THE NASSELLA TUSSOCK

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24741, 5 December 1945, Page 6

THE NASSELLA TUSSOCK

* POSTPONEMENT OF LEGISLATION

STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEE

Mr J. W. Earl, chairman of the Combined Counties Nassella Tussock Committee, has submitted the following abatement on the steps taken in the last 12 months to secure Government action in dealing with the pest:— “Information has been received by the Combined Counties Nassella Tussock Committee that the bill regarding nassella tussock control, which was to have been submitted to’the House this session, will not now be submitted until next session. This means that approximately a further 12 months must elapse before any detailed legislation is in force to enable the combined counties to combat the menace of the tussocic.

The Nassella Tussock Committee is naturally very disappointed at the legislation not even being submitted to the House, but wishes to make it abundantly clear that the failure in tms respect has not been due to the want of any effort on its part.

Protracted Negotiations

“The committee desires it to be recorded that it was on the 16th of December last U2 months ago) when the Minister of Agriculture met the committee at Waipara and made an inspection of certain of the areas affected. Submissions on the necessity for further empowering legislation were made to him.

“Despite reminders and continuous pressure, it was not until May 22, 1945, that an inter-departmental committee (called the Planning Committee), appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, met the Combined Counties- Nassella Tussock Committee at Amberley, when it, not only discussed matters from all angles and made an inspection of certain infested areas, but subsequently met in Christchurch and Wellington. The committee comprised senior officers of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Department of Internal Affairs, Lands and Survey Department, and State ’ Forestry Department. Its report was not rece.ved by the Combined Counties Committee until July 18, 1945. “The Combined Counties Committee emphasised (he absolute necessity that afforestation of certain detailed infested areas should be undertaken v/ithout delay by the State through the i crestry Department, but the Planning Commitec did not agree with it m that respect, as the Planning Committee considered that the burden should be the responsibility <Jf property owners.

‘The Combined Counties Committee then considered that the general pro°J the re P° rt were unacceptable, and a_ deputation interviewed the Prime Minister at Wellington towards the end of July, 1945, after which he i that tlie .matter, through the Minister of Agriculture, be reconsidered by the Planning Committee. ‘‘The Combined Counties Committee had a further _ interview with the Planning Committee on September 24, 1945, resulting still in no agreement regarding the position of property owners of heavily infested areas, repeated its submissions, and discussed generally the purport of the proposed bill. In discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture on November 16 last the Minister of Agriculture promised that a bill would be introduced to deal with the problem. i A Statement Contradicted' “It is interesting to note here that during the discussion the member for Kaiapoi stated that he agreed with a suggestion that had been made to the effect that the ulterior motive of the agitation was the desire by farmers to sell highly unproductive country to the Government for tree planting. Considering that the combined counties have been dealing with this problem since 1943, and statutory power was given to them under the Statutory Amendment Acts of 1943 and. 1944, the statement made by the member had no foundation whatsoever in fact and was a figment of his imagination. Furthermore, the Planning Committee in its report definitely recommended that the county councils concerned be given powers by legislation to function effectively and made certain recommendations in that respect, which were not only approved by the Combined Counties Committee, but amplified by it. “The Combined Counties Committee feel deeply concerned about this matter and wish to make this public statement in order that the farmers of North Canterbury will not have any misgivings as to the attitude and action taken by the committee representing their interests.”