BANKING AND CREDIT

Evening Star, Issue 22774, 8 October 1937, Page 15

BANKING AND CREDIT

MINISTER EXPLAINS LABOUR VIEW FACTORY ANALMY [From Ocs Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 7. When* Mr 'Wilkinson, Opposition member for Egmont, discussed the Government’s banking proposals, he drew interesting interjections from several Labour members. ~ %r It was due to the House, said B Mr Wilkinson, that it should definitely know the Government’s intentions in regard to taking over any of the trading banks. They had had a reply from the Minister of Finance which was evasive and not satisfactory. Then statements had been made by Labour members which were causing concern in commercial circles, which feared that the Government intended taking over the Bank of New Zealand. Mr M‘Combs (Labour, Lyttelton): Who said it was going to be done? ‘ Mr Wilkinson: The member for Boskill made s statement, Mr Carr (Timsru): Purely a philosophical disquisition. . " . Mr Bichards: It was an incorrect report. _. _ , Mr Wilkinson; This House has a right to know what the Government proposes to do. . .... .. Public credit, and its relation to the banking system was a subject discussed by the Minister of Lands, Mr Langstone, when he resumed the debate on the Financial Statement. Tjhere was a confused idea as to what public credit meant. Its basis was all the goods, materials, equipment, and other things in the work-a-day world. “In the mam they are owned privately, although they may he collectively produced,” continued the Minister, A bank was a credit money factory, just the same as a factory that produced boots or any other commodity. If an individual went to a store where his credit was good he was in the position of taking something away with him. On the other hand, he could get nothing from a bank without signing a document. It was merely a process of entering something in a hook; but the banks had the backing of goods and securities for the money issued. If it was right for a private bank to conduct its business in such a way, there was no reason why the State should not function in the same way. It would bo in the interests of all the people, and not in the interests of shareholders and a privileged few.