1.—13 a,

Mr. Wilkinson : I can quite understand that the New Zealand organization would require time to consider a matter of this kind. Mr. Barnett.] You will admit that the main object of your organization is the fixation of a satisfactory price-level for primary products 1- —That is so. _ And yet you come here and say that the secondary industries should not have a similar right Mr. O'Shea : Not at all. We say that working a boycott and restricted dealings and those methods which have universally been regarded as un-British should not be allowed to apply in the community. Mr. Barnett.'] Except on behalf of the primary industries ? —Not at all. Have you read the Act ?—Yes, I have read the Act. Have you read the amending Act ? —Yes. Can you show me where the amending Act removes one offence under the Trusts Act ? —The whole thing is that, so far as we are concerned, it nullifies the whole Act. How ?—Because if that term " unfair " had been inserted in the Bill it has been held, I think, throughout the Empire that it would be incapable of interpretation. The word " unfair " does not occur. The Act says only this : if prosecuting for an offence, the defendant may justify it by proving that the specific act complained of was not unfair, that similar specific acts were not unfair to the individual, and that the acts were not contrary to public interest. Does that remove the offence ?—lf you are going to make it an offence if you are going to establish a ground for defence that cannot be established or proved what force is the Act going to have ? Then we cannot get it at all and the Act is no good to us ? —Of course, certain things get proved under the Act .now. You have nothing to fear in the passing of this ?—Yes, we have everything to fear. I say that that word " unfair "is too vague. We are told by competent legal authorities that it will nullify the Act. , . What about wheat ? Have you made efforts to fix the price of wheat ?—The Union has not taken a stand on wheat. That is a thing the Farmers Union cannot dabble in. We have Protectionists in our ranks and we have people in the North Island against fixing the price of wheat. Your organization is in favour of it ? —You cannot say that. You said it was Mr. O'Shea : No. Am Ito understand that I was interpreted as saying that we are in favour of the fixation of prices ? What I should have said, was that one of the objects of the union is to place the sale of produce on a satisfactory basis. The Chairman.] I was going to ask you a question. I have examined the matter fairly closely and I think it was within the last month that somewhere about sixty delegates representing the dairy industry of New Zealand passed a resolution with, I think, only one adverse vote ? It was practically a unanimous vote which if put into operation would undoubtedly fix the price of butter for the whole of New Zealand : that was as far as its effect was concerned. We have a flood of evidence in these things, and lam informed that any attempt to'do that will bring the butter people immediately in conflict with the Commercial Trusts Act. It is very difficult to get, the farmers' opinion on that where you get sixty delegates in the one big branch of the Farmers Union that are definitely in favour of price fixing. Mr. Wilkinson : May I add in fairness to the witness that his organization does not control the dairy-farmers in any way. They are a separate institution. The Chairman : They profess to control the dairy-farmers. Mr. O'Shea : May I point out that our organization has never undertaken any actual stand in the matter of fixing prices : if I said so, I misunderstood the question. The Chairman : The Commercial Trusts Act definitely prevents fixing the prices of foodstuffs. Mr. Ansell.] I quite understand the position you are in in regard to this, and I want to ask you a question in reference to the matter. Do you understand that the general run of country storekeepers favour something along the lines of the proposed legislation 1 No, Ido not think they do, because the average country storekeeper is very much afraid that if the Act is nullified the weapon of boycott would come in and the farmers would have to go to the larger towns. Is this not the position at present ? This is a reply to an inquiry that I have had made : " During these difficult years they have practically carried the farmers, in some cases carried a substantial proportion of his liability. Any spare cash they could get hold of —eggs or bobby-calf-—they would go away to the chain stores, spend their cash, and pile up liabilities with the general country storekeeper ? " —The position as I understand it in regard to this Bill (and as stated by delegates to the union meeting) is that the country storekeeper is afraid of the weapon of boycott. What do you mean by that ?—The point I made about " unfair " ; its being incapable of interpretation and nullifying the Act. It will render open the use of the method of boycott and restricted dealing and as so many merchants have chain stores it is liable to ruin the country storekeepers. Will it not work to the betterment of the trade of the country storekeeper «—They do not think so : they are afraid they will be swamped. The Chairman : The people dealing with coal are available. Mr. Ansell: May I ask if there is any one here representing the interests of the Waikato Collieries people ? Mr. O'Leary : They went away to another meeting.

79