Bill Debate Continues

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 266, 10 November 1945, Page 7

Bill Debate Continues

be brought down. Bubs®qu«ntly the decision was confirmed by the Labour Party Conference, but even then the resolution was moved and seconded by members of Parliament'. COOPERATION NEEDED. Speaking after the luncheon adjournment, Hon. A. Hamilton (Wallace) said many depositors and businessmen were very anxious about the Bank of New Zealand Bill, with the introduction of which the Government was stirring up the country at a time when cooperation was needed. He believed that a majority in the House did not want the Bill and did not believe in it. There was £346,000,000 of free money today and there was no need to have a State bank to create money. Banking had been very successful in New Zealand and there had been no trouble for a long time. He said the taxpayers should exorcise vigilance and watch their position. The preamble to the Bill was almost sacrilege and splendid phraseß and words were used to gull the people. He asked why did the Government want the Bank of New Zealand. When confidence was gone, the real bulwark of banking had gone, too. It would be remarkable if the bank would maintain the same amount of business after it had been taken over the Government. It was obvious to him, after hearing all that had been said of stock and station agents, that Government members were quite ignorant of the good work those firms did for the farmers. They had no other desire than to help the farmers. Mr. C. H. Chapman (Wellington North) commented on the Opposition’s senseless discourtesy to the Minister of Finance in denying him sufficient time to give an adequate explanation of the Opposition voices: Why didn’t yon play the game? Mr. Chapman said that perhaps the Opposition had a sinister motive, for they might have realised that the Minister could have given the country convincing reasons for taking over the bank. Mr. Chapman said the suggestion been made that, if the Government took control of the bank, it would be a dismal failure, but he pointed to the success of such great State undertakings as the railways. Post Oflice, and Public Trust Office. It had been said, too, that all other banks would have to dose down because they would be unable to withstand the competition of a Stateowned trading bank, but it should be remembered that numerous insurance companies operated successfully in spite of the existence of the Government insurance Departments. “I think the other banks will he able to carry on. I am not quite sure if it is desirable for them to do so or not.” said Mr. Chapman. WOULD KEEP BATHS low. A Government-owned trading bank lie continued, would be just as successful as other State undertakings. The ownership of a trading bank would keep interest rates low. However those who imagined that, with a State trading bank, all they would need to do would be to go along and get an overdraft, were in for a disappointment. Their proposition would have to be creditworthy and to the advantage of the community. If it were disadvantageous to the community, theg certainly no loan would be granted. The private banks had sometimes granted loans for purposes antagonistic to tho interests of the people, Mr. R. G. Gerard (Mid-Canterbury) said rehabilitation was being used lor political purposes in discussion of this Bill. Returned men had not fought for taking over the hank. Government voices: They didn’t fight for the bank, either. Mr. Gerard said the men who went overseas fought for a continuation oi their own way of life, but that was being taken away from them. Taking control of the bank was another step toward complete socialisation. The Government had been treating the public with sugar-coated pills containing dynamite. Tne next step, he said, would be State control of the mercantile firms, i reezing-works, homes, farms and businesses of the people. COMPLETION OF A CHAIN. Mr. C. M. Williams (Kaiapoi) said he had never heard anyone deny that socialisation was not the policy of the ijaDour Party. Expansion of credit at present would be harmful, because mere was ample purchasing power but a shortage of goods. If the Government had started its own bank to deal with business which the Government couid put in its way, it would have destroyed the assets of the Bank oi Mew Zealand and every other bank competed with such a State bank. Despite the criticism of the Opposition, a State bank would bo ol great assistance in rehabilitation. He declared that, with the acquisition of the Bank of New Zealand, the chain of financial organisations would be completed and the Government would be enabled to carry out its financial policy. Mr. C. W. Bowden (Wellington West) said Mr. Williams, in common with other members, would be required to run round looking for overdraits for his constituents under the new system. Mr. Williams: I won’t do it. Mr. Bowden said Mr. Williams had declared that, but setting up its own bank, the Government would have destroyed the assets of the existing banks. The fact was that the Government had been destroying tne value of the shares ill trading banks for years, and if anything would further that process, it was this Bill. Mr. Bowden said the arrangement between the Government and the directors was one of which the shareholders knew nothing. When it appeared in the newspapers it stunned them. There was no contract with the shareholders and no negotiation. The price of the shares had been fixed not by agreement, but solely by the buyer. Mr. E. P. Meachen (Marlborough) said the Opposition was doing all it could to create disunity. They were on dangerous ground when they criticised this measure. He was sure the honest, decent farmer would appreciate what the Government had done for him and he was satisfied that the country in future would have a definite safeguard as a result of the passing of the Bill. The House rose at 5.35 until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. The debate on the Bank Bill will Ik resumed at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday.