EQUIPMENT FOR TROOPS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25829, 27 April 1945, Page 9

EQUIPMENT FOR TROOPS

AUSTRALIAN CONTROVERSY BITTER DEBATE IN HOUSE CANBERRA, Apl. 25. Bitter exchanges occurred in the Federal House of Representatives during the debate on equipment for the Australian forces fighting in the Southwest Pacific Island campaigns. The Prime Minister, Mr J. Curtin, denied that there was any justification for the allegations that the Australian forces were inadequately equipped for these campaigns or for the allegations that the operations should not have been undertaken. Mr Curtin quoted from a report by the Acting Minister for the 'Army, Senator J. M. Fraser, which stated that such shortages of equipment as did exist (mainly of mechanical equipment at Aitape, New Guinea) were due to the world-wide shipping shortage. Opposition members strongly criticised the Minister's report, claiming that it ignored the testimony of frontline troops and experienced war correspondents. The Commander-in-Chief of the Australian forces, General Sir Thomas Blarney, was also severely criticised. The main conclusions drawn by Senator Fraser in bis report, written after a recent tour of the front-line areas, were first, there was no substance in the allegations that Australian equipment in operational areas was lacking in cither quality or quantity; secondly, the mechanical equipment was in accordance with the requirements of the present operations, though more heavy mechanical equipment was desirable, except in New Britain. where it would be impossible to use it; thirdly, all the major difficulties in the conduct of operations, the provision of supplies and reasonable amenities for the troops, could be attributed to the shortage, of shipping, which was a world-wide problem. Mr Curtin said the Australian Government accepted full responsibility for the operations in the islands to the north. Australia was following the American principle of clearing the Japanese from the islands to free the natives and obtain the use of the islands’ resources. Thus troops would be freed for other fighting. It had been intended to use Australian troops m the Philippines, but the plan was cancelled because of the unexpectedly swift success of the American campaign.

Challenging the Ministerial report and the Prime Minister's statement on the adequacy of the equipment, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr E. J. Harrison, said that in island fighting the Australians needed more bulldozers, earth scoops, amphibious jeeps, and amphibious tracked vehicles, particularly in Bougainville. The Australians were fighting a 1945 jungle war with 1915 equipment. He did not wish to criticise the com-mander-in-chief unduly, but he knew of no other country which would tolerate the commander-in-chief directing operations from the Flemington racecourse. Mr Harrison described Senator Fraser’s report as being “ a whitewashing statement by a Minister who, because of his lack of military experience, would ndt know what to look for, and if he saw it would not know what it was.”—(Government uproar.) The former Army Minister, Mr P. C. Spender, said some reform in General MacArthur’s directive of the Australian forces was overdue, since General MacArthur was now too far from Australia. Replying to the Government, statement that in five months of fighting in the Solomons, New Britain, and New Guinea the Australian casualties were 371 killed and 1394 wounded or missing, compared with 5549 Japanese killed and probably another 1009 killed, Opposition members pointed out that .90,000 Japanese had been isolated in these areas. At the present rate of progress it was going to require considerable time before all were exterminated. Mr C, L. Abbott (Country Party! declared that American troops who had quitted the areas taken over by t.he Australians pitied the Australian troops. The Americans, who had a surplus of equipment before their departure had removed the tyres and batteries from jeeps and then dumped the chassis into the sea. 1 Huge piles of stores were also burned.