 

 or villages the reserves and town commons, &c. 



Mr. BROWN (Narrabri) pointed out that the commons were vested in the municipalities. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) proposed to add to the end of subsection "b " the words, " that no sheep 

 district shall be amalgamated with any other district or sub-divided without the consent of two-thirds of 

 the voters." He thought some of those present desired that the sheep districts might sub-divide. 



Mr. M'CoLLOUon (Dcniliquiu) supported Mr. Alison. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) moved as an amendment, "That there should be no combination of two 

 districts into one district." It would be two unwieldy. He considered one rabbit district sufficiently 

 large as it stood. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) wished to know where the Board would be if they put two districts 

 together. If the sheep districts were altered, they would have to be altered under the Sheep Act. If 

 they put two Sheep Boards to one district, which Pastures and Stock Board was to administer that 

 district ? 



Mr. BROWN (Narrabri) considered that if two Boards were amalgamated there would only be one 

 Board. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) did not think the Sheep Boards "would stand that for one moment. 

 They would be in constant trouble. It was all very well to say the Minister would put two Sheep Boards 

 together under this Act ; would he do so under the Sheep Act ? 



Mr. GIBSON (Hay) said the greater powers they gave the Minister to administer this Rabbit Act 

 the better. If two districts liked to minimise expense under this Act by amalgamation, he did not see 

 why they should not. 



Mr. CUMMIXG (Hillston) wished to move that Stock Boards should have the power, if agreeable, 

 of mutually altering the boundaries. He knew of a case where two stations were too far from one 

 district and had asked to be shifted into another, and everything had worked well tince. 



Mr. Ross (Hume) said he would support Mr. Alison. It would be a public benefit if some of these 

 districts were amalgamated. He thought the power should be vested in the Minister. 



Mr. LOONEY (Bullock Creek 8.) moved that it should be a plain majority and not a two-thirds 

 majority. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek N.) seconded it. 



Mr. OAKDEN (Cobar) said the difficulty seemed to arise as to this clause being left exactly as it 

 stood, because it spoke of the combination of two sheep districts into one rabbit district. He thought 

 their resolutions should harmonise as well as they could with the constitution of the Pastures and Stock 

 Boards. Their decisions, so far, had been that the districts should be identical. They could not have 

 two districts combined as one rabbit district unless these districts were combined under the Sheep Act as 

 one sheep district. He did not think the resolution was clear. They should bear in mind that this Act 

 was drafted, not with the view which the Conference had adopted, that the Pastures and Stock Boards 

 should administer the Act. It was in accordance with this Act that there should be two sheep districts 

 adjoining arid separate under the Sheep Act but joined under the Rabbit Act. During their experience 

 they all knew that boundaries had been altered, and no doubt it was advisable it should be done. The 

 resolution should be made clear so that there shall be no doubt about it. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) thought Mr. Oakdeu was under a misapprehension. According to the 

 proposed Bill, the Minister could combine two districts as sheep districts and also as one rabbit district. 

 His proposition was that this should happen only when there was a two-thirds majority of the voters in 

 the district. 



Mr. LOONET'S (Bullock Creek S.) amendment, to omit "two- thirds," was put to the meeting, and 

 carried by 21 to 20. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) asked for a second count, not that he thought the counting was incorrect, 

 but he understood there were some gentlemen there on sufferance, and he thought they voted on the 

 question. 



The question on being put a second time was carried by 22 to 21. 



Mr. ALISON'S (Canonbar) motion, as amended, was put to the meeting and carried. 



Mr. ALison moved, "That subsection C be omitted." He thought it was placing a very large 

 power in the hands of the Minister without knowing how it was to be used. 



Mr. BRETT seconded the motion. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) disagreed with Mr. Alison. There might be a rabbit-proof fence 

 running parallel with the boundary of a rabbit district, and if the Minister had not the power to shift 

 the boundary of a rabbit district he would not be able to include this rabbit fence. He thought the 

 subsection should be retained. The 



