MINUTES OK EVIDENCE. 



G3 



17 September, 1919.] 



MK. H. ARMOUR and MR. G. G. MERCEH. 



[Continued. 



10.926. It is a very vital point> is it not? I know. 

 You would recover these expenses on the potato crop. 

 If you apply them to the grain crop, then you would 

 get them in the potato crop, because you are crediting 

 your potato crop. You are only shifting the thing 

 from one crop to another, but the expense remains the 

 same on the whole of the crops. On that system of 

 farming they are not dependent on one another. 



10.927. But the potato crop pays its own way? 

 I would not like to say it pays its own way; it is a 

 very expensive crop, and most farmers shirk it. If 

 it were not that they are being compensated through 

 the other crops, many farmers would not have it. 



10.928. Cannot you give us an opinion as to whether 

 the guaranteed prices fixed, if any prices are to be 

 fixed, should follow the proportion between the figures 

 in your evidence-in chief here or in regard to wheat 

 and oats, such a proportion as 70s. to 51s. 9d. ? My 

 answer to that is this, that we cannot grow wheat 

 under the best conditions unless we follow a potato 

 crop. In that case you would debit the wheat crop 

 with 3. which equalises them and balances the two; 

 so that it the farmer does not get it in his grain 

 crop, he gets it in his potato crop. 



10.929. Does not that mean really that the 

 proportions you want are the proportions you have 

 given originally? You can put them that way if 

 you like ; but if he puts it to his grain crop, then he 

 gets it in his green crop, so that we stand equal. 



10.930. But you realise that the ratio between your 

 price for outs and your price for wheat is consider- 

 ably higher than the ratio of the guarantees of the 

 Corn Production Act for 1917? I do not think it 

 would be advisable to rame the price of wheat to such 

 an extent that a farmer could cross-crop his farm for 

 the purpose of getting at this price of wheat. If you 

 keep the prices very much as I have put them, then 

 he will get his ex|>ense recovered from vhe potato 

 crop; but if you raise the price to an abnormal 

 amount in wheat, then of course you will get cross- 

 cropping. 



10.931. Do you think that the ratio ln-tu.--.-n the 

 two prices given by the Corn Production Act gives a 

 preference for wheat? I think the preference for 

 wheat i- at the expense of oats. 



10.9.-J2. Under the Corn Production Act? Yes. 



10.!33. You know that that was not the intention of 

 the Government; because I remember hearing Mr. 

 I'rotliero (as he then was), when introducing the 

 measure in the House, saying that he thought they 

 were giving a slight preference to oats, because they 

 wanted oats to be grown to a large extent? It does 

 not work out that way. We think there is not 

 enough preference to oats and too much preference 

 to wheat. 



10.934. I understand, Mr. Mercer, that your Cham- 

 ber considers a guarantee fixed for 4 or ~> years would 

 be more satisfactory for farmers and give them a 

 greater sense of security than one fixed from year to 

 vear:- (Mi-. Mrrrer): That is so. That is to say. 

 they wish to know that there is to be a guarantee 

 for 4 or "> years ahead. Then we suggest that the 

 guarantee itself lie fixed annually. 



10,93o. But do yon not think it'would lie still better 

 for them if they knew beforehand what the actual 

 price was for 4 or o years? It will be difficult to say 

 at this moment what it ought to be 5 years hence. 



10.936. A guaranty fixed ahead is better than a 

 mere promise that there shall be a guarantee, 

 because the guarantee may be fixed very low? - 

 Yes, that is so ; but. on the other hand, we 

 have this Costings Committee now which is look- 

 ing into all the>i- |w>ints. and we trust after this the 

 officials will lx- in a lMtter position to know what is 

 required to IM- fair. We certainly want the assur- 

 ain-e for "> years. 



10.937. You want the assurance that there will be 

 some guarantee for 5 years ? Yos. 



10.938. But yon would really prefer to have the 

 -.i< tnl figure to be determined from year to year? 

 It might I*' fairer to all concerned. 



