Warning On Weeds Will Precede Prosecutions

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30680, 20 February 1965, Page 1

Warning On Weeds Will Precede Prosecutions

The chairman of the Banks Peninsula Noxious Weeds Control Committee (Mr W. C. Miller) yesterday said he considered it most unlikely that any noxious weeds offenders would be prosecuted without their attention being drawn first to any public notification. Failure to receive a letter, however, could not be used as a defence, he said.

Mr Miller had been asked to clarify a portion of a prepared statement in which he was quoted as saying: “If it would help as a reminder in the future, I believe there would be some value in sending some form of letter by ordinary mail to offenders first.”

The statement added that the committee had subsequently decided to incorporate this provision in its policy.

Asked what this meant, Mr Miller said a letter would be sent drawing the attention of offenders to any public notification such as the notice to clear fennel and hemlock, which was published last October. The statement referred to criticism of the committee and its inspector during recent months. “Healthy criticism is constructive and indeed we invite it,” said Mr Miller. “But criticism based on misinformed opinion is not only misleading but also a hindrance to the work of the committee.” He outlined the background of the committee, its purpose and the gradual formation of its policy. First Meeting

“The committee was formed at the request of Federated Farmers of Banks Peninsula, and was represented at the first constituted meeting on June 30, 1955, by the Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa County Councils, Federated Farmers, and Banks Peninsula Rabbit Board. The Lyttelton Borough Council joined on September 6, 1960, with two council representatives, and the Heathcote County Council on February 20, 1962, for weeds control over rural Heathcote.

“At the outset, and after due consideration by . the councils concerned of the proposals submitted, it was decided that if a common policy was to be achieved then the inspector would be responsible to the committee, who would in turn frame policy. “Suggestions for policy changes could be made by member councils, and Federated Fanners, and considered by the joint committee whose decision would be accepted. This action has divorced the committee from the control of any one member body, and allowed an impartiality which has proved the most successful bulwark of the committee. In fact this has been our greatest strength,” said Mr Miller. “On October 8, 1956, it was agreed that offending occupiers who had received prior notice and failed to clear by October 31, 1956, be sent a final notice to clear within three months, and if no action was then taken, the inspector report to the committee with a view to prosecution. “On January 18, 1957, the then inspector was authorised to serve final notice on occupiers not carrying out noxious weeds control on their properties. “It is interesting to note that the inspector had issued approximately 200 warning notices.

“In March, 1957, prosecutions of offenders had to be authorised by the committee.

“The committee in February, 1958, agreed to recommend to counties the adop-

tion of public notification through the newspapers. “In February, 1959, the inspector was given instructions forthwith to prosecute any offender who had not cleared, in accordance with advertised notices. The inspector was instructed to confer with the local member if in doubt as to what was reasonably carried out. “In April, 1959, the then chairman in his report to the committee said: ‘The inspector has been given full powers to take offenders to court without waiting for a meeting of this committee. This should speed up the work considerably. Offenders have the right to appeal.” “Authorisation for the Inspector to handle his own cases in court and the chairman to authorise the solicitor if necessary, was given m September, 1960. “In February, 1964, the policy was revised and brought up to date. The inspector was to prosecute without reference to the committee for breaches against public or individual notices.

“The inspector reported in October, 1964, the prevalence of hemlock and fennel in built-up areas, and his intention to serve notice by public notification. “From these excerpts it

should be evident that in the early formulative years, little progress could be made in eradication of noxious weeds. Such is not the position today. and I have no hesitation in saying that the area administered by this committee will compare more than favourably with other areas throughout New Zealand. Much of this success is due to the co-operation received from landowners in weeds clearance, and our inspector in carrying out the policy of the committee.

“For the benefit of all residents, the following points should be noted:

1. The committee determines policy and the inspector carries out this policy.

2. Appeals against the inspectors’ requirements on receipt of an individual notice or public notification should be made to the appropriate county or the borough council. This right of appeal appears on the notice.

3. Finally, to correct a common misunderstanding, owners or occupiers of land, including residential areas, are bound by law to clear frontages to the centre line of the road,” said Mr Miller.