RIGHT CHALLENGED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22569, 24 February 1948, Page 5

RIGHT CHALLENGED

LAWS FOR BANKS PARLIAMENT’S POWER high court hearing ( N.Z.r.A.—Router—ConyriKht.) (10 a.m.) MELBOURNE. Feb. 24. The constitution empowered Parliament to make laws on banking but not regarding banks, Mr. F. W. Kitto, K.C. argued in the High Court yesterday, Mr. Kitto said the Commonwealth Banking Act,. 1047, under which the Federal Government assumed power to nationalise • the Australian trading banks went far beyond what was in the minds of those who framed the constitution. Mr. Kitto is appearing for the Australian banks with headquarters in England. Yesterday was the tenth day of the hearing of the challenge to the Banking Act by the private trading banks and States of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Mr. Kitto said that banking was “with respect io bankers” and not to their operations. The distinction was between bankers and banking. It was a distinction that was fundamental. Tower not Wide Enough The banking paragraph of the constitution, he said, did not validate any and every licensing system. The fundamental inquiry must be was it lcislation that regulated banking? The constitutional paragraph was not wide enough to authorise nnv form of licensing ’ ->ks, he submitted.

Mr. Kitto said the legislation did not set out to improve banking by the Commonwealth Bank, but because the Commonwealth held a certain economic theory (he Commonwealth Bank was to have exclusive power to conduct this activity. Mr. Kitto said the engagement of a staff would fall outside the sphere of ban king operations. The Chief Justice: As to the staff, it must mean all or nothing? Mr. Kitto: Yes.

The Chief Justice: There is nothing in this Act to compel individuals to remain in the service of the banks but section 46. paragraph two, docs compel the bwks to carry on.