Oamaru And Dunedin Lead Other Centres For Cheapest Living

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27213, 17 October 1949, Page 4

Oamaru And Dunedin Lead Other Centres For Cheapest Living

“Go south, young man ” would be sound advice in New Zealand to-day. It has long been established that here in the south there is more money, the scenery is better, the weather cannot be beaten, and neither can the Rugby representative team. Beer and oysters have also been associated with the south. Now, according to the latest issue of the Abstract of Statistics, the cost of living is cheapest in the south. According to this authoritative publication by the Census and Statistics department, the cost of living in Oamaru and Dunedin is the cheapest among the 21 centres throughout the Dominion chosen for analysis.

This is the first analysis made of costs in the various centres, and it has been prepared as a consumers’ price index. The centres taken are: The four metropolitan centres —Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin; six provincial centres— Hamilton, Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Nelson and Invercargill; and 11 other towns—Whangarei, Tauranga, Rotorua, Gisborne, Wanganui, Masterton, Blenheim, Greymouth, Ashburton, Timaru and Oamaru, The consumers’ price index is based on recommendations from an Index Committee presented to Parliament last year. A weighted average is obtained from the 21 centres, chosen to give as wide a coverage of New Zealand as possible. Although rural centres of importance are represented, the index covers urban localities more particularly. The base of 1000 points for the index is obtained from the first quarter of 1949, and the index figures given below are for the three months ended on June 30 last.

According to the indices, food cost less in Dunedin (1000) and Oamaru (999) than in most other centres. Auckland (992) was the cheapest, followed by Wellington (997), and Gisborne (999). All other centres exceeded 1000. Timaru, which, had been cheapest in the Dominion with an index of 993 during the first three months of the year, advanced to 1004 for the second quarter. The figure for Christchurch was 1016, and for Invercargill 1029. Tauranga was the dearest with an index of 1042.

Housing costs were the highest in Auckland (1036), followed by Wellington (1027), Christchurch (1009) and Nelson (1000). Although the figure for Dunedin was 991, there were many other centres much cheaper. Oamaru was as low as 929, Invercargill was 965, and Timaru 970. The cheapest, however, was Ashburton with a figure of 910. Housing embraces rented and owner-occupied houses and flats.

Fuel and lighting were cheapest in Dunedin (789). Next came Wellington (926), Christchurch (968), and Timaru (984). All others exceeded 1000, Auckland being 1005, with Oamaru and Invercargill equal at 1040. For Greymouth, where coal used to be so plentiful and so cheap, the figure was 1051. The dearest were Ashburton (1389) and Gisborne (1343)—almost double the Dunedin figure—followed by Blenheim (1266) and Whangarei (1250).

Only 10 centres have been selected to ascertain indices for clothing and footwear costs and for the miscellaneous group. Timaru and Oamaru were not included in these 10.

For clothing and footwear, Christchurch was the cheapest with 948, fob lowed by Hamilton (986), Dunedin (988), and Invercargill (993). The rest exceeded 1000, Wellington being 1001, Auckland 1025, and Palmerston North the dearest with 1037.

‘ Auckland (983) had the lowest index in the miscellaneous group, followed by New Plymouth (988), Hamilton (992) and Dunedin (994). Invercargill was 1005, Christchurch 1008, and Wellington 1010. Palmerston North was the dearest with 1016. For all groups, the only centres with indices of less than 1000 were . Oamaru (985), Dunedin (986), Timaru (988), Greymouth (990), Ashburton and Christchurch (both 997). Wellington was 1003, Auckland 1004, and Invercargill 1005.

The highest was Nelson (1026). Price index figures for the third quarter, just ended, will no doubt, appear in due course. While statistics can be made to prove anything, these price index figures are interesting as far as they go. They are even more interesting when one considers their variations for the different centres when many of the items dealt with are supposed to be stabilised or controlled. A most important aspect, which, however, does not concern the consumers’ pries index, is quality, and that is where the weakness of these index figures lies. For instance, the quality of coal, or milk, may be much higher in Christchurch than in Dunedin, but the index does not reveal that. The conditions of housing may be much poorer in one centre than in another. The index, however, purports to deal only with the price, or cost, to the consumer.