[c. H. HEWLETT.

I.- 17.

56

that cannot be accomplished in a moment. If the millers and the bakers tackled the problem with the same amount of energy that the farmers have tackled their share of it we could accomplish something of real value. Have you had any actual experience of wheat-farming in Australia I—No, not in wheat. I was out in the cattle and sheep country, but I only saw flour on a lorry. I have neither lived in the wheat-growing areas of Australia, nor have I worked there, but I can quite understand the great discrepancy between the Australian figures and the New Zealand figures. For instance, it would be no use putting our grain in in the same way, or getting it out in the same way ? —No use at all. The working-conditions there are altogether diSerent ? —Altogether different. And their crops vary a good deal, of course, especially in the dry season- —they vary to an extraordinary amount ?—Yes. In the Turretfield Farm figures the highest yield was 24 bushels, and the lowest just under 10 bushels. Their crops have very big variations. Some of your figures seem rather low : take the cost of threshing, for instance ?—6d. per bushel. Yes. On a number of our farms it costs more than 6d. to thresh it ?—I am taking in under the most favourable circumstances, and a good crop. Under such circumstances threshing by contract comes out at about 6d. a bushel, but if you do the threshing by time it would cost more. We are able to do the threshing by our own machine, but the ordinary small farmer is not able to do that. That is the point: it costs the small farmer up to Is. a bushel to thresh ?—Yes. I have paid, years ago, 9d. and lOd. myself, and I consider Is. is a fair cost for the average Canterbury wheat-growing land ? —Yes. So that that adds materially to the cost of growing wheat: it adds another 6d. ?—That may be too much under favourable conditions. Mr. Jones.] Would the costs of material be reduced to the wheat-growers if we had free-trade entirely in New Zealand ? —The costs of material ? Yes ? —Do you mean if we were all working under free-trade ? Yes, free-trade in everything ? —Well, that is a pretty large question. We would get some of our implements a bit cheaper, but, on the other hand, it would put a lot of us out of business. We would be competing against every other country in the world. We would be the dumping-ground for the cheapest products of the world, and we would not be able to carry our population. But is not that another way of getting cheaper wheat, instead of only taking it off the farmer ? —If you do that you would have to have free-trade in boots and everything. Of course, there would be a certain amount of wheat grown if there was no duty at all, but it would be grown in very much smaller quantities. Ido not suppose that wheat-growing would stop altogether if there was no duty, any more than if you take the duty off boots it would stop bootmaking. Do you think it right that the wheat-farmer should be expected to work under free-trade and at the same time pay duty on the boots he wears ?—That opens up a big question, and is a little bit beyond the average poor farmer. Mr. Jenkins.'] You say the value of your land is £40 an acre ?—Yes. How do you arrive at that valuation ? —That was an estimate of what is considered the value of the land in that district. What was the value in 1914 ? —ln pre-war times ? Yes ? —I do not know exactly ; but values have not varied so much in the wheat-growing districts of the South since the war as they have in the North. What would be the value of the land during the land boom ? —lt went up a little during the land boom. The Government valuation of one of our farms to-day is £50 an acre. In the Taranaki and Waikato districts the valuations went up from 60 to 100 per cent, during the land boom ? —Yes ; they went up with us, too, but to nothing like such a great extent. And since then they have dropped ?—Yes, they have dropped with us ; but, as I say, they did not go up anything like so high. Land that is valued at £50 an acre to-day with us, I suppose, in pre-war days would be valued at about £40 an acre. Land is only really worth what it will produce ?—Yes. The values are different in Australia as compared with New Zealand ? —Yes ; £1 worth of land in Australia produces more wheat than £1 worth of land here. And the labour costs here are higher ?—Yes ; but the more labour you put into it the more you are going to produce. Your figures seem to be rather inconsistent for £40-an-acre land ? —That is the Government valuation. If you could induce the Government to lower the valuation we might be able to cheapen the costs. Rev. Mr. Carr.] Considering the large areas of land in Australia, would not that inevitably make the land cheaper over there. We are limited here in our land?— Yes; naturally, if there was plenty of land it would be cheaper. You say you have 3,000 acres, and 1,000 acres of that is suitable for wheat-growing ? —Yes. To what extent is the 1,000 acres better ?—-It is more suitable for that purpose. We have 750 acres in rotation crops, one of which, of course, is wheat. Of course, we could put more wheat in, but we have to rotate our crops. We crop about 500 acres of wheat in the ordinary course. Has there not been a good deal of unemployment in the wheat-growing districts during the last few years ? —I do not think that it has been so very noticeable. Timaru has a fair percentage of unemployed agricultural labourers ? —I do not know. If the duty was reduced, how many farmers do you think it would put out of business ? —I have not gone into that. Mr. Mavpherson.] What is your definite opinion with regard to the research work you are doing down there—that is, if there were a change in the present system it would certainly discourage