Australian Government’S Cruel
pp. 11-35 · Read in the full issue
Treatment Of Evacuees
Refusal of Any Promise of Economic Rehabilitation
A LTHOUGH nearly a year has passed since civilians were removed from the Australian Territories of Papua and New Guinea, and their commercial interests disrupted or destroyed by conditions beyond their control, these people still are without any promise, undertaking or reassurance from the Austalian Government concerning their eventual economic rehabilitation.
They cannot get even a reassurance or a promise of sympathetic consideration of the position in relation to the two matters which most vitally concern them—namely, compensation for looting, and permission to return, when it is safe, to the occupation of their own properties.
THE indifference of the Commonwealth Government to the interests of these unfortunate people—who are in danger of losing everything, while the people of Australia remain complacently unharmed—is damnable and sickening.
Appeal after appeal, by Territories people, individually, and by the Pacifiic Terri tories Association, in relation to these two matters, have been fobbed off with official formulae and smooth-tongued Ministerial promises to “inquire into the situation.”
Nothing has been done, nor seems likely to be done.
So the time has come for plain speak ing. Ministers are callous and indifferent —therefore an appeal for assistance will be made elsewhere. A copy of this article will go to the editor of every influential newspaper, and to every member of the Commonwealth Parliament.
It is a disconcerting fact that, under our system of government, the only way in which inarticulate or unimportant sections of the people can get attention to, and just consideraton of, their griev ances is to literally force themselves upon the attention of the Government by (a) an attack on the floor of Parliament, or ib) an outcry through the newspapers.
The idea that an obvious injustice auto matically receives the attention of a Government has long since been exploded.
Ministers will dodge and duck and temporise so long' as they can avoid giv ing a difficult decision.
“Indirect” War Damage THE most bitter grievance of the people evacuated from the Territories re lates to the definition by the War Damage Commission of “direct” and “in direct” damage. When, under military orders, they came away to Australia, they were certain that all their “war losses” would be covered by “war damage com pensation insurance.” It did not matter whether their property was destroyed by a shell, or had deteriorated through absence of a staff, or was carried off by thieves from unguarded premises—their loss was the same, and was directly attri butable to the fact that war had burst into their Territories. Their loss was not any fault of theirs.
To their amazement, the Common wealth Government took an entirely different view. They were to be com pensated for property lost by direct enemy action, like the bursting of a bomb; but they would not be compensated for the loss of property due to lack of guardian ship, such as climatic deterioration, or looting.
This Government decision was passed on to the War Damage Commission in the shape of a set of regulations—those thrice-accursed and much-abused instru ments of wartime administration —and the War Damage Commission, of course,
has approached the problem of compen sation for Territories residents with its hands tied. It can award compensation only for direct damage; and, even in that regard, all its activities up to date have been marked by a petty, thin-nosed, niggling interpretation of the regulations —all apparently designed to reduce, to the last penny, the Commission’s liability to make compensation payments to the Territories. ■ [ TAKE, as an example, looting. In the part of New Guinea occupied by the enemy, it may be assumed that all property that has disappeared has been taken by the enemy, and that compen sation will be paid accordingly—there is no great problem there.
But a part of New Guinea, and a very large part of Papua, actually have not been occupied by the enemy. But, just the same, property has disappeared or deteriorated—partly through lack of care, partly through looting. The Commission does not propose to pay compensation for that—only for property proven to have been actually destroyed by enemy shells and bombs.
Could anything be more cruel or un fair? It simply cannot be argued about.
What is the difference between the loss of furniture destroyed in a bomb ex plosion, and the loss of furniture carried off by looters during the absence of the owners under compulsory wartime evacua tion?
What is the difference, from the owner’s viewpoint, between a plantation destroyed by shell-fire, and a plantation destroyed by other agencies which could not be controlled because both owner and staff had been sent away by the military authorities?
It is no use appealing to the Commis son—it is bound by the Commonwealth Government’s decisions. The Common wealth Government, presumably terrified at the thought of what the Pantrymaids’
Union would say to it if it allowed com pensation to the “monopolistic interests” operating in the Territories, has been deaf to all appeals for a more liberal interpretation of war damage.
No, sir—the tender feelings of the Pantrymaids’ Union are not going to be outraged by the spectacle of Burns Philp, or Carpenters, or STC, receiving compen sation for their blasted plantations or looted stores; so every man and woman in the Territories is going to be denied compensation for what is called “indirect” war damage, but which is just as much war damage as if it had been done by a Jap bomb.
A Political Background?
FOR months’ we have been carefully studying this situation—acquainting
(Continued on Page 32)
n °S! es m w i th f th< L de j; ails of the appeals made to the Commonwealth Government by the Pacific Territories a " d .. aw ?i‘mg with interest were Cemed ' would be g“ven to futable amimpnic nf
Sorely
a f ew official murmurings, containing no indication whatever of any desire to relax the war damage definitions, or give some promise of a resumption of economic life to the thousands of unfortunate Terri tories people who are grimly hanging on in Australia, and who, if their claims for compensation are refused, will be facing, black ruin.
Accordingly, we can come to no con elusion other than that the Common wealth Government, which should deal with this matter on a basis of pure j'us lnflienced a bv W pofitlcal consfderatioM b 6 . powerful Territories interests (who neces sarily will participate in any general corn pensation allowed) it will be putting itself on-side with influential political groups who think all rich and powerful companies should be attacked; and it can be indifferent to all the “small people” of the Territories, who are cruelly hurt and mostly ruined by such a policy, be cause those unfortunate people have no votes, anyway.
