"Chiselling" War Damage Claims

Little Help Given Papuan Residents

THE three-cornered fight for compen sation for damage suffered as the result of war conditions in Papua is still going on—and is no nearer settle ment.

The people who were evacuated from Papua are looking to the Australian War Damage Commission for compensation for homes, plantations, stores, mines, etc., which have been destroyed or have deteriorated owing to war conditions.

The Commission stubbornly refuses to acknowledge any liability for damage, except damage caused directly by battle operations.

The residents and ex-residents also are demanding from the Army compensation for property seized and either used or consumed; and the Army, on its part, is either refusing to acknowledge any obligation or, where obligation has been established, is invoking all the methods of red tape to delay payment as long as possible. It is now well over a year since civilians were evacuated, and their pro perty taken; but very few of them have received any payments for their property.

There were so many of these claims for compensation that the Common wealth Government appointed an Ade laide lawyer, Mr. Harry Alderman, to investigate and report upon them; and Mr. Alderman has spent many, many months upon this task, in Darwin and Port Moresby.

Territories people who were complain ing of Government indifference to their troubles were informed of Mr. Alderman’s appointment, and assured that every thing now would be all right; Mr.

Alderman would see that justice was done.

To show what can be expected from Mr. Alderman, we take the liberty of printing hereunder a private letter, writ ten in February by Mr. Alderman to a friend, in which he refers to claims for rental, etc., made by a Port Moresby man:— “I had a look at ’s premises, which are in very excellent condition, as one would expect from the fact that they are occupied by the Navy.

“It is my intention to recommend to the Government that, in an evacuated area, no rental should be paid. If the Defence Forces did not occupy the pre mises. the owner could not let them to anyone else in an evacuated area. They would, therefore, deteriorate rapidly. It it an advantage, so it seems to me, to have the premises used.

“If the Government accepts my recom mendation—and I think it should —it will certainly give an undertaking that any damage done to the premises will be repaired when evacuation ceases. In

these circumstances, I think an owner definitely gains.

“It is my present intention to buy all the furniture in ’s house, in common with that of every other house in Moresby. We shall not purchase per sonal belongings and things which the Defence Forces would not be likely to use.

“I hold the view that all furniture depreciated substantially as soon as the first bomb dropped. I am afraid that I cannot compensate for that loss. I had a local committee assessing the value from the date when the Defence Forces took possession of it.”

It is clear from this letter that Mr.

Alderman has been given—or has assumed —surprising powers. He, appar ently, is to decide what compensation the unfortunate residents of Port Moresby shall, or shall not, receive. He believes that furniture depreciated when the first bomb dropped; and he is afraid he can not compensate for that loss!

It is most interesting to observe the way in which this fumbling Curtin Gov ernment has shifted its responsibilities onto an unknown Adelaide lawyer, and has left the fortunes of the unlucky Papuan property-owners to his personal whim.

We have been told of many incidents, in which the property of Port Moresby residents has been ruthlessly seized and, in some cases, wantonly destroyed, and all liability for the damage denied. If Mr. Alderman would like details, he may get them from the Pacific Territories Association.

Here is just one, to hand in to-day’s mail. A well-known Port Moresby resi dent received a private letter from a friend in Port, who described the way in which the military first took possession of his house and then, for some reason, destroyed the house and all its contents.

The Port Moresby resident says:— “I have now received a small parcel of old cheque butts, photographs, and Lodge books. They were rescued by another friend of mine before the house was pulled down, but after the looters had been through. I had locked all these things in an iron box before I was eva cuated from Port, using a heavy pad lock. The thing speaks for itself. One would have thought that, even if they had to destroy the house and heavy fur niture, they would have tried to save my personal effects. That little parcel repre sents all I have left of my house and home.”

But Mr. Harry Alderman, no doubt, would argue that the Army is not liable for the payment of any compensation here, and that “the owner definitely gains.”

High Court Promises Relief And Justice

TERRITORIANS, however, may take comfort from the High Court judg ment in the Apple and Pear Board case, to which reference was made on page 10 of the March “PIM.”

The Court made it clear that, no mat ter what award may be made as com pensation for property taken by any of the various bodies set up under Com monwealth authority, the property-owner unquestionably has the right to appeal to the High Court; and the High Court, irrespective of any arbitrary valuation fixed by any petty body or official, will grant to the property-owner the fair value of the property taken.

The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt)

made a statement in Parliament on March 18. He said that the High Court judgment awaited clarification in certain directions, but he summed up the posi tion thus: — (1) Under the Constitution no property of a citizen can be acquired or requisi tioned except on just terms. (2) The citizen is not necessarily bound by any department or Governmental assessment of compensation. The citi zen has the general right of testing such assessments in the Court. (3) No general rule can be laid down as to the precise measure of compensa tion in each case. Each scheme or each acquisition must be governed by its own

peculiar circumstances. (4) Perhaps the best working rule to be adopted both by departments and by growers or owners is to obtain agreement (in advance if possible) as to compensa tion payable.

As the High Court decision was pri marily concerned with the acquisition of farm products by the Commonwealth Government, the Minister was questioned about its application to other forms of property compulsorily acquired. Would the principle be applicable in the case of leasehold land which was not taken over for the whole term of the lease, but for a period only? asked Mr. Spender.

The Minister: The same general prin ciples apply in the case of fixed property.

THIS appears to give the owners of Territories property an avenue of escape from any unjust decisions by a bureaucrat like Mr. Harry Alderman.

All sorts and conditions of property have been taken over in Papua by the fighting services. Mr. Alderman thinks that, in an evacuated area, no rentals should be paid by the services and that “the value of furniture depreciated sub stantially as soon as the first bomb dropped.”

Fortunately, plain citizens still retain some status under the Commonwealth Constitution, and the High Court is determined that, even under the exigen cies of war, they shall not be deprived of their fundamental rights.

Territorians should keep in close touch with the Pacific Territories Association in relation to all matters connected with compensation for property taken. The Association probably will be prepared to take claims to the High Court, if necessary.