MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



13 



14 October, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES GARDNER. 



[Continued. 



aa to what sort of guarantee should be given not 

 the actual figure, but the principle. 



12,9(jl. What is the principle? The principle which 

 we discussed, and which the majority of us are agreed 

 upon, is a modified guarantee coming up to rather 

 under if anything the costs of production over a 

 fairly long period, leaving the farmer free play of the 

 market above that. We look upon it from the point 

 of view of some of our occupying members. We have 

 a very large number of them, and they complain of 

 the want of declaration of policy on the part of the 

 Government. They say if the Government say there 

 i* to be a guarantee, that there is to be no slump 

 such as happened before, and they would guarantee 

 a modified guarantee under the costs of production, 

 end they want arable farming, we are prepared to 

 put up buildings, to drain the land, and generally 

 provide the permanent equipment of horses, harness, 

 ploughs, carts, wagons, and such like. These members 

 of ours do feel, and feel very keenly, the want of a 

 declaration by the Government as to what line they 

 are going to take. 



12.962. Then if the guarantee is to extend over a 

 fairly long period it must, of necessity, be a sliding 

 guarantee, if it is to cover the costs of production 

 which will vary from year to year? It must neces- 

 sarily be on a eliding scale principle up or down, be- 

 cause it is not possible for any man alive to tell what 

 the price might be in a year or two. It may be too 

 big, or it may be too little; and, therefore, there 

 must be some adjusting process by which it will be 

 kept as a safeguard. 



12.963. It must slide in accordance with the costs 

 of production from year to year. That is your 

 opinion? That is the principle. 



12.964. I think I understood you to say that farmers 

 were satisfied with their position in, I forget whether 

 you said 1913 or 1914? I said that I was, in answer 

 to Mr. Henderson. 



12,96.5. They were making a fair profit? I was. 



12.966. The agricultural wage was somewhat in- 

 creasing, thnuph not sufficiently. I mean wages were 

 going up with the better times? Yes, they were. 



12.967. There was a sort of equilibrium established 

 in 1913-14. If the same condition could be produced 

 by some sliding guarantee now, farmers would be 

 satisfied? Yes, I take it they would. 



12.968. What I have in my mind is this. Suppos- 

 ing the chief costs of production in 1914 were ascer- 



'1 I do not mean the jost per acre but the cost 

 of Labour, the cost of seed, and the cost of manure, 

 etc. and corresponding prices were now available, 

 there would then be a certain percentage increase on 

 every cost comparing 1914 and the present time. The 

 prices of wheat, barley and oats for 1914 are known, 

 and if those prices were raised by the percentage in- 

 crease in the chief farming costs now, the resulting 

 figures would give the sums to be guaranteed. Would 

 that guarantee satisfy the farmers? I am afraid it is 

 difficult to follow? I can follow you quite clearly. 

 I think probably the principle which you outline is 

 as far as you will probably get. Speaking personally, 

 I cannot see a fairer method than the one you have 

 outlined, to apply generally over the country. 



12.969. That kind of guarantee would, in your 

 opinion, meet the case? Yes. 



12,9<L. Mr. Smith: You mention in 12,746, No. 2, 

 of your precis of evidence the inefficiency and high 

 cost of rural transport. Have your Union considered 

 tins question with a view to any suggestions as to 



what would improve the position of the industry? 



Being farmers, we naturally cannot be expected to 

 give concrete proposals ; but what we do say is this, 

 that in that direction there has been a certain amount 

 of rest-arch, if ono might put it in that way. There 

 are better methods of transport that are quite well 

 known, and could be provided within a term of two 

 or three years, say ; and we say they should be adopted 

 by the Government, and as soon as possible. We do 

 not expect them at once; but wo do say that our land 

 hro is beside the best market in the world, and we 

 certainly do object to paying, from counties 60. 100 

 K) milos away from the main centres of consump- 

 tion, more in some cases than a farmer pays who is 



living 100 or 200 miles away from the port of em- 

 barkation in thd Argentine, in order to get his goods 

 to the consuming centre. We say the thing is abso- 

 lutely ridiculous, and seeing that methods of im- 

 provement in that direction are well known and 

 understood by experts on the subject, the Government 

 ought to act in the matter, not hurriedly, but make 

 it a consistent part of their policy to improve- the 

 transport of this country to increase and aid home 

 agriculture. 



12.971. May I take it what your Association is 

 seeking is a co-ordination and development of the 

 transport service so as to provide as far as possible 

 equal facilities for the carrying of goods for the 

 farmers? Yes. 



12.972. You express no opinion as to the method, 

 whether it is to be by light railways, motor trans- 

 port, or not? One might express an opinion, but 

 I am afraid the opinion of a farmer would not be of 

 much avail. 



12.973. But you are convinced to-day that it is a 

 real difficulty so far as the farming industry is con- 

 cerned, that is, the lack of proper transport service? 

 I do say that the lack of efficient method of 

 transport in this country, which is the best market 

 in the world, with fairly good land and a fairly good 

 climate, is a position that must be remedied at once, 

 if there is anything to be done and home agriculture 

 is to flourish. 



12.974. But would you put that at the forefront 

 of any proposals that might be made for assisting 

 agriculture: 1 I would. 



12.975. I notice in your evidence-in-chief, 12,7 li). 

 you draw attention "to the fact of the variation 

 between the produce of different classes of land. 

 That is what I take it you mean. In answer to a 

 question from Mr. Parker, you stated that your 

 suggestion was a guarantee which should be rather 

 under the cost of production. How would you deter- 

 mine the cost of production? What standard would 

 you take for that purpose? I think the standard 

 that was referred to by Mr. Parker, that is the 1914 

 percentages of labour cost, and cost of material, and 

 your on-cost. You find that out pretty accurately 

 in the period of 1913-14. I do not think if you are 

 laying down a proposed guarantee to come under the 

 cost of production, you could get at it in any other 

 possible way than that. I may be mistaken; but, 

 in my opinion, it is the fairest way that I can see 

 at the present moment. 



12.976. My concern is as to how you are going to 

 fix a basis which will have general application. You 

 state here: "With controlled prices fixed at a flat 

 rate those farms or localities where the cost of pro- 

 duction was low and the returns good, the profits 

 were bound to be considerable, whereas those locali- 

 ties and holdings where the crop returns were meagre 

 and the cost high would show in many cases a 

 financial loss." How are you going to adjust the 

 position as between farms of that character? I 

 mean, the cost of production is not merely what you 

 spend on the land, but it also has a bearing on what 

 you can get from the land? Certainly. 



12.977. How would you fix your standard? As 

 I suggest in my precis, it is a most extraordinarily 

 difficult thing, in fact it is impossible, by saying 

 you fix a flat rate, to make the conditions at all 

 equal. They are bound to he unequal ; but at the 

 top end where you have the better return, and 

 therefore the better remuneration, you have the 

 factor of rent coming in and the factor of Income 

 Tax coming in. If there is a Land Court appointed, 

 as I have suggested this morning, it will certainly 

 take it out of that in rent. The man who farms 

 that proposition will have to pay more rent. There 

 is no doubt whatever a Wit that under a fair Court. 

 That is one factor that would equalise the inequality ; 

 there are others. The tenant farmer, in my opinion' 

 is merely a contractor between labour and the com- 

 munity. His margin varies, or, in this case, it will 

 be varied for him. 



12,978. Then am I to understand that in fixing this 



i.'Mi'lanl you would take as your basis the lands with 



the low yield and adjust the difference by increasing 



the rents of the more productive land? Not at all. 



I am glad you asked me that question. I certainly 



