THE RABBIT NUISANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 October 1921, Page 5

THE RABBIT NUISANCE.

AMENDING THE LAW. BILL IN THE HOUSE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House to-day the Hon. W. Nos worthy moved * the second reading of the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Bill, which he explained relieved a magistrate of the duty of imposing a conviction on the evidence of an inspector alone. Mr. A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa) regretted the proposed amendment. If rabbits were to be exterminated it could only be done by enacting dastic provisions and enforcing drastic provisions. It was by that means that “scab” was exterminated many years ago, and if rabbit farming was to be 1 stopped it could only be done by giving large powers to reliable inspectors. Mr. Wilford said the greatest offender in connection with rabbits was the Gov eminent. Every Minister who had charge of the Agricultural Department knew that perhaps if a Minister was prosecuted for not clearing rabbits off Crown lands they might get an amendment of law to some purpose. The result of this amendment would be that there would be no convictions unless the accused pleaded guilty, because every runholder would carry too many guns for aninspector. Mr. O. Haw'ken (Egmont) opposed the Bill, because it brought the law back to what it was twenty years ago and which failed. No law that was a failure should remain on the Statute Book. If the law as it stood was fairly administered there was no reason why this eternal rabbit ,question should not disappear. Mr. Lysnar (Gisborne) declared that the formation of rabbit boards was the solution of the difficulty. Many farmers would not clear their lands. The law gave districts power to set up boards and if farmers would not clear their land the boards would do it for them and protect the farmer against himself. The Minister, in reply, said he had recommended Cabinet to remit fines in some cases imposed by magistrates for breaches of the Rabbit Nuisance Act. Mr. Wilford: That is a very dangerous position. The Minister, continuing, said he formerly supported the law as it stood to-day, but there was one thing he overlooked then. Al] the complaint was about the powers of inspectors, but he had not counted on the powers the law put into the hands of magistrates. There were some inspectors in whose hands he would place far more power than he would give to some magistrates. The Bill was read a second time.