Mr. Alderman, Kc

Memories of Territorians' Claims Against the Australian Army, 1942-3

rOSE residents of New Guinea and Papua who were “evacuees” in Aus tralia in 1942 and 1943, and who were trying desperately to get some kind of compensation from the Australian Army, will have vivid memories of a gentleman called Alderman.

Before the regular Australian troops arrived from the Middle East, the Aus tralian Armv authorities sent all sorts of ragtag and bobtail to Papua, and these units, in addition to taking and using for Army purposes anything which they though might be useful, did a very thor ough job of plain looting and wanton -destruction.

The unfortunate owners lodged claims for compensation; and the Army ap pointed this Adelaide lawyer, Mr. Aider man, to visit the affected areas and settle the claims. When it came to arguing about the value of services or property, Mr. Aldreman entered into his work with enthusiasm, and many of the wretched “evacuees” had to admit themselves completely brow-beaten. We know of cases where they were driven by Alder-, man into accepting settlements which crippled them financially. Some evacuees came out of the war more or less ruined; but Alderman was richly rewarded.

The following is an extract from a newspaper report of a debate in Canberra in mid-October:— MR. LANG referred to what he called the “Alderman affair.” He said Mr. Alderman was an Adelaide lawyer specialising in political lobbying and was “a very slick operator.”

During 1942-43 Mr. Alderman attached himself to the then Minister for the Army, Mr. Forde, and put in a lot of time around Darwin (and Port Moresby). As a result he presented the Government with a bill of costs for £6,450.

He charged for 93 days in operational and bombed areas at 20 guineas a day, for 259 days spent in Sydney and Mel bourne at 15 guineas a day and, in addi tion, he charged travelling expenses for the 352 days at 30/- a day.

Eventually he agreed to settle his claim for £6,000.

It was not surprising, therefore, to find Mr. Alderman interesting himself in land sales control.

Mr. Alderman was a professional man and, he understood, was associated with business. He had come to Canberra on behalf of a certain airline company—it was not TAA.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) said when he engaged a KC he was never too happy about his accounts they all looked very big to him. He was given to understand that Mr. Alderman was a KC in Adelaide.

Mr. Alderman had dealt with the posi

tion in New Guinea and had done a splendid job. He had never heard any charge against Mr. Alaerman of being a “crook lawyer.” If that charge was made the Law Institute would, no doubt, have something to say.