H.—35

Thursday, 19th April, 1928. The Conference resumed at 10 a.m., Mr. A. D. Thomson presiding. Procedure. The Chairman : Before continuing the discussion on Professor Williams's paper I will ask the Hon. Mr. Barr to make a statement as to the course of our procedure after the conclusion of the present sitting in open conference. Hon. Mr. Barr : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,—As we anticipate, either this morning or some time to-day, finishing the reading of papers and the discussions on them., it is just as well that delegates should know what they may expect subsequently. A number of delegates will, of course, not be taking part in the business of the committees, but as we have already been informed by the Business Committee that they cannot fix a date for the resumption of the Conference, I want delegates who will not be taking part in the committee work to be assured that they will be notified by the Secretary of the Conference in plenty of time of the date of the resumption of the Conference. Those delegates who have occasion or who desire to stay in Wellington, and wish to attend at any of the Committee meetings, will, I have no doubt, be admitted as the procedure will, I expect, be the same as that in connection with the Parliamentary Committees, which is that any member of Parliament who is not a member of the Committee may be present but can take no part in the proceedings of the Committee. That is usual in the case of Parliamentary Committees, and lam assuming that the same procedure will be adopted here. But those delegates who deem it necessary to return to their homes may rest assured that they will be notified in plenty of time for the resumption of the Conference. The Chairman : It is understood, then, that at the close of the present sitting the Conference will adjourn as a full Conference sine die. No date will be fixed for the resumption, but notice will be given to members as to when the full Conference will resume. Now I will call for questions with regard to Professor Williams's paper. Discussion on Professor Williams's Paper. Mr. Parlane: I have two short questions to ask Professor Williams. One is, What effect will a reduction in wages have upon land-values, both rural and urban ? And my second question is, In the event of the effect being an increase in land-values, how would such increase affect production costs ? I desire to illustrate what I mean by referring to what is going on in Wellington at the present time. Some years ago the Wellington City Council allowed barrowmen in the street to sell fruit. The City Council sold the barrow-stands, and at the commencement the whole of the stands were occupied by Europeans. Later on the Indian fruitmen came on the scene, and they were able, in almost every case, to give practically twice as much for the stands as the Europeans could give. But in my opinion the only reason why they could give double the amount was because of their lower standard of living ; and the public of Wellington are not getting any benefit from the Indian men : it is all going to the landlord. My contention is that a reduction in wages will not be of any benefit to the producer, but it will all go to the landlord. Mr. Campbell: On page 145, section IV, Professor Williams says: "Where the main market is local, a development of the effectiveness of farmers' co-operative enterprise, say in marketing, is likely to produce material gains, particularly if a protective tariff operates to assist them by hindering outside competition." What I want to ask Professor Williams is this : Does this mean that he agrees that a protective tariff is a good thing for the farmer, but, say, if applied to our woollen or boot industries, is a detriment to the country, as set out in sections VI and VII on page 146 ? Then I want to ask Professor Williams another question : Has he taken into consideration the wonderful asset the primary producer has in an almost unlimited market, in that there is always a sale for his products, and does this not compensate for any slight increase in cost of production ? The third question is with regard to the paragraph on page 147, where Mr. Williams says, " In the upshot I think it is impossible to say that the Court has had an arbitrary effect on wages; it is impossible to say —that is, that the Court has had any material influence in promoting price disparity." If Mr. Williams is sure that the farmer is wrong in assuming that price disparity is due to the influence of the Court, is he also sure that his attack on protective tariffs will assist the primary producer to increase his production or lower his costs ? Mr. Barber : In view of the statement of Mr. Williams contained in paragraph VII, I would like to ask him if he is aware that the secondary industries of this Dominion employ 81,700 workers, and the value of their product is £84,792,434 ? Therefore if these industries languish for lack of protection, what is to become of the 81,700 present employees ? Does he suggest that they should be added to the unemployed ? And what is to become of the rising generation if employment cannot be found for them in the secondary industries ? I would also like to ask him if he can point to any nation that has become great by relying solely on its primary industries ? Professor Murphy: Referring to the graph on page 148, taken from the Year-book, does Professor Williams consider the spread attributable mainly to manufacturing costs in the strict sense, or to such factors as distributive charges ? Mr. Campbell: Mr. Williams did not read paragraph VIII yesterday. Does that mean that he does not wish to answer any questions regarding that paragraph ? Professor Williams : No, sir. I asked permission to delete it on the ground that it raised problems that meant that any attempt on my part to answer would be fraught with difficulty. I suggested at the time that they were matters for experts only to discuss. Frankly, I think there is nobody here, including myself, who can answer those questions, and I proposed them as suggestions for investigation.

182