ANSWCU 10 : 19 APRIL 1990: INTERVIEWER RICHARD RAXWORTHY: TALKING WITH GEORGE McCREADY WHO FOR MANY YEARS WAS A FOUNDATION DIRECTOR OF THE MACQUARIE CREDIT UNION AND WAS INVOLVED WITH THE ASSOCIATION AS DIRECTOR OF THE LEAGUE.
I will ask, Mr McCready, where were you born and when.
GM: Well I was born in Sydney in 1935.
What part of Sydney?
GM: Well at the time my parents were living at Revesby, a western suburb of Sydney. I was born actually in Paddington Women’s Hospital, if I remember correctly.
Obviously you don’t remember it. Did you grow up in Revesby?
GM: I grew up in Sydney. Actually, I didn’t leave Sydney until about 1956, I think it was, when I left Sydney with my employer of the time. I grew up around Sydney, most of the suburbs and that is where I had most of my activities at that time.
What do you remember about growing up around there?
GM: Well, probably in respect of today, the completely different social climate, I think that is probably the easiest way. As a young fellow I used to ride my bike all over Sydney, which today is the sort of thing you don’t do. I was living in the western suburbs, out in the Revesby area, and one thing I do remember was I used to ride my bike all the way to Leichhardt to train for what was in Leichhardt then the soccer club. That is quite a distance and I don’t think there were many kids around the place doing those sorts of things. Another time I remember that we used to go out as young fellows and walking home from Central Railway Station and was getting a lift from these milk trucks all the way back out to Bankstown area. Once again that is the sort of thing you don’t do nowadays. Things have changed quite dramatically to what we were used to in those days.
What did your father do for a living?
GM: Well my father was originally a farmer just on the edges of Sydney. He had a large poultry farm. When the War started he became trained in the electrical field also and became an electrical tradesman and finally was employed after the War with Sydney County Council.
Where did you go to school?
GM: I went to school originally in Bankstown and then went on to Belmore and Sydney Technical College, which was then, they don’t have the same type of things, but they were trade-orientated colleges in those days, as Sydney Technical College is now, the same type of thing. Mainly trade-orientated it was.
What sort of influence do you think you got from your father?
GM: Well, generally from the point of view that my father, I didn’t pick up his farming qualities that’s for sure, but I think the fact that he was involved with his hands and as a young fellow, whilst still at school, used to go with him at times on various jobs after the War, when he was with what is the old Bankstown Municipal Council. I suppose in some respects it must have rubbed off and I know the engineer at that time, who was a great friend of my father’s, also influenced me to ‘get a trade’, which was the catch-cry in those days, which is exactly what I did. So the engineer at that time more-or-less indicated to get a trade and then decide what you are going to do afterwards and I think that is generally what I have done.
Once you have done it, you are stuck aren’t you?
GM: Well no, because I have moved away from the trade.
What was your trade?
GM: Electrical trade. I started off as a electrical fitter apprentice with Sydney County Council. Then when the Commission first came into being I was transferred across to them and worked my way through the various technical fields to higher levels. Finally, when I came out here to Dubbo I became, through the credit union mainly, interested in administration and carried on some studies in those areas and more-or-less followed through from them.
There was one thing I didn’t ask you in the first instance, do you think you got any particular influence from your mother?
GM: Well that is difficult to say. Probably I think I follow more in her footsteps with regards being a little bit conservative. My father was more outgoing, particularly in the sporting area, which I follow along with. I think I was influenced by mother as to being conservative and not rushing into things too quickly.
Was there any religious influence in your life at all?
GM: No, I couldn’t say that.
Political, from your parents, at all?
GM: No.
Nothing to do with that sort of thing?
GM: No, I think they more-or-less influenced my sister and I to be independent and to think and evaluate things and make our own decisions, rather than be coerced into what they thought.
Where was your first job?
GM: My first job, as I said, was an apprentice with Sydney County Council.
From there, when you finished your apprenticeship?
GM: Well, I finished with the Electricity Commission and I obtained promotions in the various technical areas with the Electricity Commission and went to the country area in the Technical Services Area. I went on the Snowy Mountains Council on loan from the Commission to operate the first of the hydro-power stations, the underground power stations in the Snowy Scheme and also to control the water diversion from Adaminaby Dam and the others. So I was one of the first lot up there doing that, there were eight of us at the time.
I was up there ahead of you.
GM: Were you? That was with the Snowy Mountains Council. It was quite an experience up there. From there I obtained a position with Macquarie County Council, as it was known at that time, and I am still here now.
When you were living in Sydney, did you live at home all the time?
GM: Yes, the only time I left home was when I first moved to the country and I lived by myself prior to getting married.
When did you get married?
GM: I got married in 1958, I was living in Cootamundra at that time and with the Commission.
So what led you to credit unions, where did you hear about one?
GM: Well my first experience with credit unions was not long after I came to Macquarie in 1962, actually it was Christmas 1961. I was here for a few years and all of a sudden a gentleman by the name of Stan Arneil appeared in the area at the invitation of Brian Wiley, who was an employee of the Council at that time. Brian, I think, had met him somewhere or other, I am not quite sure how. Anyway he was invited to talk about credit unions and this particular day I was asked if it was possible that I could come to this meeting. I said I was a bit busy, I was studying at the time, and he said, ‘Look they want to make up the numbers, can you come along?’ Anyhow Stan Arneil was talking there and he said, ‘We are forming a credit union today.’ So after a short time there was enough there to form a credit union and that is how actually I became involved in credit unions. I didn’t have much of an introduction, just ‘This is what it is about and we need numbers to get this one off the ground,’ and that is basically how it started.
Do you remember that day, do you remember Stan Arneil? What sort of talk did he give?
