DIVISION DENIED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 April 1939, Page 8

DIVISION DENIED

IN PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR PARTY STATEMENT BY MR SAVAGE. FULL AGREEMENT ON BROAD AIMS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Several features of the Government policy that figured prominently in recent references to a reported split in the ranks of the Labour Party were discussed frankly by the Prime Minister (Mr Savage) in an interview with the “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 differences that exist over the Government’s monetary policy.

Of particular interest was his reference to his own position in the party and his firm declaration that he was armed with greater authority than ever before, as the result of certain resolutions of the conference generally. Mr Savage pointed out that there were 600 delegates. 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 viewCritics were in the habit of coining phrases. They said one section of the conference was orthodox and the other section Left Wing, or unorthodox. He did not know that that was fair to the conference, because very often there were heated discussions about comparatively small things in the way of details, without any division at all about the objective. There were certain things they all wanted. No man or woman who attended would say that the distribution of wealth in New Zealand was equitable. There were people who thought a short cut to the millineum was by way of a manipulation of the currency. Others did not think that way, while they freely admitted that there was a vast change long overdue in the administration and general control of money matters. You might find a handful of people who did not worry about anything except the money system, said Mr Savage, 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 the private ownership and misuse of money. Mr Savage said it was easy to see that there was nothing in the nature of the split so freely talked about. There was no great difference of opinion about fundamentals. There were differences about details. “I know our opponents will always be glad to look for some reason for saying that there is a split,” Mr Savage added, “and perhaps they are disappointed when they cannot find a great deal of evidence of it.” According to one section of the Press, there was a possibility that banking legislation was going to accelerate another division in the ranks, He would say to the newspapers responsible for these reports: “Please do not wony. e did not know how they found out that the Minister was not going to introduce any banking legislation, but the Minister knew the party’s policy as well as the newspaper people. There would.be no division in the Parliamentary Labour Party. _