BAY OF PLENTY BEACON Published Tuesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1948 A WORD OF CHEER

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 48, 21 May 1948, Page 4

BAY OF PLENTY BEACON Published Tuesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1948 A WORD OF CHEER

% Probably the most common complaints one hears from the man in the street today concern the cost of living, and the shortage of goods on the market. Well, it would seem that those complaints are founded on fallacies. The cost of living in New Zealand is the lowest in the world. Mr Nash said so. And, what is more, he said it at the Labour Party Conference. And the Standard, Labour’s own weekly, reported what he said.

So there can be no mistake. The Standard, wouldn’t mis-re-port Mr Nasli, and Mr Nash could hardly be expected to make a statement like that, at the Labour conference of all places, unless, he really believed it. Anyway, he should be in a position to know. Hasn’t he had some wonderful chances to make comparisons? What is more, he told the faithful that in the year 1945-46, 90 per cent of the consumer goods available in 1939 were to be bought in New Zealand. The 1947 percentage was a little higher, and he hoped it would be still higher this’year. The only way to raise the standard of living, he said, with obvious truth, was to have more goods. It was the Government’s job to see that the goods were distributed equitably to those who produced the nation’s wealth.

Under the shadow of the new rule making expulsion from the Party the penalty of causing dissension in the ranks, it is probable that no-one felt much like pressing Mr Nash for an explanation of why, if our cost of living is the lowest in the world, so many families today are finding it hard to live decently on account of high costs. More, had it not been for this latest incentive to party loyalty, some woman delegate, with the cares of a household upon her shoulders, might have asked Mr Nash why all these goods—this 90-odd per cent of what we had in 1939—-are not available to common customers of ordinary shops in ordinary districts, like this one for instance.'

Let it be clearly understood it is not intended in this article to suggest that Mr Nash attempted to mislead the conference. Nor is it suggested that he was mis-reported. Both those ideas would, of course, be quite ridiculous. •' ■ But somehow the facts seem to have got mixed. Perhaps it is that Mr Nash has made all his recent clothing purchases overseas and hasn’t tried to get a decent pair of trousers in New Zealand recently. If that were so, he couldn’t be expected to understand -how hard they were to get or what they cost. Perhaps he never tried to buy an egg in Whakatane ? Perhaps he never sees the butcher’s bill for a steak or a small roast ?

However the rest of us react, the farmers should be delighted with that statement about distributing goods equitably to those who produce the nation’s wealth. It looks as though they can now expect preferential treatment.