Bank Shareholders Offered A ‘Bribe’: The Canberra Bill

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 October 1947, Page 7

Bank Shareholders Offered A ‘Bribe’: The Canberra Bill

N.Z.P.A —Reuter—Copyright

(Recd. 11.15 a.m.) ' SYDNEY, This Day. “Mr Chifley’s exposition last night of the case for the abolition of private banking was very much of an anti-climax, says the Sydney Morning Herald in an editorial, The nation has waited during two months for a reasoned justification of the. revolutionary change proposed by the Government. This the Prime Minister entirely failed to give. His speech was tedious in its review of banking developments and policy, and grossly unjust in its estimate of the part played by the private banks in the expansion of Australian industry and production.

“Of convincing argument whiy these banks must suddenly be swept away and a politically-controlled monopoly substituted for them, it contained nothing at all. The Federal Parliament has never before been invited to pass so momentous a measure on such slender grounds. Tax Exemption

“Naturally,” continues the Herald, “the financial revolution is to be wrought as painlessly as possible. The victims, particularly the banks’ shareholders and staff, are to be given every inducement to go quietly.

“The former are even being offered a bribe in the shape of a tax exemption of dividends or distributions arising from the voluntary surrender of their assets. ‘This concession,’ said Mr Chifley brazenly, ‘does not apply in the case of compulsory acquisition.’ “A more contemptible misuse

of taxation power would be hard

to imaging and the legality of such gross discrimination must be

open to serious question.

“Equally indefensible and constitutionally dubious is the attempt to de - prive the shareholders of their right to appeal to the High Court from the proposed Federal Court of Claims.

Crucial Battle

“With his speech last night the Prime Minister opened the most crucial legislative battle ever joined in the history of the Commonwealth. Upon its outcome will depend whether or not Australia is to be transformed into a politically-regi-mented economy.

The Herald adds that it is in the courts where the constitutionality of the Bill will certainly be challenged and ultimately the next Federal elections that the decisive rounds will be fought in the struggle now begun. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Menzies, said: “Apart from the inter-

esting disclosure that there will be an alternative means of taking over the banks so that each bank will have the choice between committing suicide and bemg murdered. Mr Chifley’s speeclTis merely a lengthy edition of the statement made by him some weeks ago.” | Mr A. W. Fadden, leader of the Country Party, commented: “Democracy was ejected simultaneously with the introduction of the Banking Bill, which was just as coldblooded and as revolutionary as expected with straight-out socialisation its sole object.”

Public Fears Confirmed

Mr A. S. Osborne, general manager of the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney, said: “All the i public’s fear are now confirmed, that I the Government seeks to impose a complete banking monopoly on the I people of Australia.” Under the pre--1 sent conditions the creation of credit Iby the Commonwealth Bank to finance the measure would involve the most dangerous inflationary consequences, thus refuting the claim that nationalisation was designed to prevent “inflation.” Mr Osborne added: “Blatant, discrimination regarding compensation is involved in the proposal that the banks which come to a voluntary agreement will receive exemptions from taxation while such benefits will be denied to others. The attempted use of such a lever can only be regarded as reprehensible.” Little comment by Labour leaders is yet available. Mr C. Anderson, vice-president of the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, says Mr Chifley has shown clearly that it is vital that the banks should be nationalised.

Mr J. Stewart, M.L.C., State secretary of the Australian Labour Party, said the speech covered very effectively all the criticism that fciad been levelled against the Government’s’ proposals.