War Damage Commission Appears

As A Hollow Sham

Accumulating Evidence of How Territories People Have Been Deceived by "Insurance" Scheme

INSTALLED in elaborate offices in the capital cities of Australia, and functioning in the full panoply of directors, secretaries, private secre taries, accountants, commissionaires, and so forth, is the Australian War Damage Commission—one of the many bloated creations of a nation at war.

The Commission was planned to provide machinery by which Aus tralian citizens, who had lost property through the misfortunes and accidents of war, might arrange insurance and

receive compensation.

That was what was planned; but the thing has become, instead, what is colloquially called “a pain in the neck.” If the Curtin Government remains in office, and the Commission goes on its way unchecked, it will become —so far as Territories people are concerned, at any rate—Public Enemy Number One.

IN the beginning, was heartily applauded. Everyone in Australia and the Australian Pacific Territories was to insure his property against war damage—owners of buildings were to insure compulsorily, and owners of all other property voluntarily. All premiums would go into a single pool. Out of that pool, war damage compensation would be paid. Nothing could be fairer—the people who luckily escaped war damage would pay, pro rata, for the unlucky ones. The response was enormous. Something like £8,000,000 was accumulated in the first year of operation.

The War Damage Commission was the bright and particular silver lining to the cloud of troubles which surrounded the unfortunate evacuees from New Guinea and Papua. They arrived in all stages of financial distress, from half-ruined to totally broke. “But let’s cheer up,” they said. “We at least shall receive compen sation from the Australian fund—we may be able to make another start.”

And, when they saw that the Austra lian fund was not likely to have Austra lian mainland claims made upon it— apart from Darwin and Broome —they did cheer up. The fewer mainland claims, the bigger the compensation for the Territories.

BUT they calculated without the poli ticians and the bureaucrats. They got their first shock quite early in the year, when they were officially ad vised that “war damage” was defined as direct war damage, and direct war dam age was damage caused by actual war operations, such as bomb explosions, a building torn down by fighting troops, the application of a scorched-earth policy, and so on. Damage caused by looting, or by the deterioration of pro perty in the enforced absence of the owners or caretakers, was not war dam age, and compensation could not be claimed.

The people of the Territories were lit erally stunned by this announcement. At first, they could not believe that this Commonwealth Government would be a party to such cruelty, and such muddled thinking.

But, now, they know better. They know that the Canberra gang, under whom they have suffered during all their lives in the Territories, are completely indifferent to what the Territories people may feel or think.

The Canberra gang is concerned only with politics. The Territories people have no votes and little influence in Aus tralia; so the War Damage Fund must be reserved for mainland plans and pur poses, and not dissipated among Terri tories claimants. Every million saved from the Territories will be another mil lion available for the Canberra spend thrifts. A million spent in the Territories will not bring another vote; but a million spent cunningly in Australia may save another precious Government seat.

During the past six months, the Com monwealth Ministers and the War Dam age Commission have been appealed to again and again by the Territories people; but they will not even give a direct answer on this question of what is and what is not war damage. They merely dodge, and duck away, and pass the questioner on to someone else.

WELL, there seems to be little else that the Territories people can do —just now. But, before this year ends, there will be a Commonwealth general election; and every Territories resident in Australia should make it his or her business to become a focal point of acti vity in his or her particular electorate, to work for the unseating of the Federal member.

It does not matter whether that mem ber is Government (Labour) or Opposi tion (United Party)—they are all equally to blame for the position that exists. Mr.

Fadden’s party is no more interested in the Territories people than is Mr. Cur tin’s party; and the Fadden Government, which was defeated in 1940, was. if any thing, more futile and contemptible than the Curtin Government.

MEANWHILE, interesting things are happening to the War Damage Commission plan.

The Australian people generally have awakened to the nature of the Govern mental ramp that is being worked. They were urged to insure their property against war damage and, in the first year, they readily took out insurance.

But now they have discovered, through the unfortunate experiences of the Paci fic Territories evacuees, that the War Damage Commission will give no clear indication of the nature of the insurance that is being given; except that pay ment, of some kind (extent not indi cated) can be expected only if the pro perty suffers direct, and not consequen tial damage.

A hypothetical case was put to the Commission: If a bomb made a hole in the roof of a house temporarily unoccu pied, and rain subsequently came through and damaged the contents of the house, would the latter damage be covered by war damage insurance? The Commission said: “No. Compensation would he paid in respect of the direct damage to the building, and not in respect of the conse quential damage. r So now, in the second year of the insurance nlan. the Australian public is awake to the ramp, and the Australian

public is not renewing its war damage insurance. Some millions will come into the fund, nevertheless, under the compul sory clauses which force all owners of buildings to insure, but a great proportion of those who voluntarily insured are not now insuring. And who can blame them?

