fw. NASH.

1.—17.

120

Can you suggest what, in your opinion, would be a better method ? —That is rather a difficult question to answer. I know there are difficulties and complexities with respect to subsidies and bonuses. What lam showing is that the present system is unfair and unjust. It is easier to be destructive than to do something of a constructive nature ? —lt is easier, of course. I think something should be done to find out what is right and equitable. I have pointed out, as far as I can, that this present system is unjust and iniquitous, and I believe it ought to be altered. I would like to get more information and think it out. We would particularly like to have your opinion as to what would be a better method ? —I will be glad to let you have my opinion on that later on.

Mr. James Mitchell examined. (No. 34.) The Chairman.'] What is your full name, Mr. Mitchell ?■—James Mitchell. And who are you representing ? —I have been nominated by the North Otago wheat-farmers to appear before this Committee and give evidence. Will you proceed with your statement ?■ —Yes, sir. I shall endeavour to place before you the whole position as I see it. I desire to say at the outset that Ido not represent any particular interest associated with the matter under consideration. lam not a grower of wheat nor a manufacturer of flour, or even a baker of bread. lam simply a journalist with over half a century's experience in a wheat-growing centre, and one who can claim to have devoted a good deal of thought to the industry and written very freely upon the subject. I am going to assume that there is no real thought of singling out the wheat-growing industry as the only industry not to receive any protection under the tariff. lam conscious that wheat enters into other industries of a very minor character, but I cannot conceive it possible that it is seriously contemplated to sacrifice an industry worth between two and a half and three millions of money upon the altar of two minor industries that are themselves protected, and one of which is bounty-fed upon its exports, in order to foster exports that are not deemed of sufficient importance to receive separate mention by the Government Statistician. I take the view that it is intended to continue protection in some form to wheat-growing as an essential industry of the Dominion. Then, I say that the best and safest method of affording protection is by a sliding scale of duties upon wheat and flour, in which I claim a kind of parental interest. Its outstanding merits are that it ensures for the producer a constant price for his wheat on a basis giving him a reasonable return, and guards the bread-buyer against exploitation in the event of a shortage of supply. The Committee has already received evidence as to the merit of the sliding scale in official statements that ever since it came into operation the duty payable has been below the fixed duty previously in operation. The system has the inestimable merit of banishing anything in the nature of speculation or gambling in what is a prime article of the people's food, for it stabilizes prices all round and eliminates disturbing fluctuations begotten of outside conditions. That, I respectfully suggest, is a condition of security that cannot be lightly disregarded. It should not be necessary to urge the value of the wheat-growing industry to the Dominion, but I cannot refrain from emphasizing a few points. New Zealand has been bountifully blessed by Nature in that it is capable of producing an infinite variety of things that minister to the needs of man. A large part of its area is specially adapted to the production of wheat, and it would be a grave and costly mistake not to take advantage of that adaptability. It is, I think, a sound proposition that a country enabled to pursue a self-reliant course and cater for the needs of its people is in a stronger position than one dependent very largely for sustenance upon other countries. That is specially so in the case of a country like New Zealand, separated by oceans from other lands. There is a mine of wealth in the advice not to carry all your eggs in one basket, and the same advice is applicable to a country, which should not be content with the stimulation of a limited number of primary industries, but should exploit the whole of its potentialities, and so secure the widest range of industries and a broadening of the knowledge and adaptability of its people. A point that is worthy of emphasis is that for farmers who occupy high-priced wheat-producing land in small, or comparatively small, areas it is essential to them to grow wheat as an integral part of mixed farming. To enable them to do this with profit it is desirable that they should have a market which will assure them a reasonable return. Such an assurance has a decided tendency to encourage close occupation of the land, which is of positive advantage to the State. I invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that the wheat-growing industry contributes a far higher percentage of its wealth production to the wages fund of the Dominion than does any other of our industries that can be named. This contribution is not confined to the mere production of wheat, for it is found in manifold directions. It occurs in the transport of the wheat and its manufacture into flour and bran and pollard ; in the rope and twine industry, to which the wheat-growing industry contributes about one-fourth of its total income ; to the coal-mining industry ; to the agricultural-imple-ment industry ; to the payment of men employed in stores ; and in various other directions. It may be answered that so far as the flour-milling industry is concerned it would not be prejudiced, for, as we must have bread, flour must be forthcoming. But that is a fallacy to which I will make reference when dealing with another aspect of the main question. To sum up on my present point, I believe, after an examination of the details, that out of a wheat-production valued at £3,000,000 fully onethird finds its way into the wages fund. Any industry that could replace wheat-growing would give no more than a mean percentage of that contribution to the wages fund, for no other industry is capable of returning so much wealth per acre as does wheat. So far, then, as wheat-growing is diminished, so far will the wages fund be depleted and unemployment be intensified. I respectfully submit that the Committee cannot face the responsibility of doing anything calculated to jeopardize the wheat-growing