Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1947. Socialist Cynicism

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 September 1947, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1947. Socialist Cynicism

M B Chifley and Mr Nash seem to have at least one belief in common. The former, in a statement on his banking monopoly plan as , published yesterday, claimed that “Australian economy has been kept more stable' than that of any other economy in the world.” Mr Nash never tires of making the same claim. He made it in the House of Representatives last night. They cannot both be right. Or maybe the truth of the matter is that both have been guilty of indulging a weakness common to the majority of politicians, the making of extravagant claims. After all, the Socialists have made many promises. Mr Nash may be right, or he may be wrong, but, when he is in such a boastful mood, most people no doubt feel like pointing to the steep rise in the cost of railway freights and travel, and also the ■cost of everyday articles and the projected increases in others, including bread, sugar and even beer. Mr Chifley also may be right or. he may be wrong. When, however, he advances this claim as a reason for his banking monopoly plan he is indeed treading on weak ground, for if his claim is correct it can with truth be taken as one good reason, not for upsetting the present banking system but for continuing it. Commonsense alone should suggest that if the desirable condition of stability, as Mr Chifley maintains, has been achieved in Australia, then there can be little wrong with the present banking arrangements. The cynicism with which the Australian Labour Government’s plans are being advanced is devastatingly illustrated by Mr Chifley’s attempt to brush aside the wellfounded complaint that there was no mention of nationalising the banks in the policy that he placed before the electors. He claims now that by returning the Labour Party to power in 1946, the people of Australia endorsed not only the 1945 Banking Act but the principle of full governmental control of banking. Apparently it is in the Labour view merely naive to believe that the voting judgment of the people is determined by considering the specific points of the policies placed before them by the party leaders. We are not told by what process of intuition voters are supposed to make an informed and intelligent choice. Mr Chifley, in effect, admits that no specific policy plank on banking was placed before the electors, and yet he now brazenly claims full electoral support for his banking policy. Vlr Chifley’s Complaint

Mr Chifley complains that the control imposed upon the private banks by the Banking Act of 1945 has been successfully challenged. The inference here is that the trading banks themselves were behind this move. Does he seriously think that the 125 Victorian and New South Wales local bodies which were represented in the High Court were no more than tools of the trading banks in defending their right to decide which financial institution should handle their business? The plain fact of the matter seems to be that Mr Chifley, annoyed by the High Court ruling that he has no power under the Constitution to order the municipalities to transfer their accounts from the trading banks to the State institution, the Commonwealth Bank, has decided to nationalise all banks and at the same time, to use a eollociuialism, go the whole hog in facilitating the implementation of his Government’s policy of Socialism. Actually it is agreed by economists that the dangers to which Mr Chifley referred in his recent statement on Labour’s decision would arise in certain economic conditions, not from competitive banking but only if competitive banking were replaced by a. Government monoply. It would be a simple matter, and no doubt one that would appeal to scheming politicians,' so to manipulate economic conditions through a banking monopoly as to create dangers which, the Socialists would contend, could be remedied only through the injection of extra doses of Socialism into the body economic.

Valid criticism was aimed at the 1945 Banking Act on the ground that it conferred excessive power on the Federal Treasurer. Now before these powers have even been seriously tested, it is abruptly claimed that nothing short of complete socialisation will do. The Banking Act of 1945 gave the central Commonwealth Bank power to direct the credit policy of all the trading banks; in other words, the State institution was given full power to influence economic conditions. By its latest decision the Government will be enabled to exercise full control over industry and the jobs of the people. The people at a referendum refused it the power to nationalise industries. Rebuffed, it has now decided on other means of imposing the Socialist clamp.