Cost Of Living Figures

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 70, 16 December 1937, Page 9

Cost Of Living Figures

Sir, —The statement by Mr. Sievwright, specially displayed in yesterday’s "Dominion,” if he is correctly reported, commenced with two flagrant misrepresentations of facts as applied to the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, in that he alleges that the Minister issued a circular in his electorate in Christchurch promising to reduce the family budget. The statement referred to was not published in a circular but in an election campaign paper. Neither was the paper issued by the Minister but by the campaign committee of the Labour Party. The statement simply indicated that a reduction of the rate of exchange and the removal of the sales tax would, reduce the family budget as stated. The fact that these measures have not been adopted is no cause for retraction of this statement. There is absolutely no warrant, therefore, for attributing to the Minister the responsibility for a statement that the household budget would be reduced merely by virtue of the Labour Government taking office. Neither can it be truthfully said that he made any promise in this connection, nor that he is personally responsible for an article contributed to a campaign paper. The Minister repudiated from the floor of the House his responsibility for the statement he was alleged to have made in reply to the honourable member for Christchurch North, who was the original purveyor of this choice delicacy. The Hon. D. G. Sullivan pointed 'out that though the statement had appeared in a journal issued by a branch of his political organisation, he was,• nevertheless, no more responsible for it than was the member for Christchurch North.for anything that anpeared in “The Dominion” or the Christchurch “Press” during the election campaign.

A very much more interesting table, containing the substance of reality, could havp been compiled from the official statistics given on the occasion of tlie Minister’s reply, which, like many oilier statements he has issued to the newspapers, to their'dismay they have been unable honestly to contravert. Why not. for instance, make the acknowledgment that according to these official statistics. Dominion, all groups retail price index, in March, 1937, was 11.4 per cent, lower than in 1920, 12.7 per. cent, lower thau in 1921, 5.1 per cent, lower than in 1922." 5.8 per cent, lower than in 1923. 8.4 per cent, lower than in 1924, 10.1 per cent, lower than in 1925, 10.6 per cent, lower than in 1926, 9.8 per cent. lower than in 1927, 10.2 per cent lower than in 11128. 10.1 per eent. lower than in 1929. S per cent, lower than in 1930, 0.3 per cent, lower than in 1931, 7.8 per eent. higher than in 1932. 11.8 tier cent, higher than in 1933. 7.9 per cent, higher than in 1934. The Minister acknowledged that tlie cost of living is certainly higher than it was during one or two of the depressionyears, but is the lowest recorded cost of living index figure a fair basis of comparison? Dare the critics of the Government accept any other basis than this? Thev well know that if they do, their criticism falls flat and the accuser becomes the accused in the fullest sense of the word. There is no need to conceal the facts; provided they are stated in full they will reflect credit upon the administration of the present Government in regq.nl to the position of the mass of the people by whatever test is applied. For instance, though prices have risen by 16.4 per cent, since 1933, wage rates over the same period have increased by 23.6 per cent., showing an advantage of 9.2 per cent, in real wag£s in favour of the New Zealand consumer. How does this compare with the corresponding position in the United Kingdom, where over the same period prices have risen 12.1 per cent, and wage rates by 8 per cent., leaving a decreased purchasing power of 3.9 per cent., or, in the case of Australia, with an 8 per cent, increase in prices and a 4.7 per cent, increase in wage rates, showing a decrease in purchasing power of 3.3 per cent.? Supposing we try another test, a comparison this time of the relative price rises during recoveries from previous minor depressions, in relation to the corresponding increases in wage rates. Taking the period 1922-26, prices rose by 6.1 per cent., wage rates bv 2.7 per cent., showing a net decrease in tlie purchasing power of the people at 3.4 per cent. The prevailing weekly wage rates for building labourers in different countries equated to the 40-hour week and New Zealand curency may also be taken :>s still further tes.t as follows: —Average for 1936: Canada £4, United States £1 IQ/6, Australia £3/12/6, New Zealand £4/13/4.

Truly shibboleths, phantasies ?tnd subterfuge are poor substitutes for stieli facts as these. The Government policy has completely justified itself by: (1) The record business prosperity, of which all are aware; (2) the fact that in recovery periods during the administration of its predecessors, the increase in prices exceeded the increase in wages and salaries, and thereby diminished purchasing power; whereas under the present administration tlie increase in wages and salaries is in advance of the increase in prices, thus increasing purchasing power. (3) Hint tlie increase in purchasing power during tlie recovery period compared with any overseas country constitntes a record for New Zealand. 1 am, CtC ” A. MURRAX-