Politicians’ Reluctant Statements

Admission That New Definition of War Damage Awaits "Investigator's" Report

AS will be seen from reports and articles elsewhere in this issue, the evacuees of Papua and New Guinea have made a little progress in their long, hard fight for some recognition of their plight and of their claims by the Aus tralian Commonwealth authorities.

They have been promised nothing, as yet; but they at least have succeeded in forcing statements from Ministers and officials who were most anxious to con tinue their policy of the past ten months —namely, to dodge all responsibility and obligations, and merely make soothing noises. Those statements are reported, and analysed, later in this article.

The Pacific Territories Association reviewed the situation at the end of November. It then was plain that, although the Association had been fight ing ceaselessly to secure, from Australian Ministers, some indication of what eva cuees might expect in relation to war damage compensation, and the preserva tion of their individual and property rights in the Territories, the Ministers had no intention of giving any promise or reassurance, if they could avoid it.

The Association had a record of almost endless correspondence and inter views: but it amounted to nothing more than “buck-passing”—attempts by Minis ters and officials to pass the responsi bility from one to another. It was a sickening story of political hypocrisy and official indifference to the plight of the helpless civilians from the Territories.

The Association’s executive decided to make a very frank statement to a general meeting of members on December 16 (see report elsewhere).

Meanwhile, the “Pacific Islands Monthly” published, in its December issue, a plain and unvarnished statement of the facts; and a copy of this state ment. in the form of a letter and with an urgent appeal for assistance against Ministerial indifference, was posted by the “PIM” to every member of the Com monwealth Parliament and every metro politan newspaper editor.

Nearly all the politicians were as in different as the Ministers. Why should they worry about the Territories evacu ees? Evacuees have no votes! But the newspapers displayed some interest and curiosity, and began to ask questions.

FINALLY, the_ “Sydney Morning Her ald” —always ready to fight injus tice and champion the underdog— interviewed Mr. E. A. James, president of the Association. Mr. James spoke up most effectively, and here is what appeared in the “Sydney Morning Her ald” and “Melbourne Argus” of December 29: “Ten months have elapsed since these men were compulsorily evacuated by order of the military authorities, yet to all appeals Cabinet maintains an ominous silence.

How much longer is it going to take the Government to make up its mind about its obvious responsibility in this national matter?

By the end of February, the evacuation had been completed, often at short notice, of males over 45 and medically unfit males under 45.

They left all their property—homes, plantations, stores, and businesses—behind.

On April 25, the general officer commanding the military forces in New Guinea issued In dustries Control Order No. 4, by which the Army assumed control of all plantations, all alienated Crown lands, including both freehold and lease hold, and all products of production. From that time on owners ceased to have any right to their properties or their products, which were

managed instead by military officers appointed by the Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit controlled by the Army.

On May 27, the Association asked the Minister for External Territories and the Prime Minister to define the Industries Control Order and ex plain its implications. They wanted to know whether it involved the acquisition, resumption, or lease of the properties and what compen sation, if any, would be paid. Despite repeated endeavours and protestations, all that individual Cabinet Ministers will say is that, owing to the military situation, it is impossible to clarify the position.

Some of the companies operating in the Terri tories have lost tens of thousands of pounds through enemy bombing and looting. The bomb ing is covered by war damage, but so far the Government has declined to accept financial re sponsibility for the looting Other big losses have been incurred as a re sult of the neglect, idleness, and depreciation of properties—what is officially known as conse quential loss. What the Government intends to do about compensation for such losses, caused by the enforced absence of the owners, is still a mystery.

It is claimed that owners of plantations and businesses, and their representatives, should be allowed to return to Papua, and later to New Guinea, to resume management of their pro perties under military control. They have the personal interest in their properties and the experience of running them which many of the young soldiers put in charge of them have not.

If the properties have been resumed, then com pensation is claimed. If they are merely being controlled by the Army, they claim they are entitled to the proceeds of production.

Even if the Government would say it is im possible to pay compensation until the last Japanese has been thrown out of Papua, we would at least know where we stand,’’ said Mr.

James. “But the Government has not said that.

It declines to give any indication of its inten tions. Throughout the whole of the sorry busi ness it has betrayed nothing but indecision, vacillation, and a determination not to commit itself.

Many of the men who are grievously em barrassed by the Government’s secrecy in this matter were pioneers in the Territories. They have lost everything they had. It is just as important nationally that they should be assisted and economically rehabilitated as it would be to rehabilitate Australians who might suffer from an enemy invasion of the mainland.”

SUCH strong criticism stirred the bureaucrats out of their Christmas

lethargy. The “Melbourne Herald,”

on December 29, followed up the morn ing papers’ statements with the follow

ing, evidently supplied from some official

source, not disclosed. Our comments are added in small black type:—

“A modified scheme of compensation to

New Guinea civilian evacuees is being examined by the Government to fill in the hiatus until the War Damage Com mission can assess all compensation pay able because of enemy damage caused in the New Guinea campaign.”

This is just meaningless. The thing for which the Territorians are most urgently asking is not payment of compensation, but revision of the basis of compensation—namely, a fairer and clearer definition of what is “war damage." How can any “modified scheme of compensation” be evolved while the basis of compensation remains as it is?

“7 1 was stated officially to-day that to prevent hardship to any evacuees who lost heavily in New Guinea and had no

capital, allotments were still being paid.

Many of these • evacuees had jobs in Aus tralia, which would keep them going until they were able to return to New Guinea.”

