Australian Proposal To Nationalise Banks Strongly Condemned

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26543, 19 August 1947, Page 5

Australian Proposal To Nationalise Banks Strongly Condemned

From C. R. Mentiplay, Special Correspondent Rec. 9 p.m. SYDNEY, Aug. 18. In the overwhelming mass of comment on the Cabinet decision to nationalise trading banks which has already been placed before the public, scarcely one drop of approval is discernible. People in every walk of life are condemning the proposal as a further inroad on the liberty of the individual. Though the decision itself is still very young and the Government has given no indication as to how it intends to carry out its desires, the general assault against the proposal already shows signs of developing into two main offensives. Officials of the nine banks concerned have lost no time in indicating that • they are by no means certain of the Government’s constitutional power to carry out such a plan. Mr L. J. McConnan, chairman of the Associated Banks of Victoria, said within a few hours of the Government pronouncement that 1,250,000 customers of trading banks, shareholders and bank officers could rely on the utmost effort being put forward to save them from “the perils of this most disastrous proposal.”

“The fact that the Government has power to control banking to my mind does not mean more than that it has power to make the rules under which banking shall be carried out,” says Sir Marcus Clark, a former president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. The Government plainly fears this assault is directed at the legality of its proceedings for though the nature of its movements in assuming control are still secret, it has already retained Mr C. A. Weston, K.C., “ in the event of any litigation arising from the Government's decision to nationalise banks.” The associated banks have also engaged counsel for what may be one of the biggest legal contests in Australian history. In the meantime, a second pflensive is in‘full swing oh the press and political front, where no effort is being spared to bring home to the people the issues involved. Full publicity is given to statements by Mr R. G. Menzies and other Opposition leaders that the decision is the most spectacular move towards complete socialisation ever made in an English-speaking country. Epithets such as “Police State” and “Totalitarianism” have been flying for 24 hours. The citizens are being left in no doubt as to the meaning of Government control of finance with its implication that loan facilities and interest rates will be fixed by political expediency rather than by operation of a free market. The most telling blows, however, are those directed at the fact that lesser issues have been submitted to a referendum of citizens. In a front page leader entitled, “Let’s ask the people, the Sydney Telegraph maintains that “even if the court finds that the Commonwealth has power to nationalise banks —and that is by no means certain —the people have the right to decide whether the Government shall use that power. The great majority of newspapers to-day back this argument asking in thfeir turn, what charges of inefficient administration or faulty service can be brought against the private banks. A large and influential section of the people already challenges the Government to call for a referendum, but as things stand it is unlikely that tras course will he adopted unless there is an adverse court decision.