POLICY DEFINED

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20785, 21 April 1939, Page 9

POLICY DEFINED

FRANK INTERVIEW MR SAVAGE’S STATEMENT CONFERENCE AND CABINET (By Teiegraon—Freaa Association) WELLINGTON. Thursday Several features of the Government policy that have figured prominently In recent references to the reported split In the ranks of the Labour Party were discussed frankly by the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, in an interview with the Evening Post. In giving a general review of the conference, Mr Savage outlined the Policy behind the Government's decision to control exchange and made reference to the differences that exist over the Government's monetary policy. nf particular interest was Hie reference to his own position in the party, and his firm declaration that he is armed with greater authority than ever before as the result of certain conference resolutions of the

conference generally. Mr Savage pointed out, there were GOO delegates, and they had the same ideal, but with a thousand and one different ideas of how they were going to give effect to what they had in view. Critics were in the habit of coining phrases; they said one section of the conference was orthodox, and the other section was tlie left wing or unorthodox. He did not know that was fair to the conference, because very often there were heated discussions about comparatively small things in the way, details without any division at all about the objective. Different Viewpoint There were certain things they all wanted, not a man or woman who attended would say the distribution of wealth in New Zealand was equitable. There were people who thought the short cut to the millenium was by the manipulation of currency; others did not think that way, while they freely admitted that a vast change was long overdue in the administration and general control of money matters. You might find a handful oS people who did not worry about anything except the money system, but there were a thousand and one things involved in the distribution of wealth. It was not such a small matter as it might appear to some who really thought the whole thing was brought about by private ownership and the misuse of money. Mr Savage said it was easy to see there was nothing in the nature of a split so freely talked about. There was no great difference of opinion about the fundamentals; there were difflerences about details. The fact that there had been a certain amount of internal dissension over the delay in the inauguration of the measures to check the drift in overseas funds was brought under Mr Savage’s notice. Mr Savage said the sponsors of that policy never had imagined for a moment that they would be sleeping on a bed of roses. He recalled 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 would take a lot of fire now, and if anyone expected him to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors they were expecting too much. Mr Savaige pointed out the numerous difficulties facing the administration in giving effect to their policy in insuring the meeting of obligations to overseas creditors. They had to think also about changing their policy within New Zealand. They had to have more men and women employed in manufacturing consumable goods, and a better balance in production. Overseas credits were disappearing; therefore we had to buy less overseas and to be able to maintain the standard of life in New Zealand it meant that we had to produce those things in New Zealand. All they could do was to bring forward a policy that would help manufacturers, and he was pleased to say that manufaciurers were measuring up to the job. To bring a transformation along these lines was bound to bring discomfort to some, but if it brought discomfort. to one and added to the prosperity of nine or ten. it was all to the good. It was not possible to provide for the one, but the Government would help in adjusting him to the transformation. All these things were put in front Mr Savage said (he question of the nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand, a move favoured by certain members of the Labour Party, was not discussed by the conference. He agreed there were differences of opinion in the party on the ownership of banking institutions. He pointed out it was a question of service, and the responsibility was with tiie Government. Prime Minister’s Standing Mr Savage defined his own standing and authority with the party, particularly on the matter of choosing a Cabinet. He said that the resolution passed armed him with powers traditionally reposed in the holder of that position; that did not leave much out. He was equipped with greater powers than before. It was for him to nominate the members of the Cabinet and submit the names to the Party caucus. If there were any deadlock

he could ask the national executive for assistance and, after hearing them, make a decision. The same principle applied on all major issues. Banking Legislation Mr Savage concluded: “I know our opponents will always be glad to look for some reason for saying there is a split, and perhaps they will be 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 the ranks. He would say to the newspapers responsible for these reports "please do not worry.” He did not know how they found out that the Minister was going to introduce any banking legislation, but the Minister knew the party's policy just as well as the newspaper people and there would be no dissension in the Parliamentary Labour Party.