Bank of New Zealand and the Estates Company.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 42, 17 August 1895, Page 2

Bank of New Zealand and the Estates Company.

(PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION) WKLLINGTON, August 16. When the House met at 2.30 to-day, it was decided, on tbo motion of the Premier, to adjourn the Financial Debate in order tbat he might bring on a motion (of which notice was given on Tuesday) to set up a select committee to consider the separation of the Bank of New Zealand ancl tbe Bank of ftfe\v Zealand Estates Company, r In moving the motion, Mr Seddon said it was deemed advisable to institute this committee at once, as all sorts of absurd rumors were afloat, and it was advisable to make the fullest enquiry into the position of the Bank. He had been asked, for instance, whether it was true tbat jMO.OOO had to be found tbis year, but there was no foundation whatever for a report of tlm kind. Tbe committee would have to make inquiry as to the extra million guaranteed which was now in liquid state, and they would bave to see whether it could be obtained at a less price. The committee would also have to consider the earning power of the Bank, so that J-80,000 interest on £2,000,000 could be met. He admitted the information given to Government last session had not been correct, but if the same circumstances arose Government would do the same thing again, except tbat they would not ask that the assets of the Estates Company should be placed on the books of tbe colony at their stated value. It was absolutely necessary that tbe Bank sbould be put in a position to do purely banking business. Captain Russell said he should not oppose this motion. As tbe Premier had said, it was a national question, and Government had a majority at its back to carry anything they liked. It was simply impossible for the committee to report iv a week. The Premier had admitted that his information was incorrect last year, but he (Russell) was determined not to accept auy ex-parte statement from the officers of the Bank, and if he were not afforded the fullest information as to the position of the Bank he sbould refuse to append his name to the report of the committee. So far as he knew, neither the Bank of New Zealand nor the Assets Company had asked for this inquiry, and it seemed, as if the wholo thing came from the Government alone. The committee proposed to be set iip included four Ministers ofthe Crown, who' had bronght the House into its present position. Ministers did not therefore come to the Committee with unbiased minds. From first to last members bad been hoodwinked and deceived by Government over tbis matter, but he did not say it was intentional as he believed Government themselves had been deceived. Government were determined to carry things with a high band, and although he believed they had acted under 'thd grossest ignorance that did not tfelievie them of the responsibility, They had every reason to Relieve there was no necessity for this enquiry, as the Bank was now said to be trading on a fair basis. Mr G. J. Smith was glad to hear from the Premier that there was no cause for uneasiness with regard to the Bank. He proposed as an amendment that the number of the Committee be increased, and that the word " six " be struck out with the object of inserting " ten " members of the Committee! Mr G. W. Russell there was tt strong feeling in the country that when the House last year guaranteed two millions to tlie Bank of New Zealand it took the first step towards making that institution a State Bank. With the view of Arriving at some finality 'in banking legislation he Would move that the' Committee also consider the advisability of converting the Bank of New Zealand into a State Bank. Sir Robert Stout said if a State Bank was to bo established ifc must be a Bauls Of 'deposit. It M'oiikT be rtfirious to : tlie] State to set up a Bank to lend money to merchauts and settlers, in view of the vast corruption to whish imder ouv prqEgnt s-ystpm of doing evgrything fgp party iti would give rise, Hon Mr Ward said it was owing to •confidential communications from the Bank that the Committee was moved for. After, further ponsiderfthW debate, ftfe

Smith's amendment to enlarge the Banking Committee was rejected by 36 to 27, J and Mt Seddon's motion for a Committee , of 6 was carried on the voices.