WHAT ARE THE "COFFIN NAILS"?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 121, 24 May 1945, Page 6

WHAT ARE THE "COFFIN NAILS"?

While leading members of the Government have been silent regarding future policy measures, so far as details are concerned at least, back-benchers in recent months ,have shown an increasing inclination to venture into the realm of prophecy, and some of their statements have been both revealing and disturbing. The latest to enter the field is the member for Christchurch East, Miss Mabel Howard, who in an address at New Plymouth (reported in the Labour Party's official organ) advised her hearers to cast from their minds any idea that the National Party will win the next election. "The Opposition," said Miss Howard, "is trying to create a psychology that they are going to win the next election and be the next Government, but it is only wishful thinking on their part, because I don't think they've got Buckley's chance. We will fix that with our new legislation." And, again: "We will put all the coffin nails in them before long." Miss Howard is entitled to all the feelings of optimism she can muster regarding Labour's chances, but when she proceeds to talk about "fixing that with our new legislation" and putting^"all the coffin nails in them before'long" it is surely time to ask what meaning lies behind her optimism. Is she confirming what other Labour members have suggested—that' one of the "nails" is to be the abolition of the country quota? Is the Labour Party proposing, in this way, to change the rules of the game -to suit itself and put the Opposition off side? Is Miss Howard's optimism, amounting to a certainty in her mind, based on a foreknowledge of the Government's intention to pass legislation conferring all sorts of new benefits on the people, even if, as is inevitable, the benefits are paid for by the people themselves? Is Miss Howard pinning her faith, in legislation which will make the Bank of New Zealand a State institution and, if another Labour member, Mr. Langstone, is speaking by the book, will place a stranglehold on every other trading bank?

While Mr. Nash has refused to be drawn on the Government's reasons for taking over the Bank of New Zealand, Mr. Langstone, who is supposed to be one of the leaders for this move, has told something of what is involved in the. acquisition of the bank. He has not only confirmed the worst fears that have been expressed by shareholders and customers of the bank, but he has shown in the clearest of terms that the proposed acquisition will involve a great deal more than has so far been disclosed. At a recent meeting of shareholders and customers at Dunedin, a resolution condemning the proposed legislation included the following paragraph: "Ownership of the Bank of New Zealand will inevitably lead to control of the other .banks. The customers of all the banks will become subject to political bias and interference and banking business will be conducted on bureaucratic, instead of business principles." Now let us turn to what Mr. Langstone said in an address at Blenheim. After maintaining that money was the responsibility solely of the State, Mr. Langstone said that the Government issued its own notes through the Reserve Bank and the great bulk of transactions was done with public credit. Nobody should be allowed to operate those credits but the State, and when the Government took over the bank it would be the only authority to operate the credits. That meant that all other banks would be mere savings banks, in the same category as the Post Office Savings Bank. Mr. Langstone is a leading member of that section of the party which forced the recommendation to acquire the Bank of New Zealand through the last party conference, a recommendation which was seconded by Mr. Nash himself. It is reasonable to assume, then, that Mr. Langstone was not speaking without a first-hand knowledge of what is intended.

What are the implication;; of Mr. Langstone's statement? With refreshing candour and clarity he has shown that much more than the acquisition of the Bank of New Zealand is intended. What is intended, obviously, is that the issuing of credits to all the customers of all the banks will be subject to the control of the State, or, in other words, to political influence. It is true that the other trading banks are not being acquired—in the meantime at least—but Mr. Langstone's statement makes it abundantly clear that their functions are to be so circumscribed that it will be impossible for them to carry on their ordinary business. They are to become "mere savings banks," or, to put it in another way, saving agencies for the Government. '.Experience of the controls now exercised over the use by New Zealanders of money overseas has shown what hamstringing effects follow State interference with normal trading practices. How much worse will it be when all credits to business people, to farmers, and to others must be approved by the State. If Mr. Langstone's ideas are carried into effect, not only will the private trading banks find themselves in a bureaucratic stranglehold, but all borrowing and lending agencies will be similarly affected, and every form of business and much private action will be subjected to what may well prove to be paralysing restrictions, made infinitely worse by their political flavour. The coffin nails are being prepared for the burial of business initiative and progress and much of the freedom of private life.