Divisional Council Act, 1889”. Once again, many of the basic ‘identify and direct’
provisions of Act 22 of 1861 remained visible and although Xanthium Spinosum was
specifically mentioned, it also allowed for further plants to be identified and controlled. Importantly, the Act also included a “penalty for neglect” where “upon proof
of his neglect such owner or occupier shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence
under this Act, and shall upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding twenty
pounds and such owner or occupier shall be liable to the same penalty for every
week or part of a week during which he shall fail, after his first conviction, to
comply. . .” Another interesting addition that appears to counter the strange 1889
‘river bed exemption’ is the provision that “in the eradication of noxious weeds it
shall be an offence to place such weeds in any river or any defined water course. Any
person contravening this section shall upon conviction be liable to a penalty not
exceeding twenty pounds.” By identifying a specific dispersal pathway, namely
rivers and water courses, this provision may also represent a broadening of the
approach to invasive species management. The Act was followed up with The Rural
Council (Cape Division) Act (Act 33 of 1909) which empowered Rural Councils to
“make, alter, revoke or amend regulations . . .for the more effectual eradication or
destruction or prevention of the spread from adjoining divisions of Xanthium
Spinosum or any other noxious weed or plant.”
The Transvaal followed in 1909 with their Noxious Weeds Act (Act 12 of 1909)
to “make better provision for the Eradication of Noxious Weeds”. Act 12 of 1909
empowered the Governor to make regulations: a) imposing a duty on the occupier or
owners of land, mining title holders and holders of grazing rights on Crown Land to
clear and keep clear their land of noxious weeds; b) prescribing the manner in which
noxious weeds had to be eradicated in respect of this duty; c) empowering any
official of the Department of Agriculture, field cornets, or police officers to inspect
land and issue directions by written notice to clear that land of any noxious weed; d)
empowering these officials to eradicate weeds in cases of non-compliance; e)
providing for the recovery of the cost of eradication of noxious weeds from the
person who is in default and the mode of such recovery; f) preventing the introduction into the Colony or the sale of any plant, seed or grain, which is likely to
propagate or spread the growth of noxious weeds; and g) for generally preventing
the spread of noxious weeds in the Colony. Penalties for non-compliance were also
updated—“Penalties may be imposed for a breach of or failure to comply with any
such regulation not exceeding a fine of fifty pounds or in default of payment
imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period of six months.” In addition
to the provision relating to eradication method prescription, the acknowledgement of
the role of ‘prevention’—restricting import or sale—is an important regulatory
development. As with the Cape Colony’s Divisional Councils Act Amendment
Act (Act 17 of 1907) regulation of a specific dispersal pathway, the regulation of
introduction pathways, namely import and sale, by Transvaal’s Noxious Weeds Act
(Act 12 of 1909) represents a further broadening of the approach to invasive species
management. Furthermore, given the traditional and ongoing tension between mining and agriculture which was driven by competing land use, the specific mention of
‘mining title holders’ in an Act that clearly protects farming interests may also be a
524
P. Lukey and J. Hall
provisions of Act 22 of 1861 remained visible and although Xanthium Spinosum was
specifically mentioned, it also allowed for further plants to be identified and controlled. Importantly, the Act also included a “penalty for neglect” where “upon proof
of his neglect such owner or occupier shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence
under this Act, and shall upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding twenty
pounds and such owner or occupier shall be liable to the same penalty for every
week or part of a week during which he shall fail, after his first conviction, to
comply. . .” Another interesting addition that appears to counter the strange 1889
‘river bed exemption’ is the provision that “in the eradication of noxious weeds it
shall be an offence to place such weeds in any river or any defined water course. Any
person contravening this section shall upon conviction be liable to a penalty not
exceeding twenty pounds.” By identifying a specific dispersal pathway, namely
rivers and water courses, this provision may also represent a broadening of the
approach to invasive species management. The Act was followed up with The Rural
Council (Cape Division) Act (Act 33 of 1909) which empowered Rural Councils to
“make, alter, revoke or amend regulations . . .for the more effectual eradication or
destruction or prevention of the spread from adjoining divisions of Xanthium
Spinosum or any other noxious weed or plant.”
The Transvaal followed in 1909 with their Noxious Weeds Act (Act 12 of 1909)
to “make better provision for the Eradication of Noxious Weeds”. Act 12 of 1909
empowered the Governor to make regulations: a) imposing a duty on the occupier or
owners of land, mining title holders and holders of grazing rights on Crown Land to
clear and keep clear their land of noxious weeds; b) prescribing the manner in which
noxious weeds had to be eradicated in respect of this duty; c) empowering any
official of the Department of Agriculture, field cornets, or police officers to inspect
land and issue directions by written notice to clear that land of any noxious weed; d)
empowering these officials to eradicate weeds in cases of non-compliance; e)
providing for the recovery of the cost of eradication of noxious weeds from the
person who is in default and the mode of such recovery; f) preventing the introduction into the Colony or the sale of any plant, seed or grain, which is likely to
propagate or spread the growth of noxious weeds; and g) for generally preventing
the spread of noxious weeds in the Colony. Penalties for non-compliance were also
updated—“Penalties may be imposed for a breach of or failure to comply with any
such regulation not exceeding a fine of fifty pounds or in default of payment
imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period of six months.” In addition
to the provision relating to eradication method prescription, the acknowledgement of
the role of ‘prevention’—restricting import or sale—is an important regulatory
development. As with the Cape Colony’s Divisional Councils Act Amendment
Act (Act 17 of 1907) regulation of a specific dispersal pathway, the regulation of
introduction pathways, namely import and sale, by Transvaal’s Noxious Weeds Act
(Act 12 of 1909) represents a further broadening of the approach to invasive species
management. Furthermore, given the traditional and ongoing tension between mining and agriculture which was driven by competing land use, the specific mention of
‘mining title holders’ in an Act that clearly protects farming interests may also be a
524
P. Lukey and J. Hall