THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, March 21, 1945. AN OBLIGATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25799, 21 March 1945, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, March 21, 1945. AN OBLIGATION

The reduction in meat supplies for the people ,of the United States, as announced by the American Government, will probably not be welcomed by that nation; but it will mean only a slight deprivation to American families. The coincidental reduction, commencing next month, in United States meat shipments to Great Britain under Lend-lease may cause not inconvenience merely in the United Kingdom but may endanger the already frugal level of the British housewife’s meat supply. The cabled news from Washington of the cut in meat exports to the United Kingdom affords no explanation of the reason for the step save the passing reflection that “it is considered that British reserves are large enough to sustain the country without great American assistance.” There is, unfortunately, no support for that belief in British circles. Indeed, the anticipation is that the present ration in Great Britain, by which Is 2d worth per week is the maximum of meat purchasable by the consumer,will have to be reduced, since the sharp decline in importations from the United States will come at the time when British home-grown meat is in shortest supply. It is apparent from the British press comment upon the American announcement that a further reduction of the meat ration is viewed in Great Britain with something approaching consternation. The position in the United States is clear enough. Production has fallen slowly but disastrously, to a point at which more restrictions on the sale of meat are required in order to maintain rationing for the American population at what is considered a l’easonable level. This level will be fixed in its relation first to the necessity for the maintenance of the meat supply to United States servicemen, and secondly to the obligation'that is laid upon all the nations to assist the people of the liberated countries in Europe, who are not far off starvation point. There exists no room for criticism of the American decision, although it may appear to have been based, as concerns the reduction in food supplies to Great Britain, upon a too-sanguine view of British meat reserves. President Roosevelt has emphasised that it is his country’s desire to reduce consumption in foodstuffs in order to assist in feeding Europe; this policy accepted by all the United Nations, including Great Britain, which already is making a contribution from straightened food resources to the European peoples. But if comment upon the American decision as it threatens the meagre meat allowance of the British people cannot be helpful, there is a practical method in which their own kith and kin may help them in this new crisis that they are facing. The introduction of meat rationing in New Zealand a year ago may have been received with qualms by a people that relies on a heavy meat diet; but there is no one in this Dominion who can justly complain that the system has subjected him to hardship or even to discomfort. It may be that meateating habits have changed slightly, with more application to the miscalled “ offal ” products and an increased dietary of fish, but certainly there has been no lack of meat products for every taste and occasion. A recent statement on behalf of the Minister of Supply revealed, nevertheless, that this painless degree of meat rationing has achieved its purpose to the extent that New Zealand has been able to effect approximately the annual saving that was contemplated for shipment to the United Kingdom. That saving might be increased, and might without undue deprivation, be doubled, if the people of New Zealand would be prepared to accept a further responsibility and obligation towards those who have suffered most through the war, and whose sufferings may yet be aggravated. The cause is so close to the essentially warm hearts of the New Zealand people, that there should be no fear of serious opposition if the Government is emboldened by Great Britain’s need, and Europe’s, to tighten the rationing system to a degree that will allow a greater contribution from the Dominion in the interests of victory and humanity. -

THE STATE AND THE BANK So little has been heard for some time about the intentions of the Government in the matter of banking legislation that some of its supporters may have wondered whether its enthusiasm over the plan to buy out the interests of the private shareholders in the Bank of New Zealand had waned. The intimation that the Minister of Finance has told the members of a branch of the Labour Party at a North Island port that the Government will introduce legislation in connection with the bank in the coming session may give reassurance to those in their number who consider that it will be in the party’s interest, if not necessarily in the interest of the Dominion, that the Government should own one of the trading banks, preferably the Bank of New Zealand. It cannot be that the statement by Mr’ Nash with reference to the proposals which the Government will submit to Parliament was as vague and indefinite as that attributed to him in the very scant report of his utterance that was issued from Gisborne. It is reasonable, however, to suppose that what he said may be interpreted as meaning that the Government will give effect to the resolution which was carried at the conference of the New Zealand Labour Party last year and will bring down a Bill providing for the acquisition of all the privately-held shares in the Bank of New Zealand. Those of its supporters who have been vociferously clamouring for the complete State ownership of the bank will be seriously disappointed if the Government does not go the whole way which the Labour Party has directed it to go. What precisely they hope to gain through the State buying out the private shareholders in the bank they have not explained. The most roseate pictures have certainly been painted of the blessings which the country is to enjoy if the Bank of New Zealand is nationalised. One outcome, the Labour Conference was told would be that it would be “ possible for the sunshine of economic prosperity to shine ever in the darkest places.” There must even among the supporters of the Labour Government be large numbers of people who regard fustian of this description with the disfavour which it merits, and who desire more substantial evidence of the advantage to be derived by the State through the acquisition of the shareholders’ interests in the bank than is promised in the assertion, also made at the Labour Conference, that the effect would be to ‘‘bring about a | great increase in the wealth of the

people, in consumable goods and services, and in the greatest of all freedoms—freedom from debt.” How, they may justly ask, can this be the effect of the transference of tiie possession of the private shareholders’ shares to the State unless the State is, in consequence, enabled to exercise greater influence over the policy of the bank than it does at the present time? Actually the extent of the control exercised by the State will not be increased by its expropriation of the private shareholders’ interests. Although at the present time the State holds only one-third of the subscribed capital of the bank it appoints four out of the six directors. In these circumstances it is absurd to argue that the State must acquire the privately-held shares in order that it may control the policy of the bank. The Government must have some other object in view if it proposes to force the private shareholders to dispose of their interests to it.