The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1945. DEBATE ON THE BANK BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 271, 16 November 1945, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1945. DEBATE ON THE BANK BILL

THE debate on the Bank Bill in the House of Representatives has so far been a major disappointment. It lias,.however, revealed two important things: the incompetence of Parliament to discuss banking- and credit and the incapacity of the men who have been in charge of banking during the past ten years to measure up to present-day requirements of their jobs. Had they been more successful in appreciating to the full their duties to the institutions which they served the debate would probably have been more meritorious.

The debate started off badly, with the Government making the measurq a matter of urgency without informing the Opposition of its intention to do so. Taking urgency means that the matter must be discussed right through without a stop unless the House, by resolution, decides to adjourn the debate. The House is therefore not protected by its Standing Orders, which fix the adjournment at ten-thirty, but is under the control of the Prime Minister. Taking urgency, therefore, would have caused most of the discussion to be held while the House was off the air. In consequence of this line of conduct the Opposition refused to grant to the Minister of Finance a full hour in which to explain the Bill. Mr. Nash, believing that time would be extended to him—it had never previously been refused to a Minister—had prepared an hour’s speech, half of which was of-an introductory nature. When he failed to obtain an extension of time he had to sit down without having fully explained the Bill. There does not appear, however, that any handicap has been imposed upon him, for the subsequent debate to date has been so discursive that it is obvious his own followers have divided ideas as to the purpose which is to be served by the new measure. While Mr. Nash retains the old directorate in order to preserve the continuity of policy, his followers, including members of the Cabinet, proclaim that it marks a departure in policy. The public can take its choice of explanations and believe what it wishes. If the caucus discussions could provide no more unanimity than has yet been expressed by Government members inside the House of Representatives, Mr. Nash must in his heart be truly grateful to the Opposition for relieving him of the responsibility for having to talk for the longer period of the full hour. Small wonder that he confined his first half-hour to non-essentials!

The subsequent debate has revealed a general lack of grip on the part of the members of Parliament of the history and functions of banking. Widespread misconceptions that are still current have been reiterated. The “starvation in the midst of plenty” charge against the bankers is repeated again and again. The Minister for Health, the first Government speaker to follow Mr. Nash, repeated the untruth that the banks contracted credit and so brought down prices, and no member of the Opposition to date has refuted that error with the facts. Not knowing the facts, how can “the representatives of the people control the public credit?” And why do the Parliamentarians not know the facts? Apparently nobody has held a watching brief in the debate for the banks. Is this so? If it is, why has no action been taken by the representatives of the five trading banks? They knew that the directors of the Bank of New Zealand could no longer be relied upon to play their part on behalf of the trading banks, for these gentlemen had entered the House of Bondage. The continuance of the misconceptions concerning the facts of recent banking history proves that the bankers have not appreciated the task which was before them. They should have engaged in an educative campaign commencing ten years ago. They knew then that banking was in politics. They did nothing to cultivate public opinion. Public relations were neglected and the result is the poverty of the Parliamentary debate to-day. The Leader of the Opposition said he did not endorse all that the banks hud done, presumably meaning banking in general. But this has been taken to mean that he did not approve of all that the banks in New Zealand did during the Great Depression. Actually the banks did remarkable work in financing farmers beyond the limits of reasonable overdraft accommodation: in truth the banks carried the farmers, cut down interest, reduced indebtedness, and did all they could with their “hidden reserves” to keep the country’s economy in good heart waiting for the return of a higher price level. This they achieved and the story is well worthy of the telling, but it does not appear that anyone in the House of Representatives has been briefed to give it forth. It is idle to pretend that the men who have been in charge of the banking institutions of the Dominion since the depression ate so important that they cannot be dispensed with. Had they been adequate to the task which was set before them the present state of public, opinion would not have existed. It is idle, too, to pretend that Parliament is capable of supervising banking and credit operations because the debate reveals that neither Ministers of the Crown nor members know enough about the subject to merit their being entrusted with this responsibility.