Light On War Damage Claims

Commission at Last Acknowledges That Territories Need Special Consideration

BY degrees, and very slowly, a little daylight is drifting through the dark clouds which surround the whole question of payment of war dam age compensation to the residents of Papua and New Guinea.

The annual report of the War Damage Commission has just been issued. It deals with the period up to December 31, 1942. The following is copied verbatim from the section which deals with claims and definition of war damage. Attention is directed especially to the paragraph printed in black.

“(e) Compensation is limited to s.uch physical losses of or damage to property as fall within the definition of “war damage.”

“The definition of ‘war damage’ in the Australian Regulations is based on the corresponding definitions in the British legislation. One important addi tion was made, however, viz., the inclu sion of losses of property due to the application of the denial or scorched earth policy.

“Loss of or damage to property may arise in a variety of circumstances, but under the Regulations, war damage is limited to:— (1) Damage occurring as a direct result of action taken by the enemy or in the course of combat ing the enemy including damage resulting from measures taken under proper authority to mitigate the consequences of combat. (2) Damage occurring as a direct result of the application of denial or scorched earth policy. (3) Accidental damage, as a direct result of precautionary or prepara tory measures which involve a sub stantial degree of risk to property, and which have been taken under proper authority with a view to preventing or hindering an attack by the enemy or in anticipation of enemy action.

“So far as the Commission has been able to ascertain, this definition corres ponds very closely to the risks which are covered in all other countries which are operating a national scheme of war dam age cover. It includes all damage which is likely to arise directly from air raids, bombardments, invasions and similar operations. It relates to the physical destruction or damage to tangible pro perty and is not intended to embrace other consequential losses which may fol low but which do not immediately and directly arise from acts of war, such as loss of interest, loss of rent, disturbance of goodwill,, and so on.

“The Commission believes that these consequential losses are similar in char acter to those which arise from the many actions which the Government is forced to take in gearing the country’s life to the war effort, and it would clearly be impracticable to reach the stage where all sacrifices gave rise to a claim for compensation. For this reason it is con sidered that the limitation of war dam age to that which is direct and imme diate is the only workable method.

“In a slightly different category are losses which may be suffered in evacuated areas due to unauthorised use; deteriora tion as a result of unoccupancy; ordinary fire or flood hazards; and similar causes.

These are obviously not war damage in

the sense provided for under the Regula tions; but, in the Commission’s view, will need to be specially considered by the Government when the rehabilitation of the evacuated areas becomes possible.

“As distinct from losses which are inferentially excluded from the Regula tions, the term, “war damage,” specific ally excludes: — (i) Losses occurring as a result of the imposition of blackout or brownout conditions in accordance with the requirements of civil defence autho rities ; (ii) Losses occurring as a result of measures taken for training pur poses.

“(f) Compensation, as a rule, will be paid after the war. The Commission, however, has the discretion to make immediate payments of compensation where is it considered advisable to do so for the efficient prosecution of the war or in cases of distress.”

It will be remembered that, early in 1942, when the evacuees were settling down in temporary homes in Australia, and consoling themselves with the thought that they might have a chance to rehabilitate themselves in the Terri tories with compensation for war dam age, they were coldly informed by the Commission that the definition of war damage did not cover damage caused by looting, lack of care, deterioration or any other condition due to compulsory eva cuation —it covered only direct war dam age, and not indirect or consequential damage.

From that time on. the Pacific Terri tories Association, the big companies, various individuals, and this newspaper pressed ceaselessly upon the Common wealth Government the argument that

the Territories people were being harshly and brutally treated. But Ministers and officials, including the War Damage Com mission and all other bureaucrats, ignored every plea and argument. From the security and comfort of their substantial salaries and their padded chairs, they either ignored the Territorians’ argu ments, or passed the buck to some other official or department.

Not until now has it been possible to get any statement or promise from any Minister or official. This passage in the Commission’s report is the first indica tion that the ceaseless agitation of the Association and the Territorians gener ally has had any effect.

Bureaucratic Terminology

WE referred, in last issue, to the case of Mr. H. W. Quinton, a Lae resi dent who left Lae after Lae had been obliterated by Jap bombs. Thus, he was able to supply the War Damage Commission with all the data (affidavits, declarations, certificates and what not) necessary for the support of a claim under war damage insurance. Being driven into a corner, the Commission simply refused to finalise the claim, on the ground that no claim could be accepted and paid until the Commission’s representative had had an opportunity of inspecting the scene of the loss. Why, no man knows.

It was such obvious prevarication that the matter was brought up in the Com monwealth Parliament by Mr. H. L.

Anthony, of Queensland.

But it sufficed nothing. In two letters Treasurer Chifiey informed Mr. Anthony that everything that can be done had been done by the Commission.

Both long letters are a wearisome and semi-meaningless tangle of words. They say that Mr. Quinton cannot have his money; but, although we have studied them for 30 minutes—ten times longer than the subject deserves—we still do not know why Mr. Quinton cannot have his money.