Appeal to Australian People BUT we do not believe that this Govern ment will be allowed to “get away” with such monstrous cruelty and in justice. The people of Australia, who after all are the masters of this group of wartime Caesars, will not permit it By God’s good grace, the Americans got here in time to keep the enemy out of Australia. It was the ill-fortune of war that they could not get into position m time to keep the Huns of the Pacific out of New Guinea and Papua, also. But New Guinea, and Papua, none the less, are Australian Territories; and the people who lived there are nonetheless Austra lians.
Are the Mainland Australians, who were saved, going to stand by and see the Territorial Australians, who were caught in the blast of war, facing complete ruin, and forced to start life anew? We do not think so—Curtin Government or no Curtin Government, We know politicians, and we can guess one defensive argument that our Ministers will produce. As a matter of principle and precedent (they will say, breathing heavily) Territories folk cannot be re established in their plantations and stores, in the manner suggested; because, if that were done, everv business man in Australia who has suffered under war time conditions would have an equal claim for compensation.
Actually, we see no reason why such a principle of compensation should not ultimately be adonted. Would it not be fair and proper that, at the end of the war, the lucky traders, who have a “glorious feed” upon this lavish wartime circulation of money, should contribute through special taxation to the re establishment of the unfortunate traders who have been half-ruined or wiped out by the same wartime conditions?
But that is a mainland Australian prob lem, and that issue need riot complicate the special Territories problem. What is to prevent the Commonwealth Govern ment from decreeing that, within all territories where civil administration has had to be superseded bv a militarv ad ministration, there shall be a more liberal interpretation of the regulations govern ing compensation for wartime damage?
Even a simple decision, that there shall be a more liberal interpretation in cases where owners were forced to leave their properties through wartime conditions, would put an end to much of the un certainty and unhappiness among Terri tories evacuees.
Occupation of Plantations THE other matter—the apparent inten tion of the Commonwealth Govern ment to refuse permission to Terri tories neople tc re-occupy their own properties as soon as conditions reason ably permit—may be the result of the Government’s inability to co-ordinate its nolicy with that of the Military Adminis tration of Papua and New Guinea (they call the whole area “New Guinea” now), rather than of any desire to impose hardship upon evacuees.
This thing has not come to a head, as yet. because the Japanese still hold New Guinea and are close enough to Papua to render military control essential. But, as the enemy is driven northwards, more and more plantations in Papua and New Guinea will become available for re occupation. It has been reported, more than once, that it is the intention of the military authorities to retain control of these plantations and operate them through ANGAU (that is, the Army-controlled , Australian and New Guinea Adminis trative Unit), on a basis which will allow
for a payment to the owners of some 5 per cent, on the capital value.
One can see, and, to an extent, sym pathise with, the purpose of this plan.
Even if the Japanese are driven north of our Territories, they will not be far away, and complete military control will be essential so long as there is any possibility of a renewed Japanese assault. Further more, the need for rubber and coconut oil is so great that the problem of supply is a national one.
But, with all this given in, there seems to be no reason at all why young military officers of ANGAU should be sent around to direct and control plantation opera tions, while the more elderly but * per fectly fit and efficient owners of the plan tations sit idly on their backsides in Aus tralia, and receive a dole of 5 per cent.
Which system is more likely to develop greater efficiency in the matter of rubber and copra production: Plantations con trolled by Army officials, who have no interest whatever in the matter beyond the routine fulfilment of their job? Or control of the plantations by the actual owners, who are personally interested in maintaining the plantation at its highest efficiency, and eager to secure the utmost possible production, so as to get some benefit from the prevailing high prices?
Suspected Political Factor AGAIN, there can be no real argument.
But, again, we are profoundly sus picious of certain elements in this Commonwealth Government, who would unhesitatingly sacrifice the small indivi dual planters if thereby they could “have a crack at the big fellows.”
In these Territories, especially in New Guinea, a large proportion of the plan tations are owned by the big companies and the latter, naturally, want to work them. It would be difficult to make flesh of the companies and fish of the small,
individual planters; so it is quite possible that the Canberra-cum-military regime will treat the lot as flesh, and proceed to stew it in a pot bearing a label re sembling: “Our plan for a new economic control in our Pacific Territories.”
Whatever of this kind may be going on. the Australian people must not allow all those innumerable men and women of the Territories, who fought during long years under cruelly hard conditions to establish their plantations, to be sacri ficed.
They are not articulate —the people of Australia hear little about them. But there are a great many of them; and we could give details of scores of cases where men and women, owners of what are now very valuable rubber and copra plan tations, are to-day living in Australia on a mere dole, shut off temporarily by war from the fruits of their life-work, and in danger of being permanently shut off through the operation of other than war forces.
It is a dismal and depressing picture.
These fine pioneer people, who should be the first care of Australia, really are in danger of becoming the victims of a mili tary bureaucracy and the pawns of
politics.
Appeals for some clarification of the position have been made to Canberra, again and again. All have been blandly ignored. “Perhaps we can say something when the Japs are gone.” Then, almost certainly, it will be too late —the military will have moved in.
It is up to the people of Australia to see that a gross injustice is not per petrated under the guise of military and political necessity.
Lieut. Jerry Brown, ANGAU, formerly of Lands Office, Port Moresby, is at present on sick leave in Sydney.