But officialdom, still savouring its Christmas dinner, did not say that the allotment “to prevent hardship” amounts to the staggering total of £2 per week; nor did it mention that

most of the men “in jobs’’ in Australia were doing unaccustomed and mostly wearisome work at a wage equal to about one-third or one quarter of what they usually earn. These people, in any event, are not asking for any grudging doles or charity compensation—they are asking merely for justice, and that they be treated by the bureaucrats as fellow-Australians and in telligent human beings. <( Officials were unable to confirm whe ther evacuees had any grounds for com plaint for non-payment for property now being used by the Army in New Guinea.

This matter was handled directly by the Army, which paid rent for buildings or property temporarily taken over. In recent months several cases have been reported to the Minister for the Army ( Mr. Forde ) in which rent for houses taken by the Army had been delayed for months.

Investigations were being made with a view to adjustment.

Which is just typical official blah-blah and buck-passing. Every evacuee can tell of cases in which property was taken by the military authorities from nine to twelve months ago, and not one penny has been paid, and every request for payment ignored. This last-minute repen tance of Army Minister Forde means nothing at all to the much-disillusioned people who were chased out of Papua by bureaucracy.

AND now we come to the “reply to criti cism” by Mr. Coles, MP. chairman of the War Damage Commission (which refuses to acknowledge that any damage can be classed as war damage, and liable to compensation, unless it was caused by a bomb).

Mr. Coles said that compensation and rehabilitation claims of civilians who lost property and possessions in war zones could not be dealt with while ter ritory was occupied by the enemy or was a military zone. The war damage fund was not insurance in the accepted sense, but a compensation fund to permit reha bilitation of civilians to their original homes or businesses. It was obviously impossible to deal with claims for com pensation for properties in territory now in enemy hands.

Which, of course, is more plain dodging of the point. Evacuees know perfectly well that their claims for compensation cannot be dealt with under present conditions. What they want to know is whether they are going to get com pensation for losses sustained to their pro perties in consequence of the war, irrespective of whether the loss takes the form of looting, or of deterioration of buildings, equipment and plantations owing to all caretakers having been sent away by military authority, or of scorched earth, or of bombing.

The interpretation placed upon “war damage’’ by Mr. Coles’s Commission is niggling and cheese-paring; and, if it stands, most of the Territories exacuees will be ruined.

But Mr. Coles’s Commission cannot get past the regulations imposed by the War Cabinet. It is the War Cabinet which has restricted war damage compensation in the outrageous manner already described. Does Mr. Coles propose to ask the War Cabinet to review those regulations?

That is the whole point. All the rest is merely babbling.

The Army (said Mr. Coles) was not willing to permit civilian assessors to operate in Papua. Claims could only \>c accepted tentatively while all possible information was secured to permit reha bilitation immediately hosility ceased in the areas affected.

All of which does not escape the point, which is: How can there be rehabilitation while Mr.

Coles’s own Commission declares that no com pensation is payable in respect of any damage other than damage caused by actual bombing or fighting?

AND now we come to the statement of Senator Fraser, Minister for Exter nal Territories. This is the gentle man to whom the Territories people nat urally look for assistance and advice —but he has shown considerable ingenuity, for some nine months, in avoiding any state

ment likely to convey any reassurance or feeling of security to the unfortunate evacuees. He has been asked, again and again, about that definition of war dam age, and about the possibility of pro perty-owners being permitted to return to their holdings as soon as the military situation made it safe, and, again and again, he has given an answer that means nothing. But, on December 29, noting the growing newspaper storm, he said this: — The problem of New Guinea claims for war damage other than that caused by enemy action has been referred to the War Damage Commission. Investigations are being made by a special commis sioner, and action cannot be expected until he has completed his inquiries.

Senator Fraser is either misrepresenting the position, or important information has been withheld from the Territories’ evacuees during the past two or three months.

His statement, like that of most politicians, is vague to the point of exasperation; but appar ently it means that the question of widening the definition of war damage has been referred to the War Damage Commission (strange that Mr.

Coles, chairman of the Commission, is so silent about it!), and that War Damage Commission is awaiting the report of a special investigator.

Now, that special investigator, an Adelaide lawyer, has been busy in Darwin for some time, and he is supposed, at present, to be some where in the vicinity of Papua. We have heard a good deal about his activities from time to time, but this is the first indication that a decision, on whether the definition of war dam age will be extended, will depend upon his report and recommendations.

THE position, officially, as it now remains, is that the Australian Gov ernment is awaiting a report from the War Damage Commission on the subject of widening the definition of war damage; and the Commission, in its turn, is awaiting a report from a special investigator, who is making a leisurely progress through the northern Territories.

In other words, the unhappy evacuees may have to wait for another year or two before they know whether they are wholly or partly ruined.

It is an outrageous and intolerable situation—the sort of thing that always occurs when difficult decisions are left in the hands of feeble politicians, who in their turn are more or less rubber stamps for Departmental bureaucrats and mili tary autocracies. It is a situation by no means confined to the Pacific Territories —it is almost general in Australia.

But it will not last. The anger and bitter resentment of the Territories’ evacuees against the Australian Govern ment is being felt by many other classes of people in relation to other Govern mental activities—or non-activities.

There is to be a general election in 1943; and even at this date the odds are 10 to 1 in favour of the defeat of this weak and futile Curtin Government. No one knows what sort of Government will take its place—few want a return of the equally footling Governments of Mr.

Menzies or Mr. Fadden—but. from the Territories point of view, nothing could be worse than the present Administra tion.

Evacuees should not relax their efforts, or despair. Their claims are so soundly based on justice and national fair deal ing that, when the issue gets to the Aus tralian public, they are bound to get a fair deal. Fumbling Ministers and war time bureaucrats are now in control of the nation’s affairs; but their rule will pass—and, when it does, scores of injus tices and anomalies will be rectified. The Association must keep on fighting, with its case ready for presentation on the day that “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is restored.

—R.W.R.