MR SAVAGE IN LONDON

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 13

MR SAVAGE IN LONDON

POLICY EXPLAINED TO THE PRESS AN AMBITION REALISED WELCOME BY SECRETARY FOR DOMINIONS (from our own COaRESPOWDEKT.) LONDON, May 5. “It is the realisation of one of the dreams of my lifetime to be here in Britain preparing to meet representatives of the British people and to talk to them as one of themselves about everything.” Mr M. J. Savage, the Prime Minister, spoke with sincerity when he made this remark less than two hours after reaching London. At Southampton he was met by Mr W. Nash (New Zealand Minister for Finance), accompanied by Mrs Nash, and Mr W. J. Jordan (High Commissioner), accompanied by Mrs Jordan, and before entraining for London he was greeted by the Mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of that city. Upon arrival at Waterloo station he found many representative business New Zealanders there to welcome him. Among the first to shake his hauu were Mr Malcolm Mac Donald (Dominions Secretary) and Lord Hartington (Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs). _ , , , ~ An hour and a half later, at the Savoy Hotel. Mr Savage met representatives of English, New Zealand, and Australian newspapers. Representatives of the Polish press were also present. He discussed with them the nature of his visit, his Governments policy, and his economic views. He spoke freely, and answered all questions except those about subjects which are to be considered at the Imperial Conference. Mr Nash and Mr Jordan were also present.

“Quite a Mild Individual” “I am quite a mild sort of individual. I do not go round carrying dynamite with me,” said the Prime Minister when the question had been asked whether New Zealand still proposed to pay lower rates of interest on London loans. “For one thing, we could not do that if we wished,” he added, and explained how the misunderstanding of a remark made in Wellington last year had caused New Zealand stocks to drop in value by £6,000,000 on the London Stock Exchange. “I was asked in one of the corridors of Government House what plans the Government had in mind on this subject, and I replied, using an Australian footballing term, that Mr Nash would ‘bounce the ball’ when he got to England. I was surprised,” added Mr Savage, “to know of the publicity which that remark received in the British papers. In Australia they always bounce the ball to start the game, and I was using the term in the sense that Mr Nash would begin the negotiations on arrival in London. New Zealand will pay her debts, 'and meet her obligations. If we can make better agreements we will. We will meet our responsibilities whatever they are. “Some people say we are dreamers and idealists. The best reply to that assertion is the New Zealand Statute Book. If those people will compare )t with the same book 12 months ago they will soon find out that we are more than dreamers.”

Mr Savage said his attention had been called to articles about the stability of New Zealand and its finances. This criticism came strangely from the press owned by persons who a few short years ago had advocated the transfer of the control of the credit and currency system of England from the Bank of England to the House of Commons, he said. The Government of New Zealand was managing the monetary procedure of New Zealand and would continue to do so. Its solidity and security were illustrated by the fact that its overseas monetary reserves were far in excess of its requirements, and'that' it had kept, and always would keep, every monetary commitment made by the present or any past Government.

"We in New Zealand,” said Mr Savage, “are, of course, embarking on a new internal policy, and perhaps I shall later have an opportunity of telling our kinsfolk here of our plans and our hopes to brighten the lot of our people. “We feel strongly that many, if not most, of the troubles that at present afflict the world are due to the method that has for a long time been generally adopted in approaching world problems, both political and economic. We believe that there can never be real and lasting security and peace throughout the world until the relations, between nations and between peoples are based to the fullest possible extent on the principles of right and -justice rather than on those of temporary expedience.” Interest of the Many

When asked to explain further his Government’s new internal policy, Mr Savage said: "New Zealand, like most countries, is capable of producing almost without end. Production is not enough. We want distribution as well. It is no use increasing production unless, at the same time, we can increase buying power, and that needs considerable negotiation before it can be brought about. Whatever is in the way has got to get out of the way.” “And what is in the way?” he was asked.

"A multitude of things,” replied Mr Savage, “including the interest of the few against the interest of the many.

“I am not concerned about names or labels, or anything like that,” added the Prime Minister. “But I am concerned with the principles underlying production and equitable distribution. Ido not care what you call it. We are living in a changing age, when the machine is doing the work that men and women used to do. Unless people are to get the benefit of the machine what is the use of it? Our ambition is to see that science and invention are used for the benefit of the rank and file of the people.

“New Zealand is entitled to have an equitable distribution of its own production,” he continued. “It is not going to be harnessed to the chariot wheels of any country. Our objective is to have our own money system built on our own production. There is no reason why the money system of New Zealand—and it does belong to New Zealand—should not be based on its production. I know the arguments about inflation and deflation, but as long as you stick to reality, and build money on goods and services, you are not going to stray far from the narrow path.” “What answer do you give to those who assert that the policy of your Government is driving cash out of New Zealand into Australia,” was another question asked the Prime Minister.

“Well,” replied Mr Savage, “we have something left. That story is getting worn. I have heard it many times. If you refer to the stock exchange of New Zealand—and there is no better way of getting at it—you will soon find out that money is not leaving New Zealand.”

“Are you in favour of the modification or the continuance of the Ottawa agreements?” was the next query.

Mr Savage replied that, in view of the approaching Imperial Conference, he preferred not to say much on that subject at the moment. “But,” ho added, “I do not know of any agreements in existence to-day that are

satisfactory. I think it is possible to make agreements between nations and particularly between the Commonwealth of Nations, and to have better agreements than before. I would not say that the Ottawa agreements are ideal.”

On trade, the Prime Minister said' “Britain is oiir best customer. We can only sell to Britain when we buy Britain’s goods. It is our desire to expand our trade with Britain as much as we can, in the way of taking British goods and getting Britain to take ours.” Of international relationships, he said: “The first thing we have got to do if we want to establish peace is to do justice ti the nations and to begin at home. When the nations expand the buying power of their people they will be removing the causes of war and paving the way to peace. Territory is not everything, but the use of territory is very important, and I am just a little afraid that we, the British, are not using the territory as we might.

“An international conference, as suggested by Mr Lansbury, would be good, because the superstructure of peace can only be laid on a sound economic foundation. Wars generally arise out of unsound economic foundations. and I think that the sooner we have the conference the better.” Mr Nash was asked whether he had found any hostility in England to his suggestion of a reciprocal trade agreement.

The Minister replied that he had been in discussion with several different people and with the British Government. There had been no disagreement at all with the people with whom he had discussed his policy. Discussions with the British Government were still continuing, and therefore he was unable to make any comment.