THE Territories people are carrying on individually their apparently hope less fight for justice, and some interesting letters have come under our notice.

Here is a letter from a resident of Papua, now living in Melbourne. He was evacuated from Port Moresby at very short notice, and compelled to abandon his house, furniture and personal effects, all of which appear to have been lost — although not by “direct” war operations.

“I have interviewed a lawyer about war damage—trying to find out what the posi tion is, and how long we are expected to continue paying premiums. He was no more successful than I had been in get ting: information from the Commission.

“But he volunteered the opinion, ‘with out prejudice,’ that in accepting premiums the Commission had entered into a con tract, and that the terms of that con tract cannot be varied without the con sent of the other party—namely, the pro perty owners. Thus, unless the terms were explicit at the time when the pre miums were paid, they must be taken as being such as are usual in insurance policies/’

This is very interesting; and we believe it is a view which is held by many well informed people. Territories people who accept the view that the Commission must pay for consequential war damage, as implied in the contract they made in the beginning, and irrespective of how the Commission now may argue and niggle, are very carefully continuing the payment of their premiums. They intend to hold the Commission to the contract.

Here is another kind of letter. A woman now resident in New South Wales owns plantation property in a part of New Guinea that is entirely in Japanese occupation. She has-been asked to con tinue payment of her premiums. Here is part of her answer: — “I am unable to pay any premiums for war damage insurance. Seeing that the Japanese have taken the plantation and all the income therefrom, any payment from me can hardly be reasonably ex pected. Most of my private income has gone, also, as I had a good deal of money lent on plantations up there.

“Even if I paid any insurance, I have grave doubts about being reimbursed for loss in any way, as the conditions the Commission lay down are in my opinion quite impossible.

“The Government copra pool owes me money for copra taken before the Jap invasion, but I have had no word of this being paid.

“I filled in all the forms that were sent, but, as I am working very hard indeed, I find it difficult to get time to reply to all the many questions. Ordinary work ing people, such as most of us are these days, have not the time which a Gov ernment clerk has to devote to this kind of thing. Therefore, I must just let the estate take its chance.”

Then there is the remarkable case of a resident of Lae. He had only recently gone to live in Lae, and had brought his furniture and effects from Rabaul. He was in Lae when the Japs blitzed the place in January, 1942, and smashed it up~he was one of those who subsequently walked from Lae to Wau, and got aw*y south by plane. Therefore, he was in the unique position, not only of knowing

what damage had been done to his pro perty, but also of being able to support his claim for compensation payment with statutory declarations. The latter, made by himself and others, described the actual loss, and showed the approximate value of the property lost, as it was in his house in Lae, and as it. was when it was transported from Rabaul to Lae.

This probably is the only case yet on record of a claim being made, in com plete and proper order, for payment from the insurance formally effected with the War Damage Commission, The following is the reply of the War Damage Commission, dated November 11, 1942. Certain names and amounts, for obvious reasons, are omitted:— “With reference to your claim for £285 in respect of your property at Lae, New Guinea, I have to advise you that the Commission is satisfied that the evidence submitted by you indicates, on examination, support for the sum of £2OB, and that the damage was ‘war damage.’ This, in the opinion of the Commission, carries your claim as near to finality as can be reached at this juncture.

“Consideration of the remainder of your claim, representing an amount of £76, has been deferred, pending receipt of further evidence of destruction.

“The foregoing statements are made without prejudice to the right of the Commission to review, for the Commis sion is not disposed to formally admit liability, and assess and record your claim, until it is possible to inspect the damage and secure such further infor mation as may be procurable in the Territory. These further steps will be taken as soon as possible.

“As regards interest, which assessed and recorded compensation shall bear under National Security (War Dam age to Property) Regulations, the Commission intends that credit be allowed on a basis which will be equit able as between all claimants, when it is able to determine the amount finally to be assessed.

“(Signed) M. J. Cronin, “State Superintendent of Claims.”

There is the plainest possible proof—if proof is needed—that this War Damage Commission is a mere pretence. Its object is not to assist people who have been ruined by the war to plan rehabilitation, or to give reassurance, or to do anything at all to help the evacuees. Its purpose is to “stall”—to delay, and avoid accept ance of any kind of responsibility.

In this particular case, it could not deny the claim; so it found refuge in refusing finalisation until “it is possible to inspect the damage.” Heaven knows when that may be—the Japs still are in Lae. It will not even allow interest on the amount provisionally assessed. It dodges this responsibility by putting the matter off until “it is able to determine the amount finally to be assessed.”

There is nothing more foul in the appalling record of the Curtin Govern ment than this accumulating evidence of how the War Damage Commission is treating the people of New Guinea and Papua.