65 



as follows : " It shall be the duty of every owner and of every occupier of any holding or lands from 

 time to time to suppress and destroy, by lawful means, and at his own cost, to tie best of his ability and 

 to the satisfaction of the Board, rabbits which may from time to time be upon such lauds, or upon any 

 roads bounding or intersecting the same, or any part thereof." 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) seconded the motion. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) moved an amendment on Mr. Cameron's amendment that the words 

 " to the best of his ability, &c.," be struck out of the amendment. They would entail endless litigation. 

 There was no doubt that every man would come forward and say he had done it to the best of his ability. 

 Destruction would never be compulsory if that were carried. If the Boards were not fit to deal with the 

 question they were not jit to deal with any question. If tho^e words were inserted it would destroy the 

 whole force of the Act. 



Mr. HEBDEN (Wanaaring) seconded Mr. Wilkes' amendment. 



Mr. CrnsiORE (Wentworth) supported Mr. Cameron. 



The Hon. EUPEBT CAHINGTON (Jerilderie) thought the House would never agree to pass this 

 motion. They should leave the word " private " in. 



Mr. J. M. ATKINSON wished to say a few words in reply to the Hon. Bupert Carington. The 

 Minister had distinctly told them to frame their own Bill and to give it to him. It was no business of 

 theirs what Parliament would pass. If Parliament passed any other Bill, they would be able to say they 

 had not wanted it. They would be able to say, " We never recommended such a proposal ; we proposed 

 a certain Bill ; we proposed what was right to us." The Hou. Eupert Carington wanted them to propose 

 a bread-and-butter Bill to put before the House for them to swallow. 



On Mr. ALISON'S (Cauonbar) suggestion the Chairman put the different portions of Mr. Cameron's 

 motion separately. 



The question of striking out the two words "private" and "all" in lines 14 and 15 was put and carried. 



Mr. CAMEHON (Ivanhoe) said he was quite willing, in view of Mr. Wilkes' amendment, to strike 

 out the words " to the best of his ability. 



The question of adding after the word " cost," iu line 15, " and to the satisfaction of the Board 

 the " was then put and carried. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), said that in compliance with the desire of the Condoblin 

 Stock Board, he would move that the following words be struck out, " or upon any roads bounding or 

 intersecting the same or any part thereof," unless the road was under lease or occupation. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) seconded the motion. He said the private holder should not have to 

 destroy rabbits on the roads. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) moved a further amendment that the word " boundary," in line 16, be 

 struck out. He would like the remainder of the words to be left in. Ho would point out that roads 

 aggregating very large areas were fenced inside holdings, and therefore those that were inside any 

 property that had been made rabbit-proof would of course be cleared by the owner. The owner should 

 only be'made to kill on roads when those roads were inside his run. 



Mr. BAYLIS (Xarrandera) said the amendment should be altered to read that the owner should 

 lull rabbits " upon any roads enclosed by the said owner, bounding or intersecting the same." 



Mr. FREEMAN thought that Mr. Brown's motion should be carried. 



Mr. BACON (Brewarrina) said there was a difficulty. In the Western Division there was a reserved 

 ' road of five or ten chains through the homestead leases. This road had to be paid for as part of the 

 resumed area. Unless it was clearly defined that the holder of the homestead lease had to pay for the 

 destruction of those rabbits it would lead to confusion. As it was now the" pastoral tenant had to pay 

 the rent for the road, although the homestead lessee had the use of it. The pastoral tenant should not 

 be also made to pay for the destmction of the rabbits. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) said there was not the slightest doubt that if a road were outside a 

 holding the Crown should pay for the destruction of the rabbits. If the road was not in one lease it 

 must be either in some other lease or else in possession of the Crown. He said that if a road were taken 

 out of a homestead lease it was also taken out of lease and license. Asa rule the roads were left in the 

 homestead leases. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said the case was not as Mr. Wilkes stated. He said that when roads 

 were declared between selections, and so on, they were for the use of the public, but were still left in the 

 license. They could easily imagine a resumed area being cut up so that the holder of the area had no 

 use for the road at all. Under this clause he would be obliged to keep the rabbits down whether he had 

 use for the road or not. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) said that it was in order to try and protect the lessee who was really paying 

 for these roads, for which he had no use, that he proposed this amendment. Lessees had to pay rent for 

 roads until they were proclaimed, although they were not in their occupation. He wanted to protect the 

 interests of those men, so that they should not be compelled to kill rabbits on roads which were not in 

 their occupation. 



Mr. SIDES (Hay) said that the parties on either side of a road should have to pay for killing the 

 rabbits on the road between them. Of course, if a road were within a run they were bound to kill them. 



Mr. Boss (Hume) could not support the clause as it stood. He thought the Eabbit Board should 

 decide who should bear the cost. It would be hard on the Crown if they had to kill the rabbits on all the 

 roads of the Colony, because half the roads were used by the holders of the adjoining lands. It would 

 also be hard on a man on a holding to be compelled to kill rabbits on a road which was perhaps miles away. 



Mr. DILL (Hay) said that he had lost nearly the whole of his resumed area. The roads, 

 amounting to 40 or 50 miles, were enclosed by free selectors, and unless he abandoned the balance of 

 the resumed area to the Crown he would be liable for killing the rabbits. If this clause were not 

 carefully amended he and many others would be subject to injustice. 



Mr. ATKINSON moved an amendment that the clause remain as printed, with the addition after 

 " thereof " of the following, " if enclosed by the said owner." 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said he would accept the amendment. 



Mr. ATKINSON said that, of course, would be on land which was enclosed with a rabbit-proof fence. 



Mr! T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), pointed out to Mr. Alison that this clause was ta deal 

 with killing rabbits on holdings, whether they were enclosed by a rabbit-proof fence or not. 



321 Mr - 



