Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NOXIOUS WEEDS BILL.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

IPer Press Association.) WELLINGTON last night' The Hon. Mr. Nosworthy in the House, moved the second reading oj.tjm Noxious Weeds Amendment Hill, He said he fhp tjm« was not far diqtaflt yrftgß would haye to oyerhaul the whole Of the legislation relating to noxious weeds, hut there was no timo to do that this session, and hence he was introducing a Bill which contained a few minor amendments, principally in the direction of authorising local bodies to declare certain plants not to he noxious weeds. /,yt ... Mr. Forbes said the ought to be told whethey this Bill' stiffened or weakened the' administration of the 4ct. H<s feared Canadian thistle was likely tQ spread dangerously, and he thought the p9jvw'} to declare it not a noxious weed Hand in hand with this legislation should go the Pure Seeds Bill, and ‘he wanted to know what had become of it, Mr. Hockley said he favored the Bill. He though that County Councils with local knowledge could with advantage be given greater powers. Mr. Holland pointed out that on? of the features of the noxious weeds problem was the inferred state of Crown lands, which ought to be kept! clean if private owners were expected to clear their lands. Mr. Field said that in the past the law had not been administered as strictly as it might have/been, mainly because the districts were - tioo large and the inspectors, could not get over the ground. The Hon. D. Buddo said the present law was quite satisfactory, and only required administration. He hoped this Bill would bo withdrawn., as it did exactly the thing it ough not to do. The debate was continued by Messrs Nash, Hunter, Langs tone, Glenn, Edie., McMillan, Horn, Veitch, J. M. Dickson, each speaker giving the House the benefit of his local experience. The Minister, in reply, combated the suggestion that he was weakening the administration of the Act, but it was not the least use trying to enforce the law in those districts where it could not be enforced. There were some districts in the Dominion in which every settler would be ruined if the Act were strictly carried out. They could not work a cast iron Act, and therefore he was prepared to leave the necessary powers of discretion to local bodies, who were familiar with local conditions, and knew how best the Act should he administered. The Bill was read a second time and the House rose at 11.30 till 2.30 on t-b? following day.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19230724.2.96

Bibliographic details

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16186, 24 July 1923, Page 7

Word Count
423

NOXIOUS WEEDS BILL. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16186, 24 July 1923, Page 7

NOXIOUS WEEDS BILL. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16186, 24 July 1923, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert