Damage Fund

£14,000,000 In War

Minister Makes a Statement

(From Our Special Representative)

Canberra, Oct. 12.

UESTIONS have been asked in Par liament concerning the intentions of the Government in regard to war damage insurance. It has been suggested that, now that the danger of invasion has passed, the amount of premium should be greatly modified, if it is con sidered necessary to continue compulsory contributions at all in view of the altered circumstances.

The Government is now considering a report on the subject from the War Dam age Commission.

In an interview to-day, the chairman • Mr. A. W. Coles) stated that insurance premiums now paid totalled £14,000,000.

The position had improved greatly: it was not probable that anything like the call originally thought possible would now be made upon the fund.

“Whilst we have made certain advances in necessitous cases,” said Mr. Coles, “it will not be until the position is safe that claims in general will be met for not till then will it be possible to assess the damage fully.

“Most of the damage in Australia has been in Darwin, and a number of claims have also been received from other places in the North.

“The greatest call on the fund how ever, is from former residents of Papua and the New Guinea Mandated Terri tory. In the general evacuation, many people suffered heavy losses. When the war ends they may decide to go back, or they may elect to remain here. In any event, they will all be dealt with equit ably.

“Until the Japanese are driven com pletely out of the Islands it is not pos sible to say what damage has been done, or to attempt to assess the losses in indi vidual cases. But we have district com mittees already at work, and they are endeavouring to collect all available information for the establishing and recording of values, so that no delay may occur when rehabilitation is per mitted by the Government.”

EDITORIAL NOTE: The Minister gives Territorians neither news nor reassur ance. What they want to know is this: Provided there is to be sufficient money in the fund to permit real rehabilitation (which now seems likely) will Mr. Coles and his colleagues alter the definition of “war damage,” so that hundreds of Ter ritories residents, whose property has disappeared or deteriorated by looting, neglect or Army operations since their compulsory evacuation, may receive com pensation? At present, that kind of damage is called “indirect damage,” and is not subject to war damage insurance.

The only people who now can expect compensation are the lucky ones whose pronerty has been destroyed by bombs, shells or “scorched earth.” That is “direct” damage. The distinction is far cical—but it is still the law.