K.iVAI. i-|'M\ll.s>HS ON AORIi I Ml l;l.. 



, 1919.] 



SIR DANIEL HAU., K.C.B., K K - 



[('HlillUftl. 



?i. ii not the.M> full prices, the prices to in- 



-..lined at tin- l.\.l tn. \ luivo lie.-n in the past? 



What I cJiould like to aee is these guarantee* ),.-,.! 



in operation. I should like to .-wo such guarante. - 



us would encourage the farmer to go all out to 



I hia ml ti vat ion, and BO forth; and vet the 



I oi prices bo good enough to prevent the 

 guarantee troni ever calling ujion the (J.ivernment. 



not want to fix such a level of guarantees that 

 the Government must have to pay. 



391. IViuld you toll ux how far the industry ha> 

 l-ocn handicapped in this country h\ lack of adequate 

 Iran-, - .nie forms of the industry h:m> Ixvii 



\i-ry much pinched by had transport. I think it 

 would bo familiar to anybody, say, in the fruit and 

 vegetable market gardening business that transport 

 was a very serious handicap on some. 



393. Coming to the question of the Corn Pro- 

 duction Ait, is it fair to assume that the Board, 

 in framing its proposals, considered not only tlu> 

 p-neral interests of the country, but also, if one 

 may say so, the special interests of the labourer 

 and the former as well? We tried. Really the 

 endeavour of the Act was to give to the farmer and 

 to the laliourer a measure of security, a sound 

 position, and then, as either of (those securities might 

 involve some expense to the State, to give to the 

 Siat.' its return by saying: " We shall require from 

 the farmer such and such a standard of cultivation." 

 \Ve do away with the idea that a man may do what 

 he likes on his own land. 



393. I think I understood you to say that you 

 considered that one of the essential conditions of 

 the industry was that labour should be well paid? 

 Yes, properly paid. 



394. Do you consider that the 25s. fixed by the 

 Act was an adequate wane for the labourer at that 

 time?- Ii was a great deal higher than was being 

 paid. You must again remember that wo did not 

 propose 25s. as the rate of wages to be paid, but as 

 a minimum ; if we could ensure that it would bo doing 

 much for the position of the labourer. Even at 

 that date, we had evidence before us that rates of 

 about 1 and as low as 15s. were still being paid. 



395. la one entitled to assume, further, that the 

 Board had the idea that that rate would be increased 

 by the provisions of the Act? We knew that it 

 would be increased by the normal play of economic 

 forces; because we knew it was actually exceeded 

 at the time in certain districts. 



396. I think tho constitution of the Wages Board 

 and the District Committees might be taken as 

 evidence that they anticipated there would bo some 

 adjustment, and that wages would rise from the 

 96.P Exactly. We never laid down 25s. us a wage 

 thai was to be paid. 



:!'7. According to the other sections of tho Act fix- 

 ing the price for corn, tin- price for the first year 

 was fixed at 60*., and then there was a reduced figure 

 for two further periods, 55s., and ultimately 45s. 

 Tan you t^ll us what the Hoard had in their" mind 

 bjr reducing the price of the corn, and at the MOM 

 tune anticipating a rise in the wage*? I can tell 

 you what we had in our mind. We had in our mind 

 tho fact that the price of corn at the moment 

 very much higher than tho 60s. ; and what we should 

 like to have looked to was simply the future, the price 

 three or four years hence, leaving out of an omit 

 the pnr,. for, say, 1917, 1918, and 191!). bocMM WB 

 knew really a I bottom that those wen. going to be 

 high prices duo to war conditions. Hut we had to 

 igure in as a figure which, under conditions, 



felt would encourage a man to feel ho could . 

 ploy lalHMir and produce with safety. You see the 



button changed o rapidly about that time. Fit' 

 iade nonsense of, I mean, a soon as they i 

 written down. 



