THE SAME IDEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 92, 20 April 1939, Page 10

THE SAME IDEAL

BUT DIFFERENT IDEAS

THE MONEY SYSTEM

MANIPULATION NO REMEDY

Speaking of the conference generally, Mr. Savage said that it was rather difficult for outsiders to imagine what proceedings were like when there were six hundred delegates in attendance. Most of them were tarred with the same brush, of course, and they possessed a philosophy that they had spent some years of their lives in understanding. It was pretty easy to see from that that if there had been anything in the nature of a "split," which had been so freely talked about, there must be something substantially wrong with the individual. "I do not mean to say that there are six hundred who think exactly the same In details," said Mr. Savage, "but I do say quite definitely that you find the delegates, generally speaking, with the same ideal but with a thousand and one different ideas as to how they are going to give effect to what they have in view. "Critics are in the habit of coining phrases. They tell us that one section of the conference is orthodox, and that the other section is the 'Left Wing,' |or the unorthodox. I do not know that that is fair to the conference, because you find very often that there are heated discussions about comparatively small things in the way of details, without any division at all j about the objective. There are certain things that they all want. Not a man or woman who attended the conference would say that the distribution of wealth in New Zealand is equitable— there must be something wrong fundamentally. "There are people who think that the short cut to the millennium is by manipulation of the currency. Others do not think that way, while they i quite freely admit that there is a vast change long overdue in administration and general control of money matters. But the great bulk of those who attended the Labour Conference would not admit that everything could be | brought about simply by the manipulation of money, so that there could not! be any great division on those grounds. "You might find a handful of people who would not worry about anything except the money system, but there are a thousand and one things involved— labour and labour conditions, rates of interest, and rent, and so on—all entering into the distribution of wealth. It is not such a small matter as it may appear to some who really think that the whole thing is brought about by private ownership and misuse of money." The Prime Minister stressed the fact that while there was no great difference of opinion at the conference about fundamentals, there were differences about details. "I do not know two men who think the same on all details," he said, "and I hope I never will, because I will think there is something wrong with both of us. BANKING LEGISLATION. "I know that our opponents will always be glad to look for some reason for saying that .there is a split in the Labour Party and perhaps they are disappointed when they cannot find a great deal of evidence of it. "According to one section of the Press the possibility of banking legislation was going to accelerate another division in our ranks. I would say to the newspapers responsible for those reports, 'Please do not worry. There will be no split.' "I do not know how they found out how the Minister of Finance was going to introduce any banking legislation, but the Minister knows what the party's policy is just as well as the newspaper people. He should, at least, and there will be no division in the ranks of the 53 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. CONTROL OF EXCHANGE. "The fact that there had been a certain amount of internal dissension over the delay in the inauguration of measures to check the drift in overseas funds, was brought under the notice of the Prime Minister, together with the suggestion that the control of imports was not operating as smoothly as was hoped. "May I say here that the sponsors of this move never imagined for one moment that they would be sleeping on a bed of roses when they started j to control exchange," replied Mr. Savage. "The sponsors of that policy were people who had given many years to the understanding of the foundation principles, and anyone who gives five minutes' attention to the principles involved in the control of exchange will know thvi difficulties. It is only the fellow outside Parliament who thinks he can advise the Government exactly what to do. Some thought, and they are not all outside the Labour Party, that we should have controlled exchange two years ago. "But the people who think that way forget that two years ago we had tremendous reserves overseas, and it would have been less popular two years ago than on December 5 last, when we were down to five or six millions. "Four or five months before the General Election we had £28,000,000 in London," continued the Prime Minister, "and a number of people were saying to me that we wanted our wealth in New Zealand, not in London. We were not foolish enough to think that we did not want anything in London, but there were a lot of!

