WORKERS AND RENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18630, 11 February 1924, Page 10

WORKERS AND RENTS.

THE WAGE PERCENTAGES. (LABOUR PARTY'S CRITICISM. IDTTNEMN EXPERT'S REPLY. [fly TELEGEArn. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] DTJNEDIN. Saturday. Regarding the statement made by Mr. Nash, national secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party, criticising the Arbitration Court's pronouncement regarding the rent question, a local expert has replied categorically as follows to the various points raised: ' (1) The report of the Government Statistician seated that the rent figures supplied to the Conrtj, have unduly retarded the rent index.— Government Statistician made it clear in his original statement made to the press carry in January that the rent index had been retarded only in so far as it was a statement of average rents. Ha, said emphatically that its inaccuracy in thai respect did not affeci its accuracy as the index of the percentage movement. He concluded his second" statement by trying that the rent index figures were the best available measure of percentage increase in rents, and indicated the movement in rents with far greater accuracy than was generally realised. (2) This error* has continued from April, 1921, at least.— does not affect percentage increases." The Court dees not use, and is accordingly not affected by, any inaccuracy in tho rent index as a measure Of average rents. (3) Workers would understand the case fairly clearly if the figures on which the basic wage "was assessed wero giv«m in sterling.—The Court has no such figures, but works on the average percentage for all workers and nci the minimum wage earner. The Court assumes that the rent percentage for the minimum wage earner was 25 or 30 per cent, of his total expenditure, but gives him the benefit ot a general average. Twenty-five per cent, would give him 22s cr 235. As, however, the Court does not know the exact percentage it cannot say specifically what the allowance is, but it his made it clear that adoption of the lowest i *sr~ centage gives the minimum worker an advantage. (4) The Court's statement of October 19 last says that the increase of rent by 12 per cent, had prevented a further decrease in wsiges of 6s. This Would sug{jest that it is possible to give figures In sterling. does not suggest anything of the kind. If ths rent movement had been left out of consideration the drop in other proups would have accounted for a further decrease in wages of os ppT week. The combined effect of the percentage increase in rents and the percentage decrease of commodities and services was to save that 6s. That was all the Court said. (5) Confidence in the judiciary is the first essential to good government. — Agreed; also, that impartiality cf the judiciary should not be challenged except on the clearest grounds, certainly not by a ndh-expert and artisan who is attempting to tackle the Court on a subject in respect of which it has expert knowledge, while he obviously does not know the rudiments. (6) Insurance, interest*, and other costs increase proportionately to the cost oi building-, therefor© a worker who his house is penalised equally with those paying rent.—Yes., but the landlord is not a philanthropist, and he expects a profit, which is saved by the owner and occupier. As to the Sunreme Court analogy, the expert said: "First, the Court is regarded by the cost-of-living legislation as an expert body, which is charged with the duty of investigating movement in the cost of living, net as the ordn»«y Court, but as an investigating committee. The Act provides that, after the Court has ascertained the movement in the cost of living, it is to give both parties a hearing on questions of economic and financial conditions and other relevant considerations before it decides to adjust washes in accordance with its fincn>R» Although the Court ia not strictly required to allow its statistical findings to be discussed before it, it has frequently allowed the whole subject to be traversed, and has always given tho fullest information. Secondly, Mr. Nash, in his reference to the Government Statistician, has not stalled 'that 'his evidence has been discovered to be in error; on the contrary he has twice affirmed the accuracy of the only portion of his rent statistics of which the Court makes any use—that part relating- to percentage increases."