66 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) seconded Mr. Atkinson. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) pointed out that this amendment would leave the clause exactly as before. 

 There were no instances in the Colony where a resumed area had not been " enclosed," that was to say, 

 enclosed with a wire-fence, but in many instances it was not wire-netting. " Enclosed," under the 

 present Land Act, meant " enclosed by a sufficient fence," it did not mean a rabbit fence. He would 

 like the mover of the amendment to make it read " enclosed with a rabbit fence." 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said that the word " owner " should be substituted by the word " user." 

 He knew of cases where there were fences on each side of a road, and the selector on one side had wire- 

 netted. The man who had wire-netted could not use the road. He thought the Board should say who 

 was the user of the road, and that would settle the matter. The man who used the road should destroy 

 the rabbits on it. 



Mr. Atkinson's amendment was then put and carried. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) moved to add "within a rabbit-proof fence" after the word " enclosed" 

 in the resolution just passed. 



Mr. CUMMING (Hillslon) seconded Mr. Alison. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), pointed out to Mr. Alison that the effect of this resolution 

 would be that there would bo no compulsory destruction of rabbits enforced on any land not enclosed by 

 a rabbit-proof fence. The object of this particular clause, on the contrary, was to provide for compulsory 

 destruction of rabbits outside wire-netting enclosures. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) acknowledged the truth of Mr. Brown's remarks and withdrew his 

 amendment. 



Mr. BROWN (Budgerabong) then moved his amendment that the following words, " or upon any 

 road bounding or intersecting the same or any part thereof," be struck out. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) seconded the motion. 



The question was then put and lost. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) proposed that the word " private" be struck out of line 18. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) seconded the motion. 



The question was put and carried. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) moved, that in line 20, after the word " ability," they should insert " and to 

 the satisfaction of the Board." 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), thought "to the best of his means and ability " should be 

 struck out. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) accepted it. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) seconded it. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) pointed out that it was very dangerous to strike out these words. Of 

 course it would have to be to the satisfaction of the Board, because the Board before it could enter 

 upon any land must be satisfied that the destruction was not being properly carried on. Individuals 

 must be protected against the arbitrary power of the Board. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), said that Mr. Alison was speaking rather late in the day. 

 He was only proposing to strike this out in conformity with what had been done before. If this were 

 left in, who was to determine that the owner had used his best means and ability ? 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said a man might be doing his very best to get the rabbits down, and yet 

 the Board might decide that he was not doing his best. The Board should be made to prove its case. 

 There should be a third person an arbitrator. Thousands and thousand of pounds might be thrown on to 

 a man if this were cut out. They did not know whom the Boards would be composed of. If those 

 words were struck out the private owner had no appeal whatever. He had to submit to what a bare 

 majority of the Board might decide. Five men might put some individual, whom they disliked, to an 

 expense of thousands of pounds. It was too much power to give any body of men, that of being judge 

 and executive at the same moment. He hoped they would retain those words. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) pointed out that, unless the Boards had full power, nothing 

 could be done. People would dodge the Boards, and while they had the power of electing the Stock 

 Boards there was not the slightest danger of their being harshly dealt with. 



Mr. WILKES (Broken Hill) supported Mr. Brown's amendment. Who was to say what was a 

 a man's ability ? A man might say that he had done it to the best of his ability, and yet be blind or deaf 

 and have no ability whatever. "Ability " here meant the word " willingness." It was only a quibble. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) pointed out that Mr. Alison had said that the owners would have no right to 

 appeal. He would draw Mr. Alison's attention to clause 53 regarding powers of appeal. 



The CHAIRMAN said he thought they were wasting time over nothing. The clause, as he read it, 

 provided a penalty for occupiers who did not kill their rabbits. As the Stock and Pastures Board were 

 going to administer the Act they would have to initiate the proceedings before anybody could be prose- 

 cuted under this clause. The clause was elastic enough, and yet gave the Pastures and Stock Board 

 sufficient power. 



Mr. ATKINSON suggested the further amendment, that the words, " to the best of his means and 

 ability " be struck out, and that the words, " and to the satisfaction of the Board " be not inserted. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), pointed out that Mr. Atkinson's amendment was practi- 

 cally his. 



Mr. J. M. ATKINSON withdrew his motion. 



Mr. T. BROWN, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), pointed out that his strong objection to leaving the words 



in was that they set up another standard of what was sufficient killing, and the owner relying on that 



could frustrate the efforts of the Board to compel him to kill. A similar provision had to be wiped out of 



the Victorian Act before the Shire Councils there could enforce the provisions of the Act regarding killing. 



Mr. T. Brown's, M.L.A. (Budgerabong), amendment was put and carried. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) moved that the word " continuously " should be struck out of line 19. 

 It would be a great hardship if this were left in. There were times when men were taking off their clips, 

 and so on, when they could not busy themselves with killing. 

 Mr. Boss (Hume) thought the word should be left in. 



Mr. GUMMING (Hillston) seconded Mr. Flanagan. Ho thought the provision should be a little 

 more elastic. A man might kill with a little arsenic many more than in another way, and after a shower 

 of rain it would be better to wait for a week or two. Mr. 



