Looting Is War Damage!

PTA Has Some Measure of Success After 2½ Years of Hard Work

AFTER over 2i years of continuous and unrewarded effort on behalf of evacuees from the New Guinea ter ritories, the Pacific Territories Associa tion achieved a large measure of success in a single announcement by the Com monwealth Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) on November 2, relating to “consequentml” war damage.

Here is Mr. Chifley’s statement in full: The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) announced to day (Nov. 2) that war damage contributions will not be required from property owners after the end of this year. As from Ist January, 1945, the present fund will be used to meet any damage which may subsequently occur, as well as the losses for which owners were insured during 1944, or earlier years.

Mr. Chifley also announced that the Govern ment had approved an extension of the com pensation benefits to those who have suffered damage to their property in evacuated areas such as New Guinea, Papua, and Darwin.

Hitherto, compensation has been payable where property has been damaged by direct enemy action or by our own Forces in combat with the enemy, or in carrying out a “scorched earlh” plan. Payments have also been made where property has been taken over by Allied or Australian Services to meet Service require ments.

There are other forms of loss such as loss by fire, neglect, theft, etc., for which the owners have not been covered, but the Government will now treat losses of this character in the same category as war damage for which provision is already made under the National Security Regulations.

Mr. Chifley said that administration of these extended benefits would rest with the War Damage Commission, but it will not be necessary for owners to lodge claims with the Commission in those cases where particulars have already been supplied for war damage purposes.

He made it clear that the compensation will relate to physical loss or damage to property only, and account will be taken of amounts which owners may be entitled to recover from other sources.

This apparently means that the owner of property which has been damaged or deteriorated, or stolen, as the result of his compulsory removal from the Terri tories now will be able to claim compen sation. As long ago as March, 1942, the “PIM” argued that the man whose plan tation, or house, or water-race, had deteriorated owing to his compulsory absence, was as much entitled to war damage as the man whose house had been bombed; but the argument was flatly rejected by the Australian authori ties. Thenceforward, the fight was on.

The PTA was formed shortly afterwards.

FULL credit for the abandonment of the seemingly ironclad rule that loot ing and other “indirect” war dam age did not come within the scope of war dahiage regulations, must go to the PTA. and more particularly to its executive, for its tenacity of purpose, patience and un tiring endeavour in the face of the brick wall of official indifference ever since evacuees were compulsorily landed on Australian soil. The cases of Territorians whose property had been removed piece meal by the armed forces in the New Guinea area are legion, and need not be repeated here; yet, because they were unfortunate enough not to have had their belongings bombed off the face of the earth by enemy action, or scorched off by our own retreating troops, they stood to lose all. This anomalous position will now be rectified, and, at the same time, the long fight of the PTA justified.

Had this process of whittling at the

official brick-wall not gone on, there is little doubt that Territorians would have been allowed to take it in the neck, while the large surplus in the War Damage Commission coffers (something like £14,000,000), would have been either lost down the Canberra financial drain-pipe or been applied to some pet scheme of Australian officialdom.

In true political style, Mr. Chifley allows the Australian public to assume that he thought of this benevolent scheme all by himself: but Territorians can bear with that, and his gross understatement that “payments have been made where property has been taken over by Allied or Australian forces” in the knowledge that about 50 per cent, of their grievances have now apparently been rectified.

Mr. E. A. James, president of the Paci fic Territories Association, interviewed in Sydney after the Treasurer’s announce ment, said that in view of the fact that many of the matters which they intended to take up with the Prime Minister (Mr.

Curtin) come within the new scope of war damage, and also because of Mr. Cur tin’s illness, no PTA delegate will go to Canberra for the present. (It was decided at the last PTA meeting, that a dele gate should go to Canberra to lay Terri torians’ grievances before the Prime Minister in person.) Mr. R. A. Battersby, an officer of the War Damage Commission in Sydney, said that it will be some little time before fresh regulations can be gazetted and the necessary machinery established for handling indirect losses. He said that the matter was well in hand, however, and that claimants should defer writing to the Commission until further informa tion is made available —probably in the form of further press announcements.

The Commission has also informed the PTA that owners of property in the Ter ritories will not need to lodge fresh claims in cases where claims have already been made for war damage purposes.