AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION OF 1928.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5, 20 November 1928, Page 294

AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION OF 1928.

F. S. Pope,

Assistant Director - General of Agriculture, Wellington.

The legislation enacted during the parliamentary session of 1928, and directly affecting matters coming within the scope of the Department of Agriculture, consisted of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1928 ; the Noxious Weeds Act, 1928 ; the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1928 ; the Canterbury College and the Canterbury Agricultural College Amendment Act, 1928 ; and the Reserves and other Lands Disposal Act, 1928, (section 12).

The following matter gives the main points to be noted in connection with these Acts, but any one likely to be specially affected should obtain a copy of the particular Act which concerns him from the Government Printer, Wellington, who will supply it on request at a small charge.

RABBIT NUISANCE ACT, 1928.

This Act consolidates, and in some respects alters and adds to, the law in regard to the rabbit nuisance. It repeals the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1908 ; the amending Acts of 1918, 1920, and 1921 ; section 35 of the Finance Act, 1923 ; section 65 of the Finance Act, 1924 ; and

section 44 of the Finance Act, 1926. It comes into force on 1st January, . 1929, on which date the other Acts mentioned cease to operate. . •

It makes no radical changes in the law as administered by the Department of Agriculture in those parts of the Dominion where Rabbit Boards are not operating, or as administered by the Boards in their districts in regard to destruction of rabbits generally. The comparatively important changes it effects in those connections are as follows :—

Inspectors are given the same power in respect of unoccupied Native freehold land not held in severalty as they possess on unoccupied Crown land or unoccupied Native customary landnamely, the power to enter upon such land and take measures for the destruction of rabbits thereon. But in the case of Boards’ Inspectors the provisions of subparagraph (a) in section 89 of the Act should be borne in mind.

The Department, or a Rabbit Board in its own district; when obliged to undertake the rabbiting of a property because of the “ owner’s ” neglect to do so, is authorized to collect and sell the skins, giving the owner credit for three-quarters of - the net proceeds when charging him for the cost of the rabbiting.

It is provided that the protection of an animal, or bird, as a natural enemy of the rabbit need not apply throughout the Dominion as hitherto, but may be given in respect of specific' districts.

The Minister of Agriculture, as well as a Rabbit Board in its own district, is given power to erect rabbit-proof fences on private or Crown lands and, with swing-gates, across roads.

The keeping of live rabbits in possession is prohibited save with a permit from the Minister of Agriculture, thus enabling rabbits bearing valuable fur, such as Angora and Chinchilla rabbits, to be kept under approved conditions.

The control of the importation of live rabbits is transferred from the Minister of Internal Affairs to the Minister of Agriculture.

Power is given to make regulations regarding the standardization and sale of rabbit-poison.

The unauthorized removal of carcasses or skins of rabbits from land, as well as the unauthorized laying of poison or destruction of rabbits on land, is prohibited.

Persons who, without authority, persist, after warning, in going on Crown lands while rabbiting is in progress are liable to a penalty.

With the above-mentioned exceptions, and some changes of minor importance, the law as affecting persons and lands outside the districts of Rabbit Boards, and as affecting the destruction of rabbits generally, whether within or outside of Boards’ districts, remains as hitherto.

The Act, however, makes considerable alterations as regards Rabbit Boards and their districts, in respect of which matters the law, largely owing to changes in the legislation governing local bodies in general,

had become in many respects difficult to interpret and to administer satisfactorily. . Further, the gradual approximation which had taken place in-the functions of the three types of Boards described below made it desirable to eliminate any unnecessary suggestion of difference between them, when practically the only ground for such differentiation had become a variation in their rating-powers. The following notes will indicate the nature of the more important of these alterations: —

Under the old legislation there were three distinct kinds of Boards, as follows :—

(1) . Those hitherto known as Part II Boards : These were formed by the live-stock owners of the district ; there was no limit of area ; the basis of rating was the number of stock carried ; and there was a Government subsidy of £x for on the rates collected, with a specified maximum rate of subsidy., (2) Those hitherto known as Part III Boards : These were formed by the general, ratepayers of the district the minimum area was 2,000 acres ; the minimum number of ratepayers was ten ; the basis of rating was either the rateable value of all rateable property, or its acreage ; and there was a Government subsidy of £1 for £1 on the rates collected, with specified maximum rates of subsidy.

(3) Those hitherto known as Part IV Boards : These were formed by the ratepayers ; the minimum area was 1,000 acres ; the minimum number of ratepayers was three ; the basis of rating, was the capital value of all rateable property ; and there was no Government subsidy.

Nominally, one of the main changes now' made is that there will be only one kind of Board in future ; but as, with the exception mentioned later, any Board will be able to levy its rates on any of the bases now applying to the three different kinds of Boards, the change is more one of form than of substance. There are, however, . these two material differences : . (1) Boards may now be formed on any of the several bases of rating, including the acreage basis; and (2) in future those Boards that were formed under Part IV of the old Act will receive a Government subsidy of £1 for £x if their area is not less than 20,000 acres, whereas hitherto they have not been eligible for such subsidy.

