69

EL—lB-

}~ E,,WILSON.

20. The Chairman.] The sort of tea used by the families you speak of?—A great many of them are paying 2d. per pound more for their tea now than they paid several years ago, in order :to try and get the same quality of tea as they used to get. 21. Is it poorer in quality? —They are paying 2d. a pound more for tea which they consider of the same quality they used to use, 22. Is there anything we have not touched upon in our questions which you would like to state to us bearing on the subject that we are inquiring into? —I would like to say this, that in connection with maternity expenses nothing has been allowed in the figures I have given, and nothing usually is allowed for such expenses, yet that is a very heavy item of expense, and it really means that it reduced the amount that can be used for food'in many cases. Ihese extra expenses often handicap a family for more than a year. It is not only the doctor's expenses, but there has to be special food obtained, and extra blankets, and many other things. People seem to forget how much that is to some families. Some mothers cannot leave their houses to go into maternity homes at that time. I mention that because there has been so much talk recently about the birth-rate. A great many people do not seem to realize what a burden that expense is to many families. 23. Dr Right.} Have nurses' wages increased? —Yes. 24. The Chairman.] And while the nurse is in the house extra food is required?— Yes, extra food, firing, and many other things. Charles Herbert Ensor, Farmer, examined on oath. (No. 42.) 1. The Chairman.] You are a farmer residing at Rangiora, North Canterbury?— Yes. 2. Have you had a long experience in that district?— Practically all my lifetime. 3. So that you know the questions affecting farmers in that district pretty well? —Yes. 4. Has land in that district increased greatly in value since you began farming? —Yes, to a certain extent. I would like to read a short statement which I have prepared in reference to several of the questions in the Commission's order of reference. The first question I wish to refer to is as follows : "7. To what extent, if any, has the rise in the price of land, during the past twenty years, contributed to the rise in the price of commodities? " It is necessary to divide land into two classes, town land and rural land, and to deal with each separately. The rural may be called the producing area, and the town the living and distributing area. The rise in the price of town land has, I think, increased the cost of living. The first charge on a man's wages is his rent. If the price of land increases in areas where the majority of workers , live it stands to reason that rents must increase in consequence. This increase applies not only to the workers' living-area, but also to the distributing-area. If the rent of shops and warehouses increases, so must the cost of food and clothing which passes through those distributing-areas increase. The unimproved value of land in the City of Christchurch has increased during the last ten years. The Official Year-book shows that in the City of Christchurch, Central Ward, the unimproved value in 1891 was £1,820,770, and in March, 1911, it was £3,108,093, an increase of £1,287,323. This increase in the unimproved price of land must result in higher rents and a greater cost of distribution. The chief remedy for this lies in spreading the living-area. The State has intensified this condition of affairs by building workers' homes in the distributing-area instead of on the producing-area. I cannot see that the rise in the price of rural lands has added to the cost of living. Two factors have brought about increased price in rural land: First, the freezing-factory, which has enabled perishable food supplies to enter and compete in the world's markets. This factor has increased the price of certain food such as meat, not by adding to the cost of production but by entering the world's market. The second factor which has increased the price of rural land is cheaper money, and I cannot see that this has increased the cost of living. Rural land is only worth what it will produce, and if the value of rural land increases it cannot affect the cost of living, but should be an advantage, because it will in consequence carry a larger population of genuine producers of food and clothing. If an oversupply of food and clothing could be stimulated the cost of living would in consequence become less. "9. What effect, if any, has the labour legislation had on the increase in the prices of the commodities of life? " Production is being hindered by the fact that farmers are afraid to plant perishable crops. The scarcity of labour throughout the year is preventing production of the commodities of life. For this reason the growing of food-supplies which require labour has decreased. This is shown in the following official return : Grain crops grown in 1890, 826,505 acres; grain crops .grown in 1911, 658,485 acres: decrease, 168,020 acres. Beef on 12th June, 1902, was from 19s. 6d. to 245.; on 23rd October, 1902, it was from 28s. to 405.; on 6th June, 1912, from 235. to 265. " 12. What causes generally have brought about the increased cost of living? " First and foremost I believe that the increased cost of living should be traced to the cost of distribution. The cost of production of primary products cannot affect prices to any great extent, because the value of wool, grain, meat, and other necessary articles is regulated by the world's markets. It is after the article leaves the primary producer that the cost increases until it reaches the consumer. Take, for instance, a bushel of wheat—6olb. It is to-day worth 3s. 6d., and leaves the producer at that price. It then goes into the hands of the distributors, and by the time that the bushel of wheat- reaches the consumer in the form of bread it has actually more than doubled in price. No matter what the price of rural land is, the producer cannot get more than the world's market price for his staple products. But the consumer can be exploited to any extent as soon as those necessaries of life pass into the hands of the distributors. I do not blame the people who live by being distributors, but it is the system under which they are working. For