THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1922. A PAIR STANDARD OF LIVING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18556, 17 May 1922, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1922. A PAIR STANDARD OF LIVING.

The extraordinary attempts which are being made to bolster up th© suggestion that the Arbitration Court is reducing the standard of living can only be explained on grounds that are not wholly complimentary to those who are responsible for them. In political Labour circles it has become fashionable to blame the Government for the reduction in wages, and to suggest that if a Labour Government had been in power wages would not be reduced. In view of the fact that the present is general election year, this form of argument is regarded by those who use it as constituting a real trump card. If workers could be cajoled into believing that the reduction of wages was actually attributable to the sinister action of the Government, it might be possible to impose upon them with this confidence trick. Unfortunately for those with whom the argument has originated, it fails to withstand the most elementary test of examination. The statement issued by representatives of the Wellington trades unions, to which we referred yesterday, begins with an affirmation of faith; We endorse the published statement of Mr M‘Combs; “That the decision of the Court is not based on the evidence adduced at the hearing of the case but on the p re-conceived ideas of the Court.” With at least equal reason the employers could have made a similar complaint, since the decision of the Court was not based upon the evidence tendered by them. But the Coqrt, in its judgment, makes it pretty plain that it implicitly obeyed the statutory injunction that it “shall have regard to

any increase or decrease in the cost o 4 living since the half-year ended on the 30th day of September, 1920, and tothe economic and financial considerations affecting trade and industry in New Zealand, and all other relevant considerations; . . . having regard to a fair standard of living.” The “preconceived ideas of the Court” are apparently alleged to have been expressed in its announcement at Wanganui early in April in which it stated that “the cost of living, measured in wages, has fallen to an extent that would reduce the accumulated bonus ot 15s per week to 8s per week, that is, by 7s per week. As, however, 13s was paid instead of. 15s, the actual reduction is ,5a per week.” The “preconceived idea” embodies, therefore, a scientific fact, and, in the Court’s view, neither the advocates for the employers nor those for the workers succeeded in producing reasons sufficient to set it aside. No unprejudiced person can read the Court’s pronouncement without being impressed with a sens© of its equitableness and with the conviction that, though it has the effect of reducing money wages, which are not to be confused with real wages as represented by their purchasing power, it is strictly directed to a maintenance of the standard of living.

The condemnation of the Court is largely political. The suggestion that the reduction in wages is the outcome of the policy of the Government is wholly political. The circumstance that in Queensland, that State, beloved of New Zealand Labour politicians, where the Labour Party has been-in power for seven years, a reduction in wages has taken place, should not be entirely devoid of weight, even with keen party tacticians like Mr M'Comhs. The Queensland Labour Government appointed Mr Justic© M'Cawley President of the Arbitration Court. It was, it may be remembered, compelled to overcome certain difficulties before the appointment could be finally confirmed. On frequent occasions Labour leaders and the Government have expressed admiration of Mr Justice M'Cawley, and he has recently been elevated by the same Government to the proud position of Chief- Justice of Queensland. In February the Arbitration Court in Queensland considered the question which the Arbitration Court in New Zealand considered in this present month of May. The judgment of Mr Justice M'Cawley and Mr Justice Macnaughton, who was associated with him, contained the following statement:

In November wo announced that we should await the publication by the Commonwealth Statistician of the cost of living figures for the December quarter before mying our decision on the basic wage. The, figures have now been published. They show that compared with the December quarter of 1920 there was in the December quarter of 1921. a, reduction in the cost of food and groceries at Brisbane of 16«5 per cent., and a reduction in the cost of food, groceries, and house rent combined of 11.8 per cent. Having before us the 1920 figures we fixed for Brisbane in February, 1921, a basic wage of £4 5s per week for adult males in industries of average pros, perity. We are of opinion that the bahio wage should bo reduced' to £4 per week. The wage we now fix will have a higher purchasing power than the wage of £4 5a fixed by us in March last then had; the reduction 'of 5s per week is 5.9' per cent., as against 11.8 per cent, reduction in the cost of living. The reduction in the basic wage; therefore, entails no reduction in the standard of living, recognised in the Court’s basic wage judgment of . February, 1921,'and the reduced wage exceeds the Brisbane equivalent' of the Harvester wage, namely £3 9s 6d. Since the basic wage ftf £4 is the wage for the average prosperous industry, the Court wijl, as heretofore, specially consider industries of greater or less than average prosperity. The basic wage of adult females of Brisbane will be £2 Is per week, a reduction of two shillings per week; at Townsville, £2 6s; at Mackay, £2 4s. 1

This judgment, it will he observed, fully supports the decision of the Arbitration Court in New Zealand in its recent pronouncement. It does more—it completely destroys the political argument that the Government of the Dominion is in any way responsible for the reduction in the cost of living bonus.