Back to 1950 index or Main Index

Makan - No. 48
1st  November, 1950 

Official Organ of 2/30th. Bn. A.I.F. Assn,
13 Albany Street, ST. LEONARD'S

Patron: Brig. F.G. Galleghan, D.S.O., O.B.E., E.D.
President: J.H. Cooper, Esq.
Hon. Secretary: S.F. Arneil, Esq.
Hon. Treasurer: R.E. Ellis, Esq.

Dear Dig,

Your feelings on the 12th October were probably too deep for mere words. The decision of the tribunal appointed to investigate the 3/- per day claim, recommending that our claim be disallowed, was the culmination of a chain of shrewd political events in which ex-P.O.W. and their dependents, and worse, the next of kin of deceased ex-P.O.W., were used to catch votes in the last election.

The tongue-in-cheek oratory of typical politics, which speaks at great length without incurring responsibility but which allows half veiled inferences to be drawn from statements made, reached a very low level in this instance. Although justice was expected from the finding of the Tribunal, it was apparent to most of us that the appointment of the Tribunal in the first place was the usual example of political buck passing. However, it should be borne in mind that the decision of the Tribunal is in no way binding upon Parliament and does not prevent the payment being made.

It is apparent now that both Government and Opposition in the Federal House are lacking in sympathy to a claim which has the support of most ex-Servicemen’s Associations in Australia. Do you remember, before we left Australia, how we were paid a subsistence allowance every time we went on leave? Well, that is all we ask, the same rights which every other soldier in Australia enjoyed.

The terms of reference of the Tribunal were as follows:-

  1. Did enemy Powers impose undue hardship on prisoners by failure to fulfil their obligations under the Geneva Convention.

The three members of the Committee considered that both Germany and Japan imposed undue hardship by failure to carry out the Convention.

  1. Does any moral responsibility rest on the Commonwealth to make monetary payment to servicemen who suffered such hardship.

Mr Justice Owen and General Savige thought that there was no such moral obligation and, therefore did not recommend payment. Dr Fisher recommended a tax free payment of 3/- per day, out of reparations, to ex-P.O.W. and their dependents.

Among many of the points arising from the decision was one which inferred that, if the payment were made, it would induce soldiers in future wars to needlessly become P.O.W. in order to claim the pay and allowance. It is hard to understand how a responsible person could speak such utter drivel, but it is a good pointer to the type of administrative genius which allowed us to remain hungry after the war had ended.

The bold facts are that the Australian Government saved great sums of money by not feeding and clothing us whilst we were P.O.W., under Army orders. It now considers that we are not entitled to be recompensed for this lack of food because we were fed by the Japanese Government.

Apparently the Japanese issue and the Australian Army issue of food are equal to one another. If this is so, could anyone supply us with accurate statistics as to the number of Australian soldiers who died from starvation whilst wearing the seats of their trousers out and eating their heads off at important base camps in Australia. It is an unjust decision, one which all fighting soldiers and men of fair mind will deplore. It is a bitter pill to swallow and one which most of us will not forget in a hurry.

The position at the moment is that the 8th Division Council has written to all  members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, outlining the details of the 27 page report which the Tribunal made. Stress has been made upon the fact that America has paid such an allowance to her ex-P.O.W. and that such payment could be made from monies owned by Japan but held by Australia under an Act of Parliament. The Council has stressed the fact that the proposed grant of 250,000 would find its way into the hands of a few as against all ex-P.O.W., and that, five years after war, it would be difficult to assess the merits of individual claims made upon the Fund. The Council stresses the fact that a non-party debate on the claim would be advisable.

In the meantime, there is some misunderstanding about individual claims upon the proposed Fund. So far, we have been unable to find out definite information about this matter, but we will inform you of details as they come to hand.

However, before we try to eliminate the horrible taste from our mouths, let us remember that at least we owe a great deal to Dr. Fisher for his efforts on our behalf in this matter. We also thank every person concerned who helped in the presentation of the case. It was a good fight, but apparently the dice was loaded.

The above statement on the very contentious matter made with the full concurrence of the Executive of the Association.

Now, gentlemen, for some news of the Annual  Reunion. It will take place at the usual place, Sargents, Market Street, at 7.30 p.m. on Friday, the 17th November. Try to be early as we have to vacate the premises at 11.30 p.m. This year you will be surprised to find that the admission charge will be increased to 13/- per head. Perhaps you have been more surprised that it has not been increased in the last year or two. The increase was decided upon unanimously by the Executive and the Committee after a full discussion on the matter. When we first held our Reunion at Sargents, we paid 10 or 15 for the hire of the hall, about 3/6 for the catering plus the cost of the beer. This year, our costs have increased to 20 for rent, 5/6 for catering costs (you can work out for yourself how we are stung on the catering) sixpence per head for a “cover charge” plus the cost of the beer. Our attendance will be about 150 bodies so we will still incur a small loss on the night even after charging 13/- per head. The obvious question you will ask, after reading those figures, is “why don’t we hold our Reunion at a cheaper hall?” We reply to that, that most halls and restaurants will not supply the nut brown and how many do you think would attend a dry Reunion.

The Reunion this year will be probably our biggest yet, with many new faces in evidence. You are advised to come early and come into the hall as soon as you arrive rather than wait around on the footpath, there will be no grog served on the footpath. There will be 100 gallons of the good stuff for those who like the taste of it. One hundred gallons of the nut brown is quite a large quantity and it takes a long time to serve. You will realise, of course, that as soon as it is served the waitresses can go home and if it could be arranged then they would serve it all within a couple of hours without regard to the pace the lads can consume. In such a case, half the stuff goes flat and is unpalatable. Consequently, we will follow our usual policy and have a short breathing space between each keg to ensure that we are not losing a couple of gallons of flat beer each time. We are sure that you will agree with this policy.

Speeches, of course, will be cut to the bone and are more in the nature of the usual toasts. After these few have been completed you are all invited to put your heads down and talk yourselves hoarse as you always do. It should be a grand roll up of good fellows and for all those who turn up it will be a night to remember for some time.

You must remember, rather sadly, that perhaps some of our chaps may not be able to come along because of their increasing infirmity owing to their great age, for example, take the case of our respected Treasurer, Reg. Ellis, who has lately become a grandfather for the second time. Yes sir, we congratulate Jackie Boss and his wife (Reg’s daughter, Cecilie) on the birth of their second daughter.

Please send all cheques, money orders or postal notes to Reg. Ellis at No. 13 Albany Street, St. Leonard's.

See you on the 17th.

STAN ARNEIL.

 Back to 1950 index or Main Index