14 



KOYAI. ri..MMIvs.|,>N ON A. .Kli I I.TI-HK. 



I .'!.; 



MK. AI.BEKI HUM i 



/ | Mi, 



under the present cost of production, would be 34. 

 6d. a ton? I have not work.it it out, but it will be 

 lei ably more this year. 



17. If you get half a normal crop thi year that 

 :..n- 'tin- price will l- double, and it will cost 

 tore 6B. a ton to produce P Yes. 

 6488. RooU enter very largely int.. the cost of tin- 

 production of milk P That is BO. 



5429. Assuming hay is a free market this winter 

 ami root* cost this to produce it is obvious the cost 

 of production of milk will be very heavy this winter? 

 Yes, this winter. 



6430. You are a milk producer? Yes. 

 5431. You do not anticipate much profit this 

 pends upon the price you fix; I think 

 it will bo very difficult to produce. 



6432. Mr. Lennanl : I understand that your tables 

 in your ovidence-in-chief are estimates for the present 

 year? Yes, to a great extent. 



5433. I notice in Tables 5 and 10 you only allow 

 >0. a ton for wheat straw? Yes. 



5434. That is very low, is it notP I think the 

 selling price fixed is 3 per ton, is it not? Last year's 

 straw was anyhow. 



5435. I think it is more like 4 a ton? Not wheat 

 straw; it was 3 last year, and we took off 10s. for 

 the inanurial value; we took it at consuming value. 



5436. I know we had to pay 4 a ton for some 

 wheat straw for thatching? That is a particular job. 

 I know I sold a good deal of wheat straw hist %. ."' 

 to the Government. 



5437. I am speaking of this year? I do not know- 

 that it is likely to sell at much more. 



5436. It is being contracted for at 4 a ton. Pos- 

 sibly there is some cartage on it. 



5439. If it is priced at 4 a ton that will bring 

 down your cost of production of wheat after fallow 

 and after potatoes in proportion? Yea, but I contend 

 that 4 is too much; as a price we cannot get -1 

 for it. 



5440. I think you said in answer to Mr. Rca that 

 you considered that one-third of the cost of farmyard 

 manure put on your wheat field after fallow should 

 be charged to the succeeding crop? Yes. 



6441. That would mean a deduction of about 33s., 

 would it not? Possibly. I have not worked out those 

 figure*. 



5442. This deduction for farmyard manure charged 

 to the succeeding crops would reduce the (v- 

 cultivating an acre from !'> Os. 6d. *o 13 7s. 6d. in 

 Table 6P_Yes. 



5443. And it would bring down the cost per quaiter 

 to 3 6s. lOJd.? Yes. 



6444. If you also make tho correction which I have 

 huggpfctod for straw that would bring down the cost 

 of a quarter of wheat after fallow to t'J 1 7s. <!.. valu- 

 ing the straw at 4 a ton. would it not? Yes, but, 

 a* I say, it ii not worth 4 ; wo cannot get 4 for it. 

 and, in fact, we are unable to get rid of what we s.ild 



6445. Is that because of market conditions in your 

 district or because the straw is of an inferior quality- 



the straw is of good quality, and we still have 

 it standing. It was sold to tho Government a year 

 ago nearly. Much of tho .straw sold lost year to the 

 Government is still standing. 



5446. Do you think you will have much difficulty in 

 selling straw this year? One does not know. 



6447. We have heard that it is likely to be so; 

 Yen. I think it will be scm 



6448. I think you said that wages in your di 

 re higher than the legal minimm 



6449. That means, dm it not. that your labour 

 oosjt* are higher than they are in districts whore ithe 

 actual rato of wages in not higher than the minimum 

 wag* P That is so. 



6460. So far as labour costs enter into your evidence 

 they could not IK> applied without deductions to those 

 other district*? I should think there are not many 

 districts where they can got the labour at minimum 

 rat** In nearly every case the farm labourer ni 



to get his house, milk and potatoes f 



6461. How much higher than the minimum rate are 

 the wgn in your district? I am giving a, cowman, 

 for instance. 62. a week with house and perquisite*. 



