The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1947. AUSTRALIANS SEEK BANKING REFERENDUM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22438, 19 September 1947, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1947. AUSTRALIANS SEEK BANKING REFERENDUM

fjTHE Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian State Parliament, Mr. J. G. McDonald, must have expressed a popular view in Australia when he announced that all future Victorian protests against bank nationalisation would be addressed to the GovernorGeneral asking him to withhold his assent from the bill until the people have bad the opportunity of giving their verdict by either a referendum or a general election. The Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley, claims a strict legal mandate for his Government to proceed with its banking legislation, but unless he softens this attitude he may face the penalty of a sharp decline in support for Labour when the electors arc given their next chance to say which party will be on the Treasury benches. Nothing has so strongly prejudiced the Socialist cause in British countries as the threat to private enterprise and to freedom generally. In the case of the present big issue in Australia it is clearly the right of a democracy to be consulted before such new and far-reaching legislation is introduced.

It cannot be argued that the Federal Government suddenly finds itself bound to absorb the private banking system to ensure financial stability. The banking legislation of 1945 gave the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Bank all the power necessary to control currency and credit. Mr. Chifley himself was then satisfied with the arrangement. Apparently he, like Mr. Nash in the case of the Bank of New Zealand, had to yield to pressure from the extreme Left.

The electors of Australia know that nationalisation of banking had no place in the programme for which the present Government sought a mandate. Nothing has occurred since the poll to make the measure a matter of necessity in the public interest. No attempt has been made to tell the people why the creation of a banking monopoly is now so urgent an expedient. But the people are obviously seeking an answer. They want to know why this costly experiment in socialism is to be rushed through, at their expense, while tasks for which a democratic mandate was given are still unfinished. As the current cables continue to indicate, more and more resentment is being voiced at the Government’s intention to draw the private banking business of every individual into one monopoly under political control. The issue behind the Chifley plan is the issue of personal liberty. The only sensible course open to the Government is to seek authority for its banking legislation by referendum. Kit fails to do this, it will confess the weakness of its case. It will be letting down people who elected it to carry out a declared programme and not to embark suddenly on useless and costly experiments in socialisation.