MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



6 August, 1919.] 



SIR HENRY REW, K.C.B. 



[Continued. 



695. Where would you draw the limit? That is 

 impossible to say. Again we are getting in a circle; 

 because the point at which you fixed the guarantee 

 is the point at which you decide what is the margin 

 of cultivation. 



696. Exactly; and I want to know, in fixing the 

 guarantee, how you have to arrive at that point 

 where you have to leave it? I cannot suggest any 

 formula for arriving at the figure of a guarantee on 

 the basis of the land which you are going to keep in 

 cultivation. 



697. Now let me itake the fixing of the wages for a 

 moment. Can you tell me the constitution of the 

 Wages Board? It consists of 39 members: 16 repre- 

 senting the employers, 16 representing the workers, 

 and 7 appointed members. 



698. Who appoints the 16 employers? They are all 

 appointed by the President of the Board of Agricul- 

 ture ; or I should qualify that and say there are 

 regulations made under which the Board is consti- 

 tuted, and by which half the employers and half the 

 workers are nominated by organisations on both sides. 



699. The other half, that is, 8 employers and 8 

 workmen are directly nominated by the President? 

 Yes. 



700. Do you think that desirable? I am not able 

 to suggest any particular objection to it. 



701. Would it not be better if they were all elected, 

 one half by employers and the other half by the 

 workpeople? I am not quite sure that the result 

 would be very greatly different. 



702. Does it in practice work out that if the em- 

 ployers and the employed agree, the 7 appointed 

 members are not called in at all? Yes, that is so. 



703. Therefore wha1< inducement would there be 

 either to the employers or to the employed to keep 

 wages down, if there is going to be a guaranteed 

 price to cover them? Perhaps I was rather too short 

 in my answer to the previous question. 



704. It is the accurate one? It is not quite an 

 accurate one; and I want to put the position as clearly 

 as possible. Although it is true that on certain 

 occasions the representative members have agreed 

 it is -not quite true to say, 1 think, that the appointed 

 members have not been called in in the strict sense 

 of the term. That is to say, there has been dis- 

 cussion lii'tw'-n all members of the Board; although 

 it is strictly true, of course, that if the representative 

 members agree on both sides, they being 32 against 7, 

 it is obvious the appointed members do not count 

 much. 



705. I suggest to you that you were absolutely 

 accurate in the answer you gave ; and that the way 

 the. Wages Board works is, that if the employers 

 and the employed agree amongst themselves what : s 

 to be done the appointed members are never consulted 

 at all? I am saying that that is not accurate. 



706. What is the use of the seven consultative 

 members if the itwo other sides havo made up their 

 minds? They have not always made up their minda. 



707 The criso I put to you was whrn they had 

 agreed?- Well ; that case has not occurred. 



708. It is contrary to the information T have? 

 am sorry. I am giving you the best information I 

 have. 



709. Take the last increase, the 6s. 6d.? That was 

 th" result of prolonged discu-ion for three successive 

 meetings. In all those discussions the appointed 

 members took part. When I say all I do not mean at 

 ovrry moment of the discuasions. 



710. Who are the appointed members? Sir Ailwyn 

 Fellowfs is the Chairman. I have the bad luck to be 

 the Dfpntv Chairman. Lord Kenvon. Mr. Francis 



ml Mr. Orwin, Mrs. Wilkins and Mr. Yates. 



711. Are they appointed by the President of the 

 Board? Yes. 



712. Do von know at all on what ground thev are 

 appointed? I think you will have to call ^he 



I' i I' nt to ask that. 



18138 



713. Are they appointed to represent the public? 

 Is that the idea, or what is the purpose? It is 

 a question which it would be a little invidious for me, 

 perhaps, to answer. 



Chairman: Is it quite relevant to our inquiry? I 

 rather question it. For instance, how can Sir Henry 

 Rew criticise the President of the Board? 



Mr. Cautley : He can refuse to answer the question. 



Chairman : It is not relevant to discuss the com- 

 position of the Wages Board. In considering 

 remuneration of labour and hours of employment it 

 may be necessary to refer to the operations of the 

 Board. Moreover, the witness is not in the position 

 to criticise his superior, nor should he bo asked a 

 question which will result in such criticism. 



714. Mr. Cautley : Then I will only ask you one 

 more question on this point. The word has been 

 used that there might be a conspiracy between the 

 labour members and the farmer members of the 

 Wages Board to agree on prices, because the 

 guarantee from the taxpayer .would cover them. I 

 protest against the word " conspiracy." I never 

 used it; but I ask you, if there is an overriding 

 guarantee to make good the losses to the industry, 

 what inducement is there to the two to make the 

 best bargain, as the Wages Board is constituted? 

 I think, as the Wages Board is constituted, with all 

 its defects, it has a very considerable appreciation 

 of its responsibilities to the public at the present 

 time. But I find it very difficult to believe that, even 

 assuming both sides had nothing but sordid motives 

 in mind, farmers, by their natural instincts, so to 

 say, would willingly give unreasonable wages, because 

 in the long run they hoped the State was going to 

 reimburse them. 



715. That is the only answer you give? That is my 

 view. 



716. You have stated that the farmers are suffering 

 from difficulties of transport. What do you mean 

 by that? I am not quite sure whether I said that. 

 I said quite generally, that agriculture and the 

 community in fact are suffering very greatly at the 

 present moment from the difficulties of transport 

 and distribution ; but, as applied to agriculture, I 

 mean that I do not think the facilities at present 

 existing for distributing agricultural produce are 

 adequate or satisfactory. 



717. In what way do you mean? I do not think 

 that the remoter districts are sufficiently well served 

 in getting to the market, more particularly in regard 

 to perishable commodities. I am speaking, of course, 

 in generalities ; but that is my general view. 



718. Then, again, you stated that farmers were 

 under-capitalised. What do you mean by that? I 

 mean that in the past, under the pro-war level of 

 prices, so far as I am able to judge, there was a 

 general tendency for people taking land to take more 

 land than they had adequate capital to deal with'. 

 I do not say that that was universal, by any means; 

 but I think there was rather a general tendency in 

 that direction. 



719. You agree, I take it, that the capital required 

 by a farmer now is about 20 per acre? Yes, I 

 should say so. 



720. Before the war would it be 8 to 10? Yes. 



721. And for milk farms is needed, of course, very 

 much more than 20 per acre? I think probably it 

 hi 



722. Do you think 20 per acre would be enough? 

 I would not like to answer a question like that without 

 definite figures, because I have not gone into it. 



7'J'i. You also stated that security of tenure with 

 femrity of prices would attract more capital to the 

 land. Will you tell me what you mean by security 

 of tenure? I really had very much in mind the con- 

 ditions which exist when a man takes a lease. That 

 is what I was thinking of for the moment. 



724. You were thinking of a lease? Yes. It seems 

 to me almost a truism that capital will not be at- 

 tracted in the long run to an industry, unless there is 



C2 



