10 

 SECOND DAY lOTii MARCH, 1897. 



The Conference met at 10 a.m., Mr. Allen Lakeman in the chair. 



The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. 



Mr. ( >A K DKN moved, " That the Preamble of the Bill should read as follows : ' A Bill to amend the 

 Pastures and Stock Act ; to make better provision for the destruction of rabbits.' " 



The CHAIRMAN said that if this motion were carried a new Bill would be required. 



Mr. OAKD EX (Cobar) said that the Pastures and Stock Act had done good work in the past, and 

 ho thought the destruction of rabbits should be under their supervision. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) seconded Mr. Oakden's motion, and in doing so said: The last Con- 

 ference was of opinion that the destruction of rabbits should be placed under the supervision of the 

 Pastures and Stock Protection Boards until they were superseded by more responsible bodies. The 

 meaning of that was any Board created under a consolidated Bill. He contended that the Pastures and 

 Stock Protection Boards gave all the machinery that was necessary to deal with the pest ; but he considered 

 the matter had not been left in the hands of the Pastures and Stock Boards, but had been dealt with in 

 Sydney. Some of the measures adopted, such as trapping, were ridiculous. He thought that if the 

 Pastures and Stock Boards were given a fair trial we would not need any fresh legislation. 



Mr. ALISON (Canon bar) said the work done by the Pastures and Stock Boards had been satisfactory, 

 hut there was a practical difficulty in the way of adopting Mr. Oakden's motion. The Pastures and Stock 

 Boards did not (leal with fencing. If they could amend the Bill at present before them, they would have 

 the fencing clauses. 



Mr. VAIICOE (Hillsfon) was opposed to the principle of placing the destruction of rabbits in the 

 hands of the Pastures and Stock Protection Boards. He said that the small holders had no voice on 

 those Boards. 



Mr. OAKDEX (Cobar) said that any owner of a small number of stock had a voice on the Pastures 

 and Stock Protection Boards, and he thought the fencing clauses could he embodied in the Pastures and 

 Stock Act. 



Mr. BACOX (Brewarrina) said the Minister for Lands had not made the intentions of the 

 Government thoroughly clear with regard to the State paying its share of the cost of destroying rabbits 

 on unoccupied Crown lands. Ministers for Lands in the past had shirked their duties in this respect, and 

 he thought that the Conference should not separate until it had come to a clear understanding in this 

 respect. He also thought that there should be a consolidation of Boards, and a consolidation of machinery, 

 to administer the Pastures and Stock Act, the Diseases in Sheep Act, and the Eabbit Act. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said that although he had been paying taxes for over thirteen years he 

 had never, during all that time, received the slightest benefit from the operations of the Pastures and 

 Stock Board. The great complaint was that whilst the people destroyed the rabbits upon their holdings, 

 and were taxed to do so, the unoccupied Crown lands which adjoined theirs were infested with rabbits, 

 and the Government had never made any attempt to destroy them. 



Mr. GIBSON (Hay) thought that it was the duty of the State to purchase wire-netting and to sell 

 it to the landowners on easy terms. He said that this would enable the landholders to wire-net their 

 holdings, and to put their land into profitable occupation at once. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) thought that there were very many objectionable provisions contained in 

 the Bill, among them being the mode of assessing the value of the land, which he thought very objection- 

 able indeed. They should adopt the mode provided in the Pastures and Stock Protection Act. He did 

 not consider that it was equitable that the Government should in all cases be represented by two nominees 

 on each Pastures and Stock Protection Board. It was necessary that they should have some guarantee 

 that the Crown would bear its share of the expense of eradicating the pest. If no provisions wtre made 

 in the Bill, and the Minister asked for a vote to be expended in the destruction of rabbits, it was quite 

 possible that Parliament might refuse to vote the money, although it had previously been promised by 

 the Government. He, too, was also of opinion that the Government should be urged to amalgamate all 

 the Acts as much as possible, in the direction of having one Board appointed to represent the whole of 

 the stockowners. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) said that there was nothing in the Bill to show that the Government 

 would bear a fair share of the expense of destroying rabbits on unoccupied land. He would fearlessly 

 assert that the Crown would never clear the rabbits off the unoccupied Crown lands. 



Mr. FETHERSTONHATTGH (Coonabarabran) said that he had read the Bill through, and thought it 

 had its defects. The defects were very manifest, and one of his objects in speaking at this stage was to 

 advise the delegates to provide themselves with a copy of the Sydney Stock and Station Journal, which 

 contained the Canonbar circular. He then read from this circular the following extracts : 



It is evident the townspeople in a rabbit district must be the most numerous, and their powers of taxation are such 

 that they can put ^d. per head on sheep on all country lands, and the 1000th part of a farthing on the annual value of 

 town lands. 



The definition of " owner " is very full, so that anyone who has half or quarter of an acre of land has one vote, An 

 " occupier" is defined as the resident manager. It is evident that the tenant of an allotment of town land may either lie 

 constituted the manager of that allotment, or he may be considered the manager without appointment, and therefore 

 entitled to vote. 



Where an election is held the townspeople can evidently outvote the country people, both because they arc more 

 numerous, and because of the fact that they have no distance to travel to record their vote. 



The rabbit district where elective is entitled to three members, which may be townspeople. The remaining members 

 are appointed by the Minister ; so that the curious result may occur that out of five members on the Eabbit Board not one 

 may be a stockowner. The duties and powers of a newly constituted Board, on which no stockowiier may be a director, are 

 enormous and tyrannical. 



According to clause 12, subsection (i) and (n), they are appointed as a Board to appraise every holding, whether land 

 leased from the Crown in any shape, any freehold land, any cultivated land, which is to be estimated as though laid down 

 in grass. The Rabbit Board is, in fact, another Land Board, and a new department is thus created for valuation purposes. 

 The Board can appoint any person to inspect holdings, who can examine or cross-examine the owner or manager in any 

 manner he may think fit, on his own ground may apparently choose his own time to put these questions may ask any 

 question he may think fit, and if the owner refuses to answer any question for any reason he is liable to a penalty not 

 exceeding 10. He can ask what it had cost the owner to manage his run, to shear his sheep, what profit he made on the 

 year's transaction ; in fact, his power of asking questions is without limit, and need only be justified by the plea that the 

 inspector considered the questions necessary. There is no doubt whatever that clause 12 creates a department of equal, if 



not 



