73 



Clause 33. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) moved that clause 33 be recommitted with a view to inserting 

 the word "thirty-six" in lieu of "forty-two" in line 34. 



The recommittal was carried. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) then moved that "thirty-six " be inserted instead of "forty-two," 

 and said his reason was that since they had fixed the width of the netting they had reduced the size of the 

 mesh and this had made it very expensive. There was no reason why they should put up the extra 6 

 inches of width when it was only required in certain places such as where there were watercourses and 

 rocky places. In these cases it would take 3 feet of extra width. 



Mr. M'GiiATii (Mossgiel) said that if it were less than 42 inches it would be useless. The rabbits 

 would jump it. 



Mr. BAYLIS (Xarraudera) said that in the Narrandera district the first that he put up was 36 inches 

 and it had had to be made higher. He himself had seen rabbits jumping up and climbing over the 36-inch 

 netting. 



Mr. CUDMORE (Wentworth) said his experience had been the same. Leaves blew up against the 

 fence and sand accumulated, and it was almost useless. If a fence were only 30 inches high it was so low 

 that the rabbits could climb over easily. 



Mr. ALISON (Cauonbar) supported Mr. Little. In his experience he had never known a rabbit 

 jump over a 30-inch wire netting. He had never heard of it before. They were there to vote a minimum. 

 There was nothing to prevent the people from putting up 5 feet if they liked. They had to make a legal 

 minimum. That was sufficient care of the individual's interest. They should not compel those who were 

 not desirous of having a 42-inch netting to put it up. In many instances there were wires just above 

 the netting which would prevent jumping over. This extra 6 inches would mean enormous expense, and 

 they ought to think seriously before doing it. 



Mr. SIDES said he quite agreed with Mr. Alison. He had several miles of 3-foot netting up 

 surrounding crops. It had been up for years, and he had never known a rabbit to go over. While 

 J-inch netting at that height was better than 5 feet of IJ-iuch, if 42 inches were made the legal minimum 

 it would be a real hardship to many people. 



Mr. DAVIDSON (Condobolin) supported Mr. Little. He thought 30 inches was quite sufficient. 



Mr. BRETT (Tirana) said that from his experience a 30-inch fence would be simply useless. The 

 rabbits would jump over it in hundreds. 



Mr. Ross (Hume) opposed the motion to introduce 36-inch netting. He had seen them jump 

 over it without touching it at all. He had had experience with both widths, and considered that anything 

 under 42 inches would be perfectly useless. 



Mr. BOI.TO.V (AVagga) said they were to propose the most effective way of dealing with the rabbit 

 question, and not to do anything in the way of cheeseparing, and say "possibly" a rabbit would not jump 

 over. They must arrive at something thoroughly effective in every way. 



Mr. DII.L (Hay) said he could vouch for it that many of the gentlemen present had seen rabbits 

 jumping over 36-inch fences. He had seen them not once, but often. 



Mr. ATKINSON said that now that the rabbit stories were badly ousting the snake yarns, he would 

 say that he had had experience with both widths, and his conclusion was that the 36-inch fence was 

 useless. He had taken it down and replaced it with 42-inch, because the rabbits used to go over it. 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) said he thought there must be something of the opossum 

 about rabbits that climbed over fences as some gentlemen had said they did. 



The CHAIHMAN then put the question of inserting "thirty-six" instead of "forty-two," and the 

 voting was equal, 15 to 15. 



On the vote being taken again Mr. Little's amendment was lost by 17 votes to 16. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) moved that in line 35 the word "seventeen" be reinserted iii place of 

 the word "eighteen," which had been inserted by amendment. He said that over the whole of Victoria 

 and Queensland and New South Wales the gauge was 17, and although he was anxious to make the 

 netting as cheap as possible and the minimum as low as possible, he was inclined to think that they had 

 gone a little too far in deciding for the 18 gauge. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) seconded Mr. Alison's motion. He said if 18 gauge were the minimum they 

 would compel a man adjoining to pay for half a fence in which he did not believe, and he thought the 

 man who had to pay had a right to be considered. 



The question was put and carried. 



Clause 41. 



Mr. ATKINSON moved the recommittal of clause 41, with a view to cut out subsections (a) and (b) 

 with a view to the insertion of a fresh clause. The question of recommittal was put and carried. 



Mr. ATKINSON then moved, "That subsections (a) and (b) be struck out, and the following 

 inserted : ' (a) A private rabbit-proof fence forms a common boundary fence between private and public 

 lands whether erected before or after the passing of this Act ; and (A) Particulars of the said fence shall 

 be furnished to the Minister.' " 



Mr. LITTLE (Bullock Creek North) seconded it. 



The question was put to the meeting and carried. 



Mr. J. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) moved, "That the following be inserted as anew clause: 'A small 

 group of land owners, say five or more, may form their land into a sub-rabbit district, and have full 

 management and control of same for the purposes of the Rabbit Act.' " , 



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



Mr. Ross (Hume) thought that was dangerous. He did not see why four or five small holders 

 had the right to a district alone more than one large holder. 



Mr. ATKINSON did not think it would be possible to make this provision unless they had their own 

 little Stock and Pastures Board to themselves. 



The question was put and lost. 



Mr. A. L. P. CAMERON (Ivanhoe) moved, " That a new clause be introduced providing that any 

 Rabbit Board be empowered to borrow moneys for the carrying out of this Act, such moneys not to exceed 

 in the whole the revenue of the Board for three years." Mr. 



32 K 



