b'One of Australias biggest legal battlesBank of New South Wales v The CommonwealthDuring the Second World War the Australian Governmenttwo days after the High Courts ruling, Chifley announced introduced new banking regulations aimed at ensuring thethe governments intention to nationalise the banks. stability of the economy. When the war ended, treasurerLegislation designed to implement the controversial policy (and soon-t o-be prime minister) Ben Chifley believed thewas introduced to parliament in October 1947. government needed to maintain effective control over the financial system to manage the uncertain economicSupported by Allen Allen & Hemsley, the private banks recovery. In March 1945 he put forward a banking bill toresponded in force. Working together, they published retain the emergency wartime measures and strengthenadvertisements in newspapers and on radio and sent the Commonwealth Banks role as a central bank. It sparkedletters to their customers and shareholders to galvanise one of the most significant political and legal battles inopposition to the governments plan. More than a Australias history.thousand protests were held throughout Australiaand over half a million people signed petitionsPrivate banks reacted quickly to this threat to theiropposing bank nationalisation.independence. The Bank of New South Wales led the response, warning that, to continue the existing bankingMeanwhile, the Bank of New South Waless lead adviser, controls permanently would mean nothing less than theNorman Cowper, assembled the team he needed to fight establishment of complete bureaucratic power over thethe biggest battle of his career. He started by engaging finances of each and all of us. leading barristers in Sydney and Melbourne. To head the team, he chose a young Garfield Barwick (who later became Despite protests from the banks, the controversial legislationchief justice of the High Court of Australia). Their first step passed with only minor amendments. In 1947 Chifley movedwas to lodge an unprecedented application in the High to implement section 48 of the Banking Act 1945 (Cth),Court to restrain the government from implementing the which had the effect of requiring all government authoritiesbanking legislation until its constitutional validity had to conduct their banking business with the Commonwealthbeen determined. To maintain the effectiveness of their Bank or state banks. pre-emptive strike, the application was to be lodged at thelast possible moment. This was almost their undoing To the immense frustration of Chifley, the City of Melbournethat afternoon heavy rain brought Sydney traffic to a successfully challenged the validity of this section in thestandstill and the team made it to the court registry with High Court of Australia. Chifley responded with one of theonly four minutes to spare before the window to lodgemost controversial decisions ever taken by an Australianthe application closed.government. Following a meeting of the federal cabinet 134'