GM: Well Stan was a very, how shall I put it, person you could not fail to take notice of. He was enthusiastic. He seemed to believe very strongly in what he was saying at that time and I found out later he did believe very strongly in what he was talking about. He had the conviction that it was for the good of people. I suppose probably at that early time I wasn’t so much convinced. I don’t normally make decisions in a hurry but he did impress me at the time and even though I wasn’t totally convinced what it was all about, I must have been suitably impressed enough to go along with it, which I did. It got me in at the time. It was a struggle in the beginning. In fact we often wondered where the money was going to come from to be able to lend to people, to our own members, because there seemed to be more applications for money than there was money coming in. As I say, those particular first six months in those early days were quite a struggle. The other thing that impressed me at that time, and which I suppose had a very strong influence on me at a later time, was all of a sudden I became more aware of the responsibilities of a Director with the amounts of money that we were handling. We were a voluntary group, the Treasurer was voluntary, everyone was a voluntary person, the theory of it is quite a soundly based proposal.. My concern with it was that we were volunteers, there didn’t appear to be sufficient movement towards ensuring that people were more aware of how to handle money properly. This is the Directors, not necessarily the people who were going to borrow and save. I became rather concerned and I think that is one of the major reasons I became more and more involved with the credit union. I wanted to know more, find out more and I wanted to make sure that whatever I was doing was done right. I think they were some of the most strongest things. Stan Arneil came out at different times and from the philosophy side of things enthused people and got them going. But my major concerns were, and still is in general terms, to ensure that it was run properly and everything was accounted for.
You were one of the Foundation Directors?
GM: Yes, I was one of the Foundation Directors at that time.
Who invited you to stand?
GM: Well it was a matter that they were running short of numbers. There were twelve or thirteen at the meeting and they wanted either ten or twelve Directors plus a Secretary and a Treasurer. There were sufficient numbers and I was more or less asked would I accept nomination and we were formed on that particular day. It wasn’t a matter of calling nominations it was a matter of people who were there being asked would they accept a position.
Of the people that were there, did they know anything about credit unions?
GM: I would say no. I would say perhaps Brian Wiley may have, he had heard about it. I would say the rest of us wouldn’t have heard a thing about it.
You didn’t hear anything about it in your Revesby period?
GM: No, I was only a child in those days.
Where did you live in that area?
GM: Bankstown. We left Revesby then moved out to Milperra and then back into Bankstown. I would have left Revesby when I was about ten or eleven years old. Then moved back into Bankstown during …
Was that during the War or after?
GM: It was during the War.
Right, well that was before credit unions in Australia were generally known. You attended that meeting, the inaugural meeting, then Directors’ meetings, how often did they have them, do you remember? Where did you have them?
GM: Oh we held them at work.
What building?
GM: When I say the old County Council building, the previous County Council building to this new one we are in now, in Macquarie Street. We met pretty regularly at that time because we were all trying to work out what it was all about. I’m just trying to remember what time of the year it was, I think it was the first part of the year because I remember Brian Wiley and myself then attended our first meeting of the League in Sydney at Canterbury Municipal Council Building actually. That was the first experience we had with the League.
What happened there on that day, can you remember?
GM: At the League? Well if I remember correctly, I know I was sitting next to Wetherby, I am just trying to think of his first name, Brian Wetherby. He was from Repat and I sat beside him. If I remember correctly at that meeting the major thing was, and I think it was Stan Arneil, Beresford Calverley was involved with it, they put through a motion, if I remember correctly, to elect to the League Board Country Directors. In other words Directors directly representing the country, elected by country people.
So when was that do you think?
GM: That would have been about 1963, 1964.
But you hadn’t started your credit union by that time, had you? You started in 1964 didn’t you.
GM: 1964. It was the same year we formed we went to Annual General Meeting. I think it that rule went through and I think the following year I was elected to the League Board.
That was very quick wasn’t it.
GM: Yes, it was very quick.
How did that happen do you think? Were they short on numbers again were they?
GM: No, I don’t think so. If I remember rightly at that time there were two from the country areas. A chap from, I will think of his name in a moment, I think it was the Tamworth area.
Bert Beaufoy?
GM: Yes, Bert. I think he and I were the first two elected as Country Directors.
Maybe you were. I am just looking up the Directors when he started. I don’t know whether he was the first. He was fairly early and he was back again later, wasn’t he?
GM: Yes, I think we went in as the first country elected Directors to the League.
I have Bert here as 1972 to 1978.
GM: What year did I come on then?
1965 you were elected, you were very early.
GM: Then Bert must of come on later. I am just trying to think who was the first one.
1966 to 1972.
GM: Did I go on by myself, I am not sure now.
Pat Eagen was on round about that time.
GM: When did Pat come on?
Pat Eagen came on in 1970 to 1974.
GM: Yes, he was after me.
Yes, you are the first country one I think.
GM: Oh, well, I might have been the first one that came on then.
You are 1966. There is certainly no-one else. There is Ray Cooper, he wasn’t country. Neither were any of the others, I don’t think.
GM: Well perhaps they extended it to two later on. I’m afraid my memory is a bit hazy on that.
Bert was on at the same time you were, but right up at the other end of your career on the Board. Because when you went off in 1972, he came on in 1972. So he must have replaced you. Peter Gadd was on, I don’t know when he was on, but it may be after that. Pat Eagen he went on, as I said, part of the way through your period, so maybe he was the second one to be a Country Director, 1970 he went on. Of course later on you got the Wollongong and Newcastle people. Peter Gadd was 1977 before he went on. I can’t see any country ones there.
GM: Well it looks like I must have been on by myself. I am just a bit hazy, but I am pretