57 



Clause 33. 



Private rabbit-proof fences. 



33. For the purposes of this Part, a rabbit-proof fence shall be taken to be 



(a) a substantial fence which is hung with galvanized wire netting of a maximum mesh of 



one and a half inch, minimum width of forty-two inches, the wire in the netting being 



of a minimum gauge of seventeen, and which is furnished with suitable rabbit-proof 



gates or other appliances at necessary breaks in the continuity of the fence : Provided 



always that the dimensions of such fence, its height above ground, the depth below 



ground of the posts thereof and of the wire-netting thereon, and all other details in 



connection therewith, shall be in accordance with specifications to be published in the 



Gazette by the Babbit Board ; or 



(V) a fence erected in accordance with the requirements of the Eabbit Act of 1890 whilst 



such Act was in force ; or 

 (c) a fence which is reasonably sufficient for the purpose of excluding rabbits. 



And the date when the rabbit-proof fence was erected or the fence was made rabbit-proof 

 shall be immaterial. 



The Eabbit Board of the District within which any fence alleged to be rabbit-proof is 

 situated shall, if so required in writing by the owner of the fence, cause the said fence to be 

 inspected ; and if the Eabbit Board, after such inspection, is satisfied that the fence alleged to be 

 rabbit-proof is rabbit-proof it shall grant a certificate to that effect ; or if not so satisfied shall 

 specify the repairs or modifications which are required to make such fence rabbit-proof ; and 

 when such repairs or modifications have been effected the Eabbit Board shall cause the said fence 

 to be again inspected, and if then satisfied that the fence is rabbit-proof, it shall grant a certificate 

 to that effect. 



Upon any proceeding before a Local Land Board in respect of a rabbit-proof fence, a 

 certificate by the Eabbit Board that a fence is rabbit-proof shall be prima facie evidence of the 

 fact; and evidence in rebuttal shall not be adduced, unless the party intending to adduce such 

 evidence has given to the other party the prescribed notice of his intention to adduce the same. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek) said, that as Mr. Brown was absent he would move the clause given 

 notice of by Mr. Brown, " That the clause be altered to read that the minimum width be 36 inches 

 instead of 42 inches." 



Mr. FLANAGAN (G unbar) seconded it. 



Mr. ALISON (Canoiibar) supported it. He said it was no use to put the public to more expense. 

 The question was then put to the meeting, and the amendment was declared lost by fifteen votes to 

 thirteen. 



Mr. LAURENCE (Balranald) proposed that the gauge be altered to eighteen ; it was much cheaper 

 and quite as effective. 



Mr. CUDMOKE (Wentworth) seconded the proposal. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) said he had given notice of a motion to the effect, that " \\ inch " be struck 

 out and "l|inch" be substituted. He thought 1| inch was no good. If fencing was to be of any 

 effect, they must reduce the size of the mesh ; and as the Conference had carried resolutions, asking the 

 Minister to lend the money for the purpose of making fences to make the holdings rabbit-proof, the 

 netting that was supplied must be effective or else the money would be wasted. He thought the Confer- 

 ence should affirm the necessity that that money should be expended in such a way that the netting 

 would be as far as possible a total bar against the rabbits getting through. He might also point out that 

 it would not in any way affect the fences which were already in existence. This new provision would only 

 apply to the fences which would be hereafter erected, because the provisions went on to say " that nothing 

 in this Bill would affect the rates which already existed ;" and, therefore, he could not see that there could 

 be any objection to the Conference affirming the desirability of having a \\ inch gauge instead of \\ inch, 

 as suggested in this Bill. 



Mr. VAECOE (Hillston) seconded Mr. Leslie's proposal, but he would like the mover to alter it, so 

 that it would read " that the mesh be li inch for a foot above the ground, and the mesh above that, say 

 1-j inch to If inch." The small mesh was only necessary for a foot from the ground. 



Mr. GUMMING (Hillston) said that this provision was very necessary. He had seen that class of 

 fence on Mr. Varcoe's holding, and it was one of the best fences he knew of. 



Mr. BRETT (Tirana) said he would second Mr. Leslie's original proposition without Mr. Varcoe's 

 addition. 



Mr. CUMMING (Hillston) said he would second Mr. Varcoe's amendment. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) thought they hardly recognised how enormously they proposed to increase 

 the burden of the country if this motion of Mr. Leslie's were carried. They had already passed a motion 

 allowing the Minister to advance money to the holders. He could advance \\ inch mesh at a much better 

 rate. If they made it li inch instead of \\ inch and 42 instead of 36 they would put a great deal on to 

 the cost. He thought 1-| inch was reasonably sufficient. He would ask the meeting to consider seriously 

 before putting everybody in the whole of the Colony to such an enormous expense as this. He would 

 much prefer to support Mr. Varcoe's provision than support Mr. Leslie's that is to say, let it be \\ inch 

 mesh for a foot from the ground. He was quite satisfied that rabbits would not get through If inch a 

 foot above the ground. He thought that would be a reasonable compromise, which Mr. Leslie might 

 accept ; otherwise they would be putting a stop to wire-netting by a great many people all over the 

 Colony. . . 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) said he was quite willing to accept the amendment. He wanted a description 

 of fence that would reasonably exclude rabbits. 



Mr. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) said he thought that if Mr. Varcoe's proposition were accepted, that it be 

 H inch a foot above the ground, or even less, so far as his experience went, then from that to the top the 

 mesh need not be less than 2 inches. He was perfectly satisfied that no rabbit attempted to go through 

 a fence except at a height level with its head. He submitted that the combination netting which was 

 being made would be very little, if any, more costly than the If inch. There was, on his boundary, 

 netting of that gauge put up, and rabbits on the other side came through the If inch, and he was not 

 ' 32 H protected 



