Territories Residents’ Pleas To
pp. 9-10 · Read in the full issue
Australian Government
Early Move Now Expected Regarding Definition of Looting
THERE are indications that three matters of special interest to resi dents of Papua and New Guinea who have been evacuated to Australia — namely, compensation for looting as war damage, operation of plantations by military units, and a more liberal ration in Australia for clothing—now are receiv ing official attention.
For many weeks past, the executive of the Pacific Territories Association has been making urgent representations to Ministers and officials concerning these matters, but Ministers have shown the usual Ministerial tendency to avoid giv ing decisive answers; and there has been a series of most exasperating delays.
The position (at the end of the first week in August) appears to be about as follows: —
Looting
AS indicated in the “PIM” in June and July, the Australian War Dam age Commission has given an offi cial ruling that compensation will not be paid in respect of “consequential” war damage—only in respect of “direct” war damage. Under this decision, loot ing is not classed as war damage; and, consequently, even persons who have insured their property under the war damage compensation plan will not receive compensation for losses through looting.
This decision is so grossly unfair, in view of all the circumstances existing in Papua and New Guinea, that very strong representations have been made in regard to it. The matter has been pressed urgently upon Ministers—and it can now be stated that the Common wealth Government is giving the matter consideration.
An Australian barrister is at present in Darwin on behalf of the Australian Government, investigating the position there in relation to war damage; and it is probable that at a verv early date a man, or men, will be similarly authorised to proceed to Papua, to commence an investigation in relation to war damage generally. This will embrace all issues relating to damage, including looting.
AS a result of the inquiries made recently by the “PIM”. it can be said that Australian Ministers are not unsympathetic towards the plight of the residents of New Guinea and Papua.
It is recognised that a great many of them have suffered heavy damage through war conditions —damage that is classed as “consequential”, but neverthe less bears lust as heavily unon them as if it were “direct”—and that their claim fo** comnensation is justlv based.
But there is another side to the pic ture. In every community there are unscrupulous or super-shrewd people who
will not hesitate to take advantage of extraordinary general conditions in order to reap a particularly cunning advantage for themselves. If the Australian authority, in the beginning, had given a wide and liberal interpretation of war damage, it is certain that it would have been called upon to pay all sorts of faked and exaggerated claims for compensation.
This the Government is determined not to do.
That explains, in one way, the decision to give so limited an interpretation to war damage—to give, at first, a “No” to all claims for what are called “conse quential” war damages. In the opinion of officials, it apparently is easier to relax the “No” in certain proved and specified cases, than to say “Yes” to the general proposition, and afterwards have to alter the “Yes” in many cases to “No”.
It seems certain that, in the ultimate settlement, all claims for war damage compensation in Papua and New Guinea, whether consequential or direct, will be investigated and dealt with by a special tribunal. Persons affected bv war dam age in the Territories, therefore, should, without loss of time—if they have not done so already—gather together all nossible information which they may have to supply as evidence in support of their claims for compensation. They should keep in close touch with the Paci fic Territories Association, or some com petent body or person, in this connection.
Occupation Of Plantations
THE plan under which plantations in Papua and New Guinea are to be operated under military control, for the duration of the war (outlined in the “PIM” in July) has been receiving a good deal of attention during the month.
It is understood that the matter has received the personal attention of the Australian Prime Minister and that, in some form or other, it has been before the Commonwealth Cabinet.
The general character and purpose of the plan, and the attitude of the Aus tralian Government thereto, are still obscure: but it is clear that a section of the Cabinet regards the matter as hav ing considerable importance, and it is exnected that a clear understanding in relation to policy will be reached at an early date, as between Government and military authorities.
The arguments in favour of permit ting owners of plantations to resume the operation of their plantations, as soon as military conditions permit, rather than to allow military units to remain in occupation of the plantation for the duration of the war, are so strong that it may be taken as certain that in the end they will prevail.
A Reply From Territories Minister
AFTER the above article was in type, the editdV of the “PIM” received a long and courteous letter from the Minister for External Territories (Sena tor J. M. Fraser) in which some useful information was given, somewhat elabo rating the statements in the article.
We had complained to the Minister that renresentations made to his and other Departments repeatedly and ur
gentlv duriner the past two months bv the Pacific Territories’ Association had brought from officials little beyond the soothing assurance that “the matter is receiving attention’’. The editor said frankly that if the Government was not prepared to give some reply, even if a negative one. to these appeals from the unfortunate people of the Pacific terri tories, he personally would place details
Officialdom Never Hastens!
of their treatment in the hands of the Australian daily newspapers. He said he was convinced that the Australian pub lic would be shocked by the examples of heartless and callous treatment of their unfortunate fellow-Australians from the war-torn Territories.
