SERIOUS MENACE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 84, 6 October 1922, Page 4

SERIOUS MENACE

DEALING WITH FIREBLIGHT a

HALF MEASURES USELESS

The Fireblight Bill was passed by the Legislative Council yesterday after a general discussion on the serious nature of the. menace and on the Government's plans to cope with it.

The Leader of" the Council (Sir William Fraser) said that something had to^ be done to''contend with the fireblight, and half-measures would have been useless. Every endeavour would b$ made'•to see that the Act was administered without undue oppression. The Hon. J. P. Campbell expressed the fear that some- settlers would suffer extreme hardship if they were compelled to remove hawthorn hedges, which had taken the place of fences for years. To replace hawthorn by fences would be a costly proposition—£6lo for 180 chains —which might bring- about the financial ruin of a fa-rme-r.. A large number of farmers in the Auckland district would undoubtedly suffer, and he made an earnest appeal to the Leader of the Council not to proceed with the Bill until arrangements were.made for financing farmers who would become, involved in a big expenditure. " - t . The Hon._ 0. Samuel said that while he sympathised with the farmers, it had to be remembered that the Government had been forced to take .drastic action. It had no alternative.. •

_ The Hon. \V. H. Triggs. said he took it for granted that no district would be "proclaimed 1" unless fruitgrowing was the predominant industry. Consequently, it was unlikely that .the Waikato would be "proclaimed," .as its predomiant industry was dairying: The Hon. W. Snodgrass;.said,h© was afraid that the Bill was going- to add to the troubles of the apple growers. .. In the Nelson district hawthorn hedges provided shelter for the fruit trees, and if the hawthorn had to be destroyed a serious position would be. created. He suggested that hawthorn should be treated as other noxious weeds, giving^, local bodies the right to deal with it. At a meeting of fruitgrowers in Riwaka, it was decided that it would be better to root 'out the fruit trees rather than "hc-wthorn hedges, because the latter provided such splendid shelter for hops. The Hon. Gi M. Thomson expressed the opinion that the dangers of the disease had been over-estimated byDr.Tillyard, of the Cawthron. Institute. A little too much had been made of the fireblight, compared with other blights. He thought tbut the present powers for dealing with the blight were quite sufficient. • " . '

The Hon. Sir Walter Buchanan hoped 6hat the Bill would be passed for the protection of fruitgrowers. Several speakers feared that an inspector mis;ht wrongly exercise his powers to order the destruction of property, and it was proposed that an appeal Board should lae set up. The Leader of the Council (Sir William Fraser) said that-an Appeal Board' was not necessary. Once, a district was "proclaimed" the onlv fact which the inspector had to decide was the existence of a hawthorn hedge. It was not likely that the Government would insist upon the complete destruction of any hawthorn hedge in a "proclaimed" area, hut it Vould insist that the hedges should be trimmed. The Government would not rush into the matter, but would issue Orders-in-Council only when it was necessary for the proper protection of the people of a district. In Committee, .the • Leader^ of .the Council agreed to an amendment to clause 7, making it clear that no prosecution should be instituted except• by the inspector under the principal Act. The Bill was ■ reported with amendments, read a third time,, and passed.