As indicated in the last preceding paragraph, Boards may change their basis of rating from the stock-carrying basis to the rateable-value basis or acreage basis; from the rateable-value basis to the acreage basis; or from the acreage basis .to the rateable-value basis, in every case upon a poll of the ratepayers concerned. There is, however, no provision for changing from the rateable-value or acreage basis to the stock-carrying basis, and consequently this class of change cannot be made.

The rate of Government subsidy to the Boards, whether already existing or established in the future, has not been changed, but Boards formed in the future with an area of less than 20,000 acres, will receive no subsidy.

Power is given for the amalgamation of Boards, and for making changes in their boundaries, but no provision is made for abolishing Boards. Should this become necessary in any instance, special legislation will be required.

The machinery provisions in regard to rating have been brought into harmony with present-day requirements.

The general election of members of the Boards has been altered to be on the same date as the general election of members of County Counci] which arrangement will be a great convenience to many electors. Provision is made for postal voting to be brought into force by regulations if found desirable.

The raising of loans by Boards formed by stock-owners has been provided for; hitherto only Boards elected by the general ratepayers could raise loans.

The end of the Boards’ financial year has been changed from 31st December to 31st March.

Although boroughs and town districts are excluded from Boards’ districts, the Boards are given general powers for enforcing the destruction of rabbits within adjacent boroughs and town districts.

Boards are to consist of six members, but where the acreage is less than twenty thousand the number may be as low as three.

Where the rating is on an acreage or rateable-value basis owners of less than 10 acres are exempt.

At elections of members of Boards, where there are not more than forty electors, persons nominated by a majority of the electors shall be declared elected.

Boards may levy differential rates according to the degree of rabbit-infestation.

Boards receiving subsidy from the Government must not pay any ratepayer for rabbiting his own land.

Boards must . administer Part I of the Act (in regard to destruction of rabbits generally) within their own districts, but must not rabbit Crown land, or Native freehold land not held in severalty and of which no person is in actual occupation, without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture ; provided that any Board may hand over to the Minister of Agriculture the administration of Part I in its district, whereupon subsidy will cease to be payable to the Board.

■ Speaking generally, it will be found that, without adding to the burdens of either the taxpayers or the occupiers of land, the new Act will greatly facilitate the control of the rabbit nuisance in the Dominion.

NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT, 1928.

This is merely a compilation of the existing legislation as contained in the Noxious Weeds Act, 1908, and the Noxious Weeds.Amendment Acts, 1910, 1921, 1923, and 1927 ; consequently it makes no real change in the present law. The new Act comes into force, and the other Acts

mentioned cease to operate, on ist January, 1929. It will be a great convenience to all concerned to have the whole of the law on this subject consolidated into one Act.

Seeing that the expressions “ Second-schedule weeds ” and “ Thirdschedule weeds ” are in fairly common use, it may be as well to point out that in the new Act the numbers of the several schedules are changed ; what was the Second Schedule to the 1908 Act becomes the First Schedule to the 1928 Act, and what was the Third Schedule becomes the Second Schedule. Thus Californian thistle becomes a First-schedule weed, and broom becomes a Second-schedule weed. This, however, does not alter the law in regard to these or other plants. It is only the names of the schedules that are changed.

ORCHARD AND GARDEN DISEASES ACT, 1928

With the necessary modifications, the above-written notes on the Noxious Weeds Act apply in this case also. The Acts to be superseded are the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1908, and the Orchard and Garden Diseases Amendment Acts, 1914 and 1920. Here also the numbers of the schedules are changed.

CANTERBURY COLLEGE AND CANTERBURY AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1928.

As far as Canterbury Agricultural College (Lincoln College) is concerned, this Act provides that the Board of Governors may grant renewals of certain leases in circumstances set out in the Act.

It also provides that in. connection with elections of members of the Board of Governors the rolls of electors shall be closed for twenty-eight (instead of fourteen) days before the day of the election.

RESERVES AND OTHER LANDS DISPOSAL ACT, 1928 (SECTION 12).

This section sets apart the Weraroa Experimental Farm of the Department of Agriculture, - together with the closed road intersecting it, as an endowment for agricultural research, experiment, and instruction, and authorizes the subdivision and leasing of. the land and the use of the revenue therefrom for the purposes mentioned. The land is not to be sold, but parts . of- it may be declared reserves for purposes of the General Government.

Correction.In the notes on the agricultural legislation of 1927 published in the Journal for January last, the words “(unless they are sold) ” should be deleted from the paragraph numbered (2) under the heading of “Apiaries Act, 1927,” on page 21.

Cases of Poisoning in Animals. — During the official year 1927-28 seventeen specimens of ingesta and organs from animals suspected of having been poisoned were submitted for examination by the Department's Chemical Laboratory. In several instances of mortality in pigs suspicious amounts of sodium chloride (common salt) were found in the stomach-contents. Strychnine was found in one . case, powdered nux vomica having apparently been' administered in mistake for a harmless drug to the animal (a dog). '