“Looting”
CONCERNING the argument as to how looting shall be classified in relation to claims «for compensation for war damage, the Minister said: “I have been in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for the Army, in regard to the foregoing matters, and I am able to advise you that the representations made by the Pacific Territories’ Association are receiving full consideration ... A highly qualified Adelaide barrister has been appointed ... to inquire into the report upon the position in Northern Territory.
The question of a similar inquiry being made in relation to . . , Papua and New Guinea is being considered.”
Plantation Control
rpHE Minister in his letter states the X reasons (which may not at present be published) why control of all plantations in the Pacific territories is now vested in the General Officer Com manding the New Guinea force; and adds: “Plans for the future control of the plantations, and the position of the owners of these properties, are matters that are being considered by the Com monwealth Government, and as soon as a decision is taken, owners and others interested will be advised. In this con nection, representations have been re ceived direct from the owners, and are being fully considered.”
We submitted this statement by the Minister to the president of the Pacific Territories’ Association (Mr. James) who commented:— “We recognise the military necessity which places control of plantations in the hands of the GOC for the present.
But our members would like to know how much owners are going to receive for their plantations, on what basis it is going to be assessed, and when they are going to receive it. Also, plantation owners would like to know when they are going to receive anything for the produce taken over along with the plan tations. We have been trying for weeks to get some information—but without success.”
Clothes Ration
ON the subject of the inadequate clothes ration made available to Territories’ evacuees concerning which very strong representations have been made to various officials the Minister said:— “The Rationing Commission arranged that where evacuees were identified by a certificate issued by the Department of External Territories, evacuees would be
issued with coupons additional to the normal ration book”; and he added that he had been informed by the Deputy Director of Rationing, Sydney, that the scale of the additional issue was such that a person who had lost his effects would be given coupons to enable his supply of clothing to be brought up to a “reasonable standard”.
We have informed the Minister that the assurance given to him by the Deputy Director of Rationing is not cor rect. All kinds of official difficulties were placed in our way when we tried to obtain from the rationing authority a definition of what is a “reasonable standard” for a man; but eventually we ascertained that the scale published on page 5 of the “PIM” of July (1 two-piece suit; 1 extra pair of trousers; 2 pairs of underpants: 2 singlets; 4 pairs of socks; 2 pairs of pyjamas; 1 pair of boots; 1 overcoat) had been graciously supple mented with 2 shirts and 1 hat. Appar ently, in the view of the rationing authority, this is an adeauate wardrobe for an average man.
It has been suggested to the Minister that such a scale of rationing indicates, on the part of the official mind, a mis erable and callous disregard of the con dition of Pacific Territories evacuees; that the rationing scale for men gener ally has been based on the assumption that the average man has a fair average wardrobe, consisting of at least two suits and half a dozen sets of underclothes, before rationing came into operation, and that the object of the scale was merely to maintain that wardrobe: and that, even if every unfortunate evacuee were allowed three or four suits, and as many underclothes as he wishes, Australia’s economic position would not be in the slightest degree affected.
The Minister also has been informed that these representations were made directly by the Pacific Territories’ Asso ciation to Dr. Coombs, Director of Rationing, some weeks ago, but no deci sion has been given.
Accounts Not Paid
FNALLY, the Minister has been asked if he can assist evacuees by induc ing the Australian Government to pay them various monies due for pro perty purchased or “impressed”.
Scores of evacuees parted with their property in Papua, and in the Morobe district of New Guinea, on the assur ance that they soon would be paid for it. But the great majority of them, six months later, still are running along from Department to Department, and from Sydney to Melbourne, and Can berra, trying to induce some buck-pass ing official to give their claims a little serious notice. The accounts are not repudiated in any way—they are just ignored.
It is a scandalous and incredible posi tion—but it exists, just as we have described it.
Wing-Commander D. W. Baird, who went to Fiji in November, 1940, to com mand an RNZAF unit, has arrived in London from Honolulu to succeed Wing- Commander Newell as New Zealand air liaison officer.
Mr. H. W. Forsyth is interned in Stan ley Camp, Hong Kong, according to advices received by his wife, a resident of Auckland. He was formerly an engineer in the Public Works Depart ment in Fiji and went to Hong Kong in 1940.
The arrival in New Zealand of Rear- Admiral d’Argenlieu, Fighting French High Commissioner in the Pacific, was expected in July, according to “New Zea land Herald”. A recent arrival there was Monsieur E. L, Ricard, a former mer chant in the Dutch East Indies. He barely escaped the Japanese invasion, with his wife and young daughter. His elder daughter, who was in a convent, had to be left behind. M. Ricard has commenced the organisation of an inter mation and propaganda service for Fight ing France in the Pacific.