KEEPING BUNNY DOWN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 417, 27 July 1928, Page 12

KEEPING BUNNY DOWN

LAWYERS ARGUE ON RABBITS

A DIMINISHING NUISANCE (THE SLJY'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. “When lawyers differ, who shall decide?"’ This Question must have perplexed the House of Representatives last evening when Mr. J. Mason, Napier, and Mr. H. G. R. Mason, Eden, both lawyers, waxed keen in a rather futile argument, over the constitution of the Hon. O. J. Hawken's Rabbit Nuisances Bill. The most peculiar thing about this discussion was that Mr. H. *r. R* Mason, Labour, was championing a Government Bill, while Air. J. Mason, Reform, was criticising it. ‘•He wants a process to be served on each rabbit.’’ said Air. J. A. Lee. when Air. TI. G. R. Alason was attacking his namesake’s viewpoint. In introducing the Bill. Air. Hawken pointed out that it was largely a consolidation of earlier legislation. He stated that the rabbit nuisance was now much less serious than formerly. Under the circumstances, the Houseshowed only spasmodic interest, and the brief period when Air. J. A. Nash was baiting Air. Lysnar was one of the few bright spots of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition, Air. H. E. Holland, deprecated the proposal to foster the breeding of rabbits for the sake of the fur, which was fashionable to-day but might not be tomorrow. The methods of destroying rabbits must be changed from time to time, because rabbits, like human beings, had the capacity of adapting themselves to altered conditions. Replying to the debate, the Alinister said the powers asked for in the Bill were necessary, because, in different districts, different methods of destruction were necessary and some settler might persist in using wrong methods. He saw no danger in permitting the keeping of white rabbits, because there was no instance known of their escaping and becoming a nuisance.

The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Stock and Agricultural Committee.