Rating Power Suggested For Nassella Boards

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28836, 5 March 1959, Page 18

Rating Power Suggested For Nassella Boards

Unless the Nassella Tussock Act. 1946, was amended to give nassella tussock boards power to rate, some farmers, would be forced off their properties because of the high cost of grubbing, which was also of benefit to other farmers in the district, said Mr H. S. Thomas in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He was appearing for Norman George Barker, a farmer of Scargill, who last year appealed against a notice by the North Canterbury Nassella . Tussock Board to grub nassella tussock from his property. The notice was issued on August 1, 1958. The case was heard before Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., and was then adjourned sine die. Yesterday the Magistrate confirmed the notice to grub. Mr Thomas said he realised that the order would have to be made and he appreciated the opportunity to make a statement on Barker’s behalf. For some years Barker had been working on the nassella tussock and the board had been spraying it also. He had 1960 acres leased from the Crown and there was general infestation over the whole area except for some 200 acres, and the board expected him to grub the lot.

At the present time Barker owed the board £3OO for spraying which was unsuccessful, £llOO for grubbing, and £l5O as a half share of repeated grubbing, Mr Thomas said. This made a total of £1550 and he paid an annual rental of £230. If the nassella tussock was being beaten it would not have been so bad, but he was being financially crippled without any appreciable result. There wei-e only Barker and his son on the farm and it was physically impossible for them to do the grubbing themselves, and it was also financially impossible for them to have it done.

Mr N. H. Buchanan, who appeared for the North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board, said a great deal of attention had been paid to Barker’s property because it was an area from which tussock could spread to other land which was not infested. A year ago a thorough job was done by the board’s gang who grubbed many of the worst patches on the property. The cost of this work, £llOO, was charged to Barker. If last year’s work was not to be wasted, it was essential that the property be grubbed again without delay, Mr Buchanan said. The notice was served on Barker on August 5, 1958, and required him to complete grubbing by September 15. 1958. The reason for issuing the notice with a limited time to do the work was to enable the board to put the gang in if the work was not done. . . . It had been the opimon of the board for a number of years that Barker had not made a determined effort to control the tussock himself, and that if he

had, ' the expense to the board and to himself would have been much less, Mr Buchanan said. There were several practteal farmers on the. board who would appreciate Barker's problems. When he heard the application he was. presented with Barker's financial position and he was impressed by the difficult situation . in which he. found himself, said . the Magistrate. The Court had to interpret the act aS 1 it existed and had ho power to take into ; account the cost, or the benefit to neighbouring farms. He hftd heard a number of appeals where great hardship had been paused to property owners. ‘ The Magistrate said, he agreed with Mr Thomas that the power to rate would possibly be a solution to the problem but he was not an expert on the question and therefore was not in a posi- , tion to say definitely that it should be carried' out. In this case the board seemed anxious to do what it could to meet the hardship imposed by -the order. All he could do was sympathise with Barker, and ■he could not do anything except confirm the notice.