NATIONALISING BANKS

Press, Volume LXXXIIi, Issue 25302, 30 September 1947, Page 8

NATIONALISING BANKS

MESSAGE TO CUSTOMERS OF BANK OF N.S.W. A personal message to the customers and shareholders of the Bank of New South Wales in Australia has been issued by the general manager, Mr T. B. Heffer. Circulation in New Zealand will be confined to shareholders. "At the outset,” says the message, we wish to impress upon you that this is a matter which goes far beyond the taking over or 'nationalisation* of banks. It can mean the end of democratic government in Australia, and will affect the lives of each and every member of the community. It is a step which has never been taken in an English-speaking country, but complete government control of banking was part of the structure of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It is in the forefront of the aims of Communists, and it is not surprising to find them strongly supporting the Government’s proposal. “No great knowledge of finance Is necessary to enable the average citizen to form his judgment on the question of nationalisation of banking. The issues are simple: whether we are to be at liberty to bank where we wish and do what we like with our money, or whether we are to be dragooned into a government monopoly bank which will have a stranglehold on financial affairs. Bond or free?” Incidence of Politics The message then sets out a series of questions together with its answers tc them, some of which are given below. In answer to the question, “Would politics govern the decisions of a government monopoly bank?” the answer is as follows: “Most decidedly. The management of the government monopoly bank would be obliged to take Instructions from the* Government. If you criticised the Government you would run the risk of reprisals your overdraft application might be refused and the operations of your business, farm, etc., might be brought to a standstill.”

Answering the question. “Would my business affairs, so far as banking is concerned, be treated in the same confidenial manner as they are at present?” the message says: ‘We must leave you to judge that, but would remind you that the employees of a government monoply bank would be members of a government department under political control.” “Could a government monopoly bank,” it is asked, “affect primary and secondary industries and commerce?” The reply is, "Yes. It could refuse advances unless its conditions were agreed to. It could give support to one industry and deny it to another. It could say in what districts industries were to be encouraged or discouraged. It could supply finance for development in an electorate where a Government supporter holds the seat and deny it where the seat is held by the Opposition. Generally it woulo have complete control and there would be no appeal from its decisions.” Opposition from Employees The United Bank Officers' Association of New South Wales has entered the controversy. In a recent statement on the issue, the secretary of the association, Mr S. E. Card, said, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.” that Mr Chifley s assurances that no trading bank officers would be unemployed under his nationalisation plan, would not satisfy trading bank officers.

"Just where all these 20,000 displaced officers would go is beyond their understanding,” he said. *lt is obvious, for example, that there would not be six branch managers in one country town and there are 2700 trading bank branches m Australia.

The plain truth is that a nationalised monopoly bank could not efficiently and economically absorb these 20,000 men. Promotion m the new over-staffed nationbank wou,d be by seniority,” he

Mr Chifley had said that salariec ann wal d nJ? nS Would be continued, but this ttinifK M S r ira H Ce that the present opportunities for advancement that existed in Unue* dmg banks to ' d ay would con-