61 



That was to him a very illogical thing to keep in a Bill. It was the cue great flaw in the 1889 Act. He 

 had a block of freehold, land which joined a hlock of freehold land belonging to somebody else. The other 

 person had erected a fence but there was a road between the two properties. He happened to be the 

 licensee of the resumed area and he had to pay to his neighbour half the cost of his fence for something 

 that did not do him the fraction of a farthing of benefit. He had to pay something like 20 or 30 a mile 

 for the erection of this fence on his neighbour's property. This would show them at once how enormous 

 the present danger was. If a resumed area were cut up enormously the licensee would be compelled to 

 abandon the resumed area. He thought it was a most useful and iust provision and should be left in 

 the Bill. 



Air. WILKES (Broken Hill) said he must also oppose the motion. He was of the same opinion as 

 Mr. Alison. This was one of the finest clauses that had been embodied in the Bill. In the Western 

 district the greatest objection to the 1890 Bill was this compulsory fencing. Surely, if a fence were put 

 up by an eastern neighbour who had no rabbits, and on the west side of that the country was infested 

 with rabbits, could anyone tell him where any benefit was to be derived by the western men. Most 

 decidedly it would be the very reverse. Then why should the western side have to pay for that fence. 

 In many cases such a fence was a harm to a man. It would have a very bad moral effect if a man had to 

 go and pay for things that were absolutely detrimental to him. Suppose a man took a selection or a home- 

 stead lease on a run and the runholder put a fence round two sides of it that joined in a corner; it 

 would not be of the slightest benefit to the homestead lessee, and he would have to pay his share. 



Mr, GUMMING (Hillston) must also oppose the proposition. It would be very dangerous to take 

 that clause out of the Bill. Mr. Alison had put the thing in a nut shell. No man should have to pay 

 unless he made use of the fence. 



Mr. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) opposed it strongly. He spoke from experience of having to pay for a 

 fence on one of his boundaries. It acted as a barrier to keep the rabbits in, and he had been very much 

 inclined to make holes in it. 



Mr. T. BEOWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), also thought this was a wise provision. They knew that 

 the rabbits were travelling from the western portion eastward, and the amount of benefit from a rabbit- 

 proof fence depended very much which side of the fence you were on. It would benefit a man on the 

 eastern side but it would be detrimental to a man on the western side. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (G-unbar) supported Mr. Freeman's amendment. Some of the gentlemen seemed 

 to think that the rabbits only travelled in one direction, west to east. Now, he held that when a man put 

 up a rabbit-proof fence between himself and the adjoining holder it was the fault of the adjoining holder 

 if he did not get any benefit. He might take it into his head not to erect fences on the other three sides, 

 and if this clause were left in he would be compelled to pay half the cost of one side of his run being 

 made rabbit-proof. He would be protected from one side. It was just the same as an enemy coming into 

 the country. They did not know on what side the rabbits would come in. This compulsion to pay for 

 half the boundary fence was of the greatest benefit in suppressing the rabbit plague. 



Mr. VAECOK (Hillston) said he would also support Mr. Freeman's amendment, for although a man 

 might not get much benefit from it, he would be prevented from allowing rabbits to stock his neighbours' 

 run. No man had a right to be a nuisance to his neighbour, and he should therefore be a sharer in the 

 fences between the two. 



Mr. Ross (Hume) hoped that this clause would be struck out. They knew very well it had been the 

 great crux of the last Rabbit Bill. He knew, as a matter of fact, that this fencing clause had been applied 

 with very hard results in the past. Some people had put up fences knowing they were of no benefit at 

 all. Fences had been put up in defiance of people's interests. Fences had been put up on one side of a 

 road, and, as the road was open, the man on the other side had had to fence as well as pay for half the 

 fence erected by his neighbour. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said that Mr. Brown would remember that at the last Conference this 

 clause was put in for the small holders especially. 



Mr. FBEEMAN said that his resolution was really put forward on behalf of the small men. Big 

 things come out of little matters, and if by the network of these fences the selectors to the east of them 

 benefit by them, surely they must pay. Take Goree, in Mr. Ross' own district, for instance. It was not 

 a rabbit-infested district. It was not within 100 miles of rabbits. He had induced the Goree people to 

 wire-net their holdings, and all those selectors in that district, without any liability at all by Act of 

 Parliament, paid freely, without hesitation, for a share of that fencing. 



Mr. FBEEMAN'S amendment was put to the Conference and lost. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said he would like to have it made clear whether subsection 5 interfered 

 with fences that had been made rabbit-proof before the Act of 1890. Were certain rights under that Act 

 wiped away by this clause ? It seemed to him to be dangerous if that were the case. He would like the 

 opinion of the meeting on that point. 



Mr. ATKINSON said that in line 37 of clause 40 it stated, "nothing contained in this section shall 

 affect any right to an annual contribution towards the cost of the maintenance and repair of a rabbit- 

 proof fence, accrued under or by virtue of the provisions of the Rabbit Act of 1890, and the Local Land 

 Board shall have power to assess and determine the amount of any such contributions." 



The CHAIRMAN said that he thought they might add some such provision as that to clause 39. 



Mr. ATKINSON said that subsection B of clause 1 settled the matter. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) withdrew his objections. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) proposed that clause 39, as printed, be passed. 



Mr. DILL (Hay) seconded it. 



The question was put to the meeting and carried. 



Clause 40. 



Contributions towards maintenance of private rabbit-proof fences. 



40. In any case where a contribution towards the cost of a rabbit-proof fence is to be 

 paid under the provisions of the last preceding section, an annual contribution towards the 

 expenses incurred in the maintenance and repair of the rabbit-proof fence shall also be paid; and 

 for the purposes of such annual contribution the years shall be taken to run from the date, or 

 recurring date of the notice of demand required by the said section. 



J.I16 