10,!),')9. Yon do not think that if farmers only had 

 ft figure for one year now, and an assurance that 

 some guarantee would be named for the next four 

 years, they would think that means very little to 

 them, because the gun ran tee that is not yet namrd 

 may turn out to be something that i not worth 



having? The feeling is that a guarantee for each 

 year is always a help. It is an inducement to go oil 

 for that year, and an assurance to follow that this 

 matter will be taken up again 



10.940. But my point is, would not it be more of 

 an assurance to them if they knew the actual figure 

 fixed for some years ahead? I am afraid there might 

 be very strong objections raised to that from othei 

 quarters altogether. After all, the farmer is only 

 wanting the assurance of those in authority that hit 

 position will be kept reasonably secure. 



10.941. It is rather for the Government to considei 

 what objection might be made in other quarters, is it 

 not? What would give the farmer a greater sense of 

 security and do most to encourage farming? Would 

 he be more encouraged if he had the actual figure 

 named for a number of years? I quite agree that he 

 might be. 



10.942. And would that preference for a guarantee 

 named for a certain number of years be so much, that 

 he would prefer a somewhat lower guarantee fixed for 

 4 years simply to a higher guarantee for one year? 

 You realise that in the interests of the taxpayer and 

 ir. order to savo the State from undertaking grave 

 financial burdens, a guarantee fixed for a number of 

 years will have to be somewhat lower than one year's 

 guarantee might he? Yes, I quite agree with that. 



10.943. I mean if we had to look far ahead and 

 give a guarantee for a number of years, we could not 

 risk so high a figure as we might do if the guarantee 

 were for one year only? And yet you might find as 

 the years went on, that the higher guarantee was 

 really necessary to keep the land under cereal culti- 

 vation. That is the point. The conditions may 

 change. \Ve ci.'nnnt tell. It is a safeguard that is 

 wanted; a safeguard that will produce food. It is 

 for the national safety. 



10.944. 1 imagine that it is always possible to raise 

 a guarantee. At the present moment you have your 

 guarantee under the Corn Production Act at 55s., 

 but the Government has guaranteed 71s. lid.? Then 

 your suggestion would IK- that they would state a 

 minimum for so many years, with the option of rais- 

 ing that, if necessary, to meet the existing conditions 

 at years went on. 



10.945. Without undertaking any obligation to 

 it. Do you think that at the present moment 



farmers will be more encouraged by a promise, say, 

 that this year's guarantee should l<e continued for 

 next year, or by a promise, say, that a guarantee of 

 fiOs. a quarter for wheat should bold good for the 

 next 4 years? You see, we have no knowledge 

 whether that guarantee might be sufficient. It might 

 be too great again; you cannot tell. All that the 

 farmer wishes is security. 



10.946. What do you mean when you say that it 

 might not be sufficient? W r e have no idea what the 

 world's prices may be 4 or o years hence, and there- 

 fore what our prices here might be. 



10.947. Therefore, does not that put a greater pre- 

 ference on a guarantee which continued for some 

 years ; you would feel sure that then it was not falling 

 below the year's minimum figure? It might be, on 

 the other hand, that in a year or two prices could be 

 lowered very considerably. We do not know what 

 may intervene in these years to affect the market 

 prices, and we might be able to produce cheaper, in 

 which case we would be quite willing to do so and take 

 less. 



10.948. Yes; but which at the moment would give 

 the farmer a sense of security, and induce him more 

 to put his back into the industry and to maintain his 

 land in cultivation under the plough : a promise 

 for 4 years at a lower figure or a promise for 1 year 

 with a higher guarantee? With a guarantee that it 

 would be revised? You sec, that is the alternative. 

 Do you mean a promise really for i5 years, but the 

 figure to be revised each year 



10.949. Put it simply that you had nothing but a 

 promise for one year, and, on the other hand, the 

 promise of a lower figure for 4 years : would you have 

 that? I have no doubt, if you put it that way, the 

 promise of a lower figure for 4 years would be better 

 than a mere promise for one year, provided it was a 



