9 



Mr. OAKDEN (Cobar) thought that before going on with the Bill it would be well to discuss some 

 general principles in connection with the matter. 



Mr. LAWRY inoved, as an amendment, "That the Bill before the Conference should not be adopted." 

 He said there were many proposals in the Bill which were not generally acceptable for instance, the 

 taxing of rabbit-proof holdings, even at half rates. He thought that it would be better to take the 1890 

 Act and incorporate with it such provisions from the present Bill as was thought desirable. 



Mr. FREEMAN thought it would be the better plan to take the 18'JO Act and formulate amendments 

 so as to bring it up to date. 



Mr. ALISOX (Canonbar) said that the last Conference started to amend the 1890 Act; but it was 

 finally decided that it should be repealed altogether and a new Act brought in. The experience of that 

 Conference was that the old Act could not be repealed. 



Mr. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) could not see the utility of amending the 1890 Act, as only one of its 

 clauses had ever been put into force. He thought they should take the Bill before them clause by clause. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.P. (Narrabri), said that before they started with the Bill he thought it would 

 be better to have some discussion on general principles. As far as he could judge from last year's Con- 

 ference, the idea was to remove the control of the destruction of rabbits from the Department and place 

 it in the hands of Local Boards. This was the idea submitted to the Minister, and he had carried it out 

 in the present Bill. But there were other interests besides those represented through the Stock Boards. 

 The smaller holders were as deeply affected as the larger holders in the settlement of this question, and 

 they did not look on the question from the same standpoint. The Crown, in respect to the unoccupied 

 land, should be put on the same footing as other holders. He did not think there was anything to be 

 gained by barrier fences ; they were not a complete preventative. Small holders felt that they could only 

 effectually deal with the pest by having their individual holdings fenced in. Having secured their holding 

 they would be in a position to deal with the block. They would only have to keep the fence in order and 

 deal with the pest within the enclosure ; but they were not in a position to bear the expense of enclosing 

 their holding. Money should be raised, by loan or otherwise, in order that the amount of netting 

 required could be purchased by the Government on liberal terms, provision being made for applicants 

 receiving it on liberal terms. They could then enclose their holding, and make out of the land the money 

 that was required to enclose them in the first instance. The Government could materially assis't 

 settlers in this respect. These settlers in the west have not only the rabbit plague to deal with, but 

 also the wallabies ; and the same measures would answer in both instances. Small holders should have 

 something to say in legislation. By considering their in'erests the larger holders would be served also. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes), said it was he who moved the resolution of the last Conference, "That the 

 Babbit Act of 1890 be repealed." It was then advanced that there was only one good clause in the old 

 Act. That Bill could not be used as a basis to formulate fresh legislation. Mr. Brown had told them that 

 the interests of the small and large holders were not identical. Their interests were the same whether they 

 held large or small areas. With regard to the Stock Boards not being representative he thought the small 

 holders controlled the voting power if they chose to exercise that power. They could displace the whole 

 of the Board at the annual election. "What they wanted was a Bill as free from Government control as 

 possible. He thought that the men who had to pay should have representation. If the Crown was to bo 

 the highest contributor it should have the largest amount of representation. 



Mr. LAWRY wished to amend his former motion as follows: "That certain principles in the 

 proposed Bill not being generally acceptable, this meeting should proceed to consider a suggested Bill to 

 lay before the Minister on the lines of amendments in the 1890 Act, adopting any new legislation proposed 

 in the Ministers Bill that may be considered applicable." 



Mr. J. HAYES, M.P., said they wanted a Bill to give them control in their own Districts. In the 

 District which he represented the compulsory use of fencing would be all that was required. The fencing 

 conditions in the Murray District had been very successful, and there was no necessity to go in for barrier 

 fences. 



Mr. LAURENCE (Balranald) was of opinion that if the present Eabbit Act were amended it would be 

 quite sufficient to cope with the pest. 



Mr. BRETT (Uraiia), said that in his District fences were of no use as they were often covered up by 

 moving sand-hills. 



Mr. GIBSON (Hay) considered that everything that had been said could have been dealt with when 

 the Bill was under discussion. 



The CHAIRMAN put Mr. Lawry's amendment to the meeting, and declared it lost. 



The original motion (Mr. Gibson's) was then put and carried. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) moved, " That any amendment should be handed to the Chairman, so that 

 they might be printed and distributed before the discussion on the Bill in the morning." 



Mr. M'COLLOUGH (Deniliquin) seconded the motion, which was carried on the voices. 



Mr. BHOOKK (Boggabri) moved, " That a time limit of ten minutes be allowed to the mover of an 

 amendment, and five minutes for reply." 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) seconded the motion. 



Mr. ATKINSON moved as an amendment, "That fifteen minutes be allowed the mover of a motion, 

 and ten minutes for any one speaking after the mover." 



Mr. OATLEY seconded the amendment. 



Mr. BROOKE (Boggabri) moved as a further amendment, " That there be no time limit." 



Mr. LAURENCE (Balrauald) seconded Mr. Brooke's amendment. 



This amendment was lost. 



Mr. Atkinson's amendment was then put to the meeting and carried. 



The Conference then adjourned till 10 a.m. the following day. 



32 B SECOND 



