MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



65 



21 October, 1919.] 



MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. 



[Continued. 



three years ago, that it ought not to have been 

 ploughed. I myself ordered land to be ploughed up 

 then which I should not under normal conditions do. 



15.314. That is my point, that under normal con- 

 ditions a good deal of it ought not to be ploughed? 

 It was not profitable to plough it, but if the country 

 wants a large agricultural propulation and men kept 

 in the country and a large quantity of food produced, 

 that land must be cultivated in spite of the loss. 



15.315. Mr. Dallas: With regard to the Wages 

 Board you think if there was perfect freedom tha 

 Wages Board should be abolished. What change 

 would that make; why do you want it abolished? I 

 think without the Wages Board and its Order as 

 regards hours our men would not have asked even for 

 the hours we had last year, and I certainly do not 

 think that they would have asked for any further 

 induction. 



10.316. Is that the only change you think would be 

 made? No, I do not say that. With freedom I 

 think we should get on better. 



15.317. What does freedom mean? Does it mean 

 that you would not negotiate say with the Unions 

 concerned? Well, I suppose nowadays we shall have 

 to, but I think the men would get better terms if 

 they did not. 



15.318. You would not get freedom in that case? 

 It is not freedom now; it is law We are not bound 

 by freedom to obey tho Wages Hoard ; it is by law. 



15.319. Do you not think if the Wages Board were 

 abolished and there was no law to compel them, that 

 a large number of employers I do not say you and 

 some of the other men, but you know the people I 

 am referring to would not pay the rates? I believe 

 there are a large number of farmers who would only 

 pav what they are obliged to to get the labour, nnd I 

 think thore are a good many similar employers in 

 other industries. 



].V:',20. Yes, that is the |> ; nt. The Wages Board 

 puts all the farmers on the snmc level; it makes ihoiu 

 all pay the same rate?- 



1-".321. If tho Wages Board were abolished there 

 would be a tendency for a large number of employers 

 not to pay the rates? They could not do it to any 

 great extent. Conditions in the case of individual 

 farms may vary, but not taking a district as a whole 

 to any great extent. 



15.322. Would you be surprised if I told you that 

 at the present moment, even with the law as it is, 

 thon are hundreds of fresh complaints every week 

 of employers not paying the rates fixed by the Wages 

 Board? I do not quite understand it, but if I am 

 told it is so I must take it. 



15.323. Are you aware that there are Wages Boards 

 in other industries fixing the rates of wages? I do 



not know of any Board that has the same legal power 

 to fix wages as the Agricultural Wages Board has. 



15.324. I can assure you that there are quite a 

 number? They are not called Wages Boards. 



15.325. It is only ;i difference in the name, but it 

 is the same thing. They are called Trade Boards, 

 and these Trade Boards fix the minimum rates of 

 wages for certain trades, and the employers have no 

 guaranteed prices? Yes, but in those trades if n 

 employer can get his men willingly to work for less, 

 is he liable to the law? 



15.326. Yes, he is liable to the law? I did not 

 know that, but I do not say it is not so. 



15.327. So that there is a precedent for the retain- 

 ing of the Wages Board? Yea, I expect we have got 

 to retain them. 



15.328. Mr. Nicholls : I was not quite clear as to 

 your answer about the Corn Production Act. I 

 understood you to say that you did not think it 

 made any difference reallv to the breaking up of the 

 land? No. 



15.329. Will you agree that when the Corn Pro- 

 duction Act was passed it indicated a part of the 

 Government policy which showed that they were 

 prepared to back up the farmers' efforts, and even 

 though it did not affect prices, they thought it would 

 facilitate the work of the War Agricultural Com- 

 mittees? Yes, it might perhaps have done that. 

 What I meant when I said that it did not cause more 

 corn to be grown was that the prices have gone up 

 above the guarantee in the Corn Production Act, and 

 that the rise in prices has tended to keep land under 

 the plough ; but the rise in prices is quite indepen- 

 dent of the Corn Production Act. 



15.330. Do you really think that the action of the 

 Government gave any confidence to the farmers? 

 No, I do not think it did very little, if any. 



15.331. That would indicate that no movement on 

 the part of the Government would remove these fears 

 that we are told so much about? I would hardly go 

 so far as to say that. If we had a guarantee of 

 prices sufficient to pay for the cost of production 

 which, mind you, I do not strongly advocate my 

 idea is that it would be higher than any fixed price 

 under the Corn Production Act at present. 



15.332. What was in my mind was that fanners 

 did not know that prices were going up to the 

 height they did? No. 



15.333. And I wondered whether you thought that 

 under the Corn Production Act the Government had 

 indicated a policy by which they were going to give 

 a certain price under that Act, and that that would 

 tend to give confidence to farmers and encourage 

 them to crow more cereals? No, I do not think it 

 did, really. 



(The Witness withdrew.) 

 MH. A. H. POTTS, Farmer, of Felling oa Tyne, Called and Examined. 



15.334. Chairman: Will you allow me to consider 

 the statements which have been put in by you, and 

 by Mr. Howell on your behalf, as part of your 

 evidence ithout reading them*? Certainly. 



15.335. Dr. Houylnx: Will you turn to paragraph 

 3 of your evidence? You say you are in the 

 habit of buying large quantities of town manure, and 

 last year you were not able to obtain that; is that 

 so? Only part of it. 



15.336. So you used more artificial manures? I 

 u i ! part artificial., but not as much as I should 

 have liked to. 



1-V337. What do you mean by saying that "this 

 latter system is much less profitable"? What do 

 you refer to? I refer to the keeping of stock. 



15,338. You recognise that the system of farming 

 you have boon carrying on must always be only a 

 small proportion of tho whole? Yes, in the minority. 



1 '"i.330. It is a very exceptional method? Yes, 

 comparatively in the minority. 



15.340. Only a small number of farmers have a 

 similar opportunity of carrying it on? Yes, only 

 those in tho neighbourhood of large industrial towns. 



15.341. Your method of farming has been to keep 

 no stock and to purchase town manure? Yea. 



See Appendix No. III. 



26370 



15.342. You have lately had to practice a different 

 method of farming? Yes. 



15.343. Have you formed any opinion from your 

 experience of a different method of farming of the 

 relative cost and return of the two methods? The 

 cost would be much larger in the case of keeping 

 stock on account of the amount of capital that is 

 expended in buying the stock. 



15.344. Does that capital not yield a return? It 

 does not yield as great a return as the system of 

 selling all off, as I call it marketing the produce. 



15.345. Your farm is really of rather an excep- 

 tional kind, and is not illustrative of any large 

 number of farms? That is so. 



15.346. Mr. Ben: In your statement C. on page 16 

 under Expenditure your rent is stated at 265 12s. 

 3d. ? Yes. 



15.347. In paragraph 5 (2) you put down your 

 annual rent as 196 15s. Od. Which is the correct 

 sum? The latter one. In statement C, I have simply 

 put down the payment of rent that occurred in the 

 year ; part of that payment should go into the pre- 

 vious year. 



15.348. Your actual rent is 196 15s. Od., and the 

 first figure includes part of the previous year's rent? 



15.349. Your farm is near Newcastle? Ye. 



E 



