62 



The right to receive such annual contribution, and a corresponding duty to maintain and 

 repair the rabbit-proof fence, shall run with the holding whereof the owner was entitled to 

 receive payment of the aforesaid contribution towards the cost of tlio rabbit-proof fence ; and 

 the liability to pay such annual contribution shall run with the holding or lands whereof the 

 owner was liable to pay the aforesaid contribution towards the cost of the rabbit-proof fence. 



The amount of such annual contribution shrill be one-half the expenses of, or incidental 

 to, the maintenance and repair of the rabbit-proof fence as determined by the Local I/and Board. 



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 Habbit Act of 18!)0, and the Local Land Board shall have power to assess and 

 determine the amount of any such contribution. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) proposed that clause 40, as printed, be passed. 



Mr. Boss (Hume) seconded the motion. 



The question was put to the meeting and carried. 



Clause 41. 



Conlributions from the Crown {awards private ralbif -proof fences. 



41. Where 



() a private rabbit-proof fence forms a common boundary fence between private and 

 public lands ; and 



(b) particulars of the said fence have been furnished to the Minister before or after the 

 erection thereof ; and 



(c) the Minister, after report by the Local Land Board, has approved in writing of the 



erection of such fence in accordance with such particulars, 



the same contributions shall be payable by the Crown in respect of rendering the fence rabbit- 

 proof as would be payable by any private owner, and the amount of such contributions shall be 

 determined by the Local Land Board in the same manner as if the said public lands were private 

 lands. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said that under the last Act the Minister was liable to pay for any fencing 

 erected on Crown lands where he approved of it, and every Minister had exercised this power of approval 

 so much that he had disapproved of every proposal. What was the good of a clause like this if the 

 Minister was going to exercise the power of disapproval every time. He thought they ought to amend 

 this clause so as to make the Minister liable the same as any private person, and yet it seemed as if the 

 Minister should have some power of approval, but he could hardly see a way to get over it. 



Mr. FOREMAN proposed an amendment that in line 47 the last word "and" be struck out and 

 the whole of subsection (c) be struck out, and that these words be inserted " provided always that where 

 the Crown pays such contribution they shall have the power of recovery from an incoming tenant, as 

 provided for with regard to the contributions in respect of private rabbit-proof fences." 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) did not think this amendment was necessary. Tbe public lands were 

 virtually the Minister's lands, and he could make what bargains he chose with an incoming tenant. It 

 was not necessary. 



Mr. CAMEKON (Ivanhoe) had an amendment on this clause that would meet the difficulty in a very 

 few words. He moved that the words "or after" and the whole of subsection (c) be struck out. This 

 would place the Minister on the same footing as any private holder. He would not say that the State 

 had shirked its duty, but they had never paid for fences put along the public lands, and as the Minister 

 would have some voice iu approving in the erection of a rabbit-proof fence, it would be met by having 

 the question submitted to him before the fence was erected. He said they ought to have some definite 

 expression in the Bill as to what would be the Minister's duties with regard to fences that were to be 

 erected between the public lands and the private lauds. People had erected fences upon resumed areas, 

 upon the clear assumption to them, that according to the Act the Minister was liable to a contribution of 

 half the cost of erection, and this Conference ought to deal with the Minister's responsibility in so clear 

 a manner that any person reading the Ace would be able to understand what responsibility the State took 

 and the responsibility of a private owner. 



Mr. CUMMIN & (Hillston) seconded Mr. Cameron's motion. 



Mr. lloss (Hume) said he did not see why the Minister should not stand in the same position as a 

 private person in this matter. If the Minister had the power to approve of a fence, as in the past, he 

 simply would not approve of it. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said he had found by the last few words " that the amount of the contri- 

 bution shall be settled by the Local Land Board," the Crown was protected. 



Mr. FEEEMAN said he was quite willing to accept Mr. Cameron's amendment, and withdrew his own. 



Mr. CAMEBON'S (Ivanhoe) amendment was then put to the meeting and carried.- 



Mr. OAKDEN (Cobar) proposed that clause 41 as amended be passed. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), seconded the motion. 



Mr. J. M. ATKINSON wished to insert the words " fences that have been put up previous to this 

 Act." This was a very important matter. They should make the Crown contribute where these fences 

 adjoined the common boundary. The clause as it stood did not affect the fences that had beeu put up 

 and were in use, and for which the Crown had declined to contribute. Those people would be placed in 

 a very unfair position. He would move that the words " before or after" be inserted in line 47 after the 

 word furnished. 



Mr. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) did not see exactly how this amendment could be put in, because it 

 applied to fences which had been erected in the past. He did not know of any case in which the 

 Minister's consent had beeu asked before the fence was erected. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) also pointed out that there were some lands which had fallen into the 

 ^ands of the Ministers since 1890. The fences on these might have been between lessee and lessee and 

 now they came into the hands of the Minister for Lands. 



The 