5453. What is the. minimum wage? 47s., but theie 

 is tho houso and Ins milk ami |Mitat<**> aln.vo the 5*., 

 M iliai n is reallv equal to COs. a week, whereas tho 

 minimum wage is 17.-. 



rely aa tho minimum wage is Inner than 

 the rat you are, paying, which L> the market rate, it 

 practically moans that you are Inlying laboin 

 market, does it not:- We can gi\e more, but wo can- 

 not net it for less; that is what it amounts to. 



.". I-M. If the rate was removed you would not be able 

 to gei them for less? No, I do not think we should- 

 not in our district. 



Did I understand you to say in answer to \l> 

 It. -a that a guarantee of 70s. a quarter for wheat 

 would leave tho farmer a profit? Yes, I think it 

 would leave him a profit at the pr.t-ont. time. 



. A guarantee of that figure would then be, 

 more than a mere insurance against r.sk? Yes, 

 slightly. 



Supposing the alternative were put to you 

 in the interests of cereal production whether you 

 would rather have a guarantee of 60s. a quarter 

 for four years or no guarantee at all, what would 

 ir opinion ? In any case if it were, a minimum 

 guarantee you could not take any harm with it. 



.", l">-v Yoti think it would be an'odvantage from Uie 

 national point of view P Yes, but I do not think it 

 would encourage the production. I think that tho 

 70s. figure would be more likely to encourage people 

 to sow wheat. 



'.It would encourage more production than the 

 60s. ? Yes. 



Mr. Nichotti: I should like to ask you whether 

 you do really think it is a good national business 

 to give n guarantee of 70s. a quarter for wheat 

 to keep really poor hind under cereals? There 

 mav 1)0 certain classes of land that are not worth 

 cultivating at any price I moan land which would 

 pay better under grass. 



0. Have you got in your mind that the Govern- 

 ment ought to pay on acreage and not on quarterage? 

 No. I think it" would be better on quarterage; it 

 would encourage a man to produce all the quarters 

 he could. I think the acreage principle is wrong 

 because a man who is drawing a low crop two 

 quarters an acre would get as much as the man who 

 grows four quarters or six quart 



5101. Does he not know that there is a large part 

 of the land which is really hopeless for wheat growing, 

 and that he could never hope to get more than two 

 quarters from his land, try as he would? There are 

 districts where I have no doubt that is the case. 



5462. That really would not induce a farmer to 

 go in for growing wheat except on really good wheat- 

 grow ing land? My opinion is that whore you grow 

 only two quarters to the acre the land is not worth 

 cultivating. 



.'.. It seems to be in the mind of everybody who 

 wants a guarantee that we ought really to give it 

 to induce people to grow wheat on land that cannot 

 ronlly produce four quarters to the acre, and I wanted 

 to know what you thought about it. It seems to me 

 absurd really to guarantee 70s. on four qrs. of wheat 

 on land which nobody thinks will grow more than two 

 quarters:- 1 do not think personallv such land as that 

 is worth bothering with. Land that will only grow 

 two quarters an acre ought, in my opinion, to be put 

 down to grass. 



.".int. Did I understand you to say, in answer to 

 Mr. Kdwnrds, that you do not fool that if tho Govern- 

 ment or the nation did givo a guarantee in respect 

 of wheat, growing, the tanners themselves would not 

 he prepared to give the nation a guaranty that 

 ili. \ wmld produoo a certain acreage of wheat? I 

 think that is rather problematical. 



5465. It may seem unreasonable to some people, but 

 it doc* sir ke me that if somebody \vcre to come along 

 and o*k me to give him a guarantee* of so much per 

 quarter for his wheat or for any nrtii !< he produced, 

 if I were to give, him n guarantee I should have a 

 right to say to him, " Now may I rely upon \ou pro- 

 ducing th'fl article up to a certain' quantity or a 

 certain .>< I o:>go " :- -Ye. 



What do the farmers really think about that? 



must have got in their minds when they held 



their meetings, must they not. that if the nation ig 



going to give a guarantee on the one side the farmers 