1 would like to Hiign...! to you that it 



icr strange the Hoard should anticipate and make 



ion for a higher wage than was fixed in the 



I 2-n. , and at the same time provide for lower 



>nc* for corn. I should like to ask you whether 



t ran >*> taken ax an indication that the lt-,,,,1 



wore 1 that there were ,,th,., , , ,|,,, t 



could be effected in tho induct i\ - V. If 1 m.iy 

 say so, < were thinking solely l the point of 



ay 1 am speaking ot. Tho 46s. that was our 

 ultimate figure tor wheat was not tho figure that we 



:.(! win at to IM. sold at. As 1 was saying, it was 



11. .1 tin- pi in' at which we thougnt wheat ought to be 



produced !>y the l.iimer or could lie ilainieti by the 



luit a sort of security price below which we 



thought the farmer ought not to l>e pushed down. 



.'!:'.. Kvrit then, do you not think it is somewhat 

 strange that tho price of the corn should bo reduced 

 whilst the wagos had a tendency to in. r ...-.-.- \\Y 

 made no provision for an increase <>i the wagos. 



400. You provided machinery which rather sug- 

 gested that possibility? And the same machinery, 

 it you follow the same reasoning, could also lower the 

 rate of wages, oould it not? 



401. I do not know whether it could or not, under 

 the Act whether or not the 36s. is not fixed? Yes. 

 our 25s. is the minimum; but you are saying we had 

 provided machinery for the wages to go up above 

 that. So we did. The same machinery which could 

 raise it to 30s., 35s., and so forth, could also bring it 

 down, if it is a mere question of machinery. 



402. I do not know what the idea of the Hoard 

 was; but it seems strange to me that, on the one 

 hand, they should contemplate high wages, and then 

 fix a lower price on the other hand. One would have 

 thought they would have maintained the price; and 

 it rather suggested itself to my mind that they had 

 in their mind tho idea that there were some other 

 adjustments that could take place in the industry 

 and still make the industry a paying proposition on 

 those figures: 1 I am afraid you are reading more 

 subtleties into this than were in the minds of the 

 somewhat harassed legislators at tho time. 



403. On the question of the farmer and farm 

 manager, do you agree there is an exact comparison 

 between a manager of what one may call a large in- 

 dustrial farm and tho farmer himself on a smaller 

 farm, as regards duties and services? I do not quite 

 follow for the moment. 



404. It is following up the point asked by Mr. 

 Parker as lit items that should lie allow <d tn enter 

 into the cost of production. I want to know, in thnt 

 respect, whether a farm manager, acting on behalf 

 of a company as a paid servant, can be compared, 

 from the point of view of cost, with the former 

 owning his own farm ; lx?cause it is not merely a 

 question of remuneration, but it is a question also 

 of services rendered. Are the two comparable in that 

 sense? I think you can dissect, if you so wish, 

 the services of the ordinary farmer in three directions. 

 Ho is the lender of capital on which lie is entitled 

 to a return merely as a capitalist, and ho la a 

 manager, on which he is entitled to a return, and 

 then he is also the entrepreneur of tho whole farm. 



405. But do you agree that the positions nre 



similar in the wne that 'the two ought to lie counted 

 on the same level from the point of view of income 

 to be charged on the business as part of the 

 of production? I would not sny that the whole of 

 tho return of a small farmer. >ay a farmer of 200 

 which he derives from the farm, is manager's 

 salary. As I say, only a part of his return is 

 manager's salary, because you ran ask what 

 could you get it done for elsewhere. Applying 

 pro-war figures, you could say: " 1 could got, a farm 

 managed for something between 5s. and 10s. per 

 acre." 



40(5. W'ould it not ! true to say that the farmer 

 would still be paying lal>our that would be doing at 

 nine duties that would !>e done by the manager 

 on the other farm : and therefore it would not make 

 their two position, comparable as to what tliev would 

 m-fually take out of the business? No. Krom that 

 point of view. I would M.V tin. paid manager does 

 exactly what the farmer clow, and the farmei 

 exactly what the paid manager does. 



407. Do you think their duties would correspond ? 

 1 i nly. 



40fl. And that if there was a market in the ili-- 

 tnct OTery day of Ihc week, the farm malinger 



