CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 10 December 1934, Page 8

CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS

AM ENDING LEGISLATION

DUTY OF PROPERTY OWNERS. “Some important amendments to the Noxious Weeds Act, 1928, are now in operation, and it would be to the benefit of occupiers of land in general to make themselves conversant with these alterations so that they will realise their obligations,” said the Inspector of Stock at Hawera (Mr J. D. Anderson) when interviewed by a •‘Hawera Star” reporter to-day. In an outline of the more important points provided for by the amending legislation Mr Anderson said that section 2 redefined the word ‘‘clear” as follow : “Clear, in relation to any noxious weeds, means the doing of any rut or acts which destroy or effectively control the spread of noxious weeds.” Section 3 provided that no notice to clear was now required to be sent out to occupiers of land by an inspector in the case of ragwort ami in addition to clearing the weeds once, the bind must he kept cleared. “This is an important point that occupiers of land should note for their own benefit,” Mr Anderson continued. “Notices from inspectors are not now necessary for ragwort, and legal action can he taken against an occupier for failure to clear liis land of ragwort and keep the land cleared without the issue of a notice at nil. Occupiers, to safeguard themselves against prosecution, must not wait to be notified to clear ragwort.” Section 5 provided that an occupier of land convicted for failure to clear noxious weeds was not, thereby now relieved from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act. In other words, to allow noxious weeds to grow on any land was made a continuous offence and the weeds had to be cleared within two months after the date of such conviction, otherwise a further offence was committed. A minimum penalty of 10,s and a maximum oenaltv of £2O was provided by the Act on conviction for a, first offence, and in cases where an occupier who had been convicted still failed to clear the weeds as required he was then liable to a minimum penalty of £o and a maximum ncnaltv of £;SO. M r Anderson said that the question of ragwort was an important one in this district and county councils were now empowered to take over the administration of the Act within their counties from the department if they desired.