pretty well-posted people who thought we had too much even at that time. But four or five months before the election, with £28,000,000 in London, did not appear to me to be the time to start controlling exchange. Who could say that the run on exchange was going to continue at that time? No one could say what the prices for our primary products were going to be from week to week. But when it is all over, and prices are comparatively low, we can be wise and say what would have happened had we controlled exchange two years ago. But there is a 'back-kick' in all these things. MISTAKES OF PREDECESSORS. "I can remember saying in the House that the last Government was allowing wealth to accumulate in London while men, women, and children decayed in New Zealand. That will take a lot of fire now, and if anyone expects me to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, they are expecting too much." Replying to those people who regarded it as a matter of simply saying that it was merely necessary to exclude this or that, Mr. Savage said that it was not such a simple thing to those who took the responsibility of doing the job. The fellow outside could always tell them what to do and how to go about it. You find him at the football match, on the bank, telling the players what to do, but if he tried to play the game himself he would make a bad mess of it. In this case," said Mr. Savage, "we had the responsibility of controlling exchange, which automatically meant the control of imports, and anything in the nature of publicity as to what we were going to do would have undermined everything—the very policy that we were going to put into operation would have been undermined. "There were certain preparations to be made before the final date of December s—-much of it had to be done after that date. Everything had to be kept within this building, and not scattered to the four winds. If people knew certain things were to be prohibited they would naturally stock up, perhaps for many years, and the intentions of the Government would have been undermined by its own stupid act. Well, we did not fall in for that. We had to take a definite stand after we had thought out what we were going to do. We had to decide upon certain things—not because we liked doing it, but because there were reasons for doing it. "One was that our overseas credits were growing less, and we wanted to pay our debts to Great Britain. That does not mean anything to persons who condemn the Government, but it means something to the Government, no matter what Government it is. We are just as anxious to pay our way, we cannot afford to order things from overseas that we feel we will not be able to pay for, and at the same time meet our obligations to our overseas creditors." EFFECT ON DOMINION. Mr. Savage proceeded to discuss the effect of the policy on the internal economy of the Dominion. "When we were thinking about our overseas obligations," he said, "we had to think also about changing our policy within New Zealand. We had to have more men and women employed in manufacturing consumable goods, we had to get a better balance in our production. "We could not expect people to take greater risks without some guarantee that that policy was going to be lasting, and not merely a passing thought. "So we had two substantial reasons. Our overseas accumulation of credits was disappearing, and it looked as if we were going to be left in the position of not being able to pay our way overseas. Therefore, we had to buy less overseas. To be able to maintain our standards of life in New Zealand meant that we had to produce those things in New Zealand, and all we could do was to bring forward a policy that would help manufacturers. I am pleased to say that the manufacturers are measuring up to the job. We are getting new industries established, and we have people coming from England to set up branches in New Zealand. That seems to be all to the good." Mr. Savage said that to make any transformation along those lines was bound so bring discomfort to some, but if it brought discomfort to one and added to the prosperity of nine or ten others it was all to the good. It was not possible to provide for the one, whom the Government would help in adjusting himself to the transformation. All these things were put in front of the conference and analysed by delegates. Mr. Savage said he had a lot of respect for the average delegate to the Labour conference. They were educated in the greatest university in the world, and if they did not understand what was wrong with the country he wondered who should. MONETARY POLICY. The question of the nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand, a move that is favoured by certain members of the Labour Party, was not discussed by the conference, Mr. Savage indicated when the question was put to him. "The only thing that was in front of the conference," he said, "was the general policy and its administration by Mr. Nash. The fact that he received a vote of confidence for the way he had controlled the finances of the country is a sufficient reply to those who say that dissatisfaction existed. The voting was so close as to be almost unanimous." In reply to a question, Mr. Savage agreed that there were differences of opinion in the party on the ownership of the banking institutions. "There are a number of people who are against the nation owning the banks, and there is room for difference of opinion," he said. "When all is said, the thing that counts is to have substantial control of it, whatever happens to the ownership.

"I have told people in banking and other circles that our job is to get service at the lowest possible cost, and, as long as we get that service, I see

no reason why we should divide the responsibility now held by private individuals and banking corporations. ti we do not get that service, then the question of ownership comes in. The responsibility is with the Government Ito provide the service, whether in banking or any other line." MR. SAVAGE'S POSITION. A personal note was struck when Mr. Savage, in reply to a question on the subject, defined his own standing and authority with the party, particularly on the matter of choosing Cabinet. Mr. Savage said that the resolution passed by the conference armed him with the power traditionally reposed in holders of his position as Prime Minister. "That resolution did not leave much out," he said. "I am equipped with greater powers than before." He explained that in the last ses-, sion of a Parliament, members of the party decided who was to be the leader at the General Election, and if that [leader was returned with a. majority |he became the Prime Minister. It was for him to nominate the members of his Cabinet and to submit those names to the Parliamentary Caucus. It might be necessary to make a change or two, but it was for him to say whether that \ should be done or not. "If there is any deadlock I can ask I the National Executive for assistance, and after hearing them I make the decision," said the Prime Minister. "The same principle applies in all major issues. I discuss them with caucus, and unless I can agree with caucus I must fail. It is not a question of using dictatorial powers. My object is to get 100 per cent, co-opera-tion from caucus. I discuss these things with caucus and the National Executive, and when I get all the information, I make the decision. I do not know what other powers any Prime Minister could ask for. "I do not want to be dictatorial.. I want to work with the people's representatives. It would be a lot easier for me to say to caucus, 'That is your responsibility, let's take a vote'; but I have to be sure that I am not going to come into conflict with the people who put me here, people who have heard me from the platform making definite promises that they understand. They look to me to carry them out, and I have to be sure I do not betray those people. However, there is one thing sure—a Labour caucus will never ask me to do that. "You could not imagine six hundred delegates discussing a thing like this without differences of opinion, but when it comes to the decision as to the powers that are to be given me, the result seems to me to destroy very completely the suggestion that there is any sort of split in the Labour Party. If the Government party never finds itself in a worse position than it is today, then we will be very fortunate."