Conditions For Approval Of Nassella Subsidies

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29010, 26 September 1959, Page 17

Conditions For Approval Of Nassella Subsidies

A warning that the Government might not approve subsidies on the present basis for nassella tussock control work unless at least 50 per cent, of the costs of grubbing was recovered from landowners, was contained in a letter from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Skinner) tabled at a meeting of the North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board at Waikari.

The letter said that the board’s annual report for 1958-59 and the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1960, had been considered by the Government and subsidies up to £58,450 on the contributions of the four county councils had been approved oh the present basis of £3 for £1 on the first £lOOO, £5 for £1 in the second £lOOO and £lO for £1 over £2OOO.

“The Government appreciates the magnitude of the task confronting the board to get control over nassella tussock in North Canterbury and is pleased to see that the board proposes to expand its programme this year in an effort to bring most of the heavily infested areas under control,” the letter said.

“It is noted, however, that the proportion of recoveries made by the board towards the cost of controlling nassella has been less in 1958-59 than it was in previous years. The Government considers that it will be possible to eradicate nassella only if farmers adopt and maintain a responsible and co-operative attitude and this can be achieved only by fostering a sense of responsibility associated with a system of charging for control work. “The board is reminded that the Government expects landowners to meet the costs of grubbing work done on private farms and it will not in future approve of subsidies on the present basis unless at least 50 per cent, of the grubbing costs are recovered by the board. “As far as recoveries on nuclear areas are concerned in general the Government expects full recoveries to be made from landowners for improvement work such as oversowing and topdressing carried out by the board, and at least 50 per cent, recoveries for the cost of cutting access tracks where the work can be expected to be of benefit to the farmer in his normal farming activities, the letter said. Members’ Views Board members’ views on the letter were conflicting. Mr J. W. Earl read a written statement in which he referred to "the dictatorial attitude” of the Minister and said that the letter was deserving of careful consideration by the board. Mr Earl reviewed the activities of the board during the last 10 years or so and went into detail on tree-planting programmes as a means of control of seed blow In a reference to the afforestation scheme the board had considered for parts of several properties, he alleged that the Amuri County Council and Amuri Federated Farmers had gone behind the board’s back to the Minister. Mr A. A. Macfarlane said that he objected and threatened to leave the meeting. The chairman (Mr M. C. Hyde) then ruled that the reference was irrelevant

Shortly after Mr Earl made another reference to the Amur! County Council and Mr Macfarlane again objected. Mr Earl then continued to read his statement, deleting reference to the council. He reviewed a further stage in the board’s his-

tory. Mr A. A. Macfarlane: My God, are we going to listen to this all day. Mr L. R. C. Macfarlane: He’s got six more pages yet; we’ll be here all night. Mr Earl continued to read his statement and ended it a few minutes later. Mr Hyde: I think in future we will have to rule out written statements in fairness to other members. “Nothing pictatorial” Mr A. R. Dingwall said that he could not see anything dictatorial in the Minister’s letter. Grubbing was not the only item in the board’s expenditure and 50 per cent, recoveries from landowners was not the maximum which could be recovered. There was always the avenue of a special consideration in cases of hardship and this power was granted to the board under the act. “I can’t see anything wrong with the letter. I rather admire the man for checking up on these things. We are alway criticising these people for heavy taxation,” Mr L. R. C. Macfarlane said. On the suggestion of Mr D. R. Wilkie the board agreed to hold the letter over for discussion with the Inter-Departmental Committee on Nassella Tussock when it visited North Canterbury in November.