War Declared On Socialism In Australia

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 October 1947, Page 6

War Declared On Socialism In Australia

CANBERRA, Oct. 24..

The proposed destruction of the trading’ banks was merely the first giant stride towards complete socialisation, said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr R, G*. Menzies) when he resumed the debate on the second reading of the Banking Bill in the House of Representatives. He said that the bill was an attack on democracy and a tremendous step towards a servile State. It made revolutionary changes for which the Government had no mandate. The ease for the Bill, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Chifley) last week, was a “farrago, of allegations which were based on inaccuracies and which proceeded from false premises. ’ ’ Mr Menzies said that he and his colleagues had pledged themselves to an unceasing battle against the Bill—“a, second battle for Australia.”

Dictatorial Controls

On the face of it, the Bill merely transferred about £ 106,000,000 worth of assets to the Government, “but in truth and in substance it will wantonly destroy the system of private banking and Will create in the hands of the ruling political party a financial monopoly which will be able to exercise dictatorial controls over production and business.” The Bill would, therefore, have an effect far beyond banking. The-Bill would be passed by the weight of numbers, and it would be idle to say that the people could reject the Government at the next election if they did not like the proposal. The Government proposed to defeat that judgment in advance by completing the work of destroying the competitive banking system before the next election, so that the deed could not be undone and the public could be utterly frustrated. It was, therefore, the duty of the Opposition to oppose the Bill with every means in its power. Control of Customers’ Affairs

Mr Menzies continued: “The effect of monopolistic power to grant bank accommodation or even ordinary banking facilities must be the complete control of customers’ affairs, in so far as those affairs cannot practically be conducted without bank transactions. If there is no competition, there is no choice.” The nationalisation of the banks would not improve the Commonwealth Bank’s power to direct policy, said Mr Menzies. It would destroy the banks to which directions would normally be given, and meant that the Commonwealth Bank would not only be in control of policy, but would be able to determine in the case of every individual customer whether he was to have either an account or accommodation. “Let. nobody suppose that these aspiring dictators will rest content with the destruction of the banks,” said Mr Menzies. “That is only the first giant stride towards complete socialisation, which is to come partly by the ruthless exercise of such powers as the Commonwealth possesses, and partly by close collaboration with the Socialist Governments in the States.

“Long-Considered Policy” “This latest dramatic step, so callously contemptuous of public opinion, may appear to have been decided upon in,a fit of pique following the High Court’s decision [holding portion of the Government’s Banking Act to be invalid]. But further consideration of the facts reveals that this socialisation measure is no example of unpremeditated illegitimacy. It is, on the contrary, the lawful child of a long-considered Socialist policy which in Australia. has been deeply influenced by Communist and revolutionary ideas.” Mr Menzies said it was sometimes overlooked that Communism, like Fascism, aimed at a form of dictator-

ship in which Parliament was either kept as a mere shell or form, or.was actually abolished in favour of supreme councils dominated by undemocratic elements.

Vital to Democracy “The truly .representative character of Parliament as the great forum of the nation and the effective maker and controller of the nation’s laws and administration is vital to British democracy,” he continued.. “Men have died for it ere now. We shall lose our living faith in it at our peril. It is the one precious element which dignifies the office of the private citizen, which ensures his ordered freedom, and which guarantees him protection against unscrupulous careerists and ambitious tyrants. “It is for this profoundly important reason, beyond all others, that my colleagues and I have pledged ourselves to carry on an unceasing battle against the Bill, which is designed to put the lives and affairs of ordinary citizens into bondage. This debate, we passionately • believe,, begins a second battle for Australia, a battle in which victory will go to those who are not only brave, but alert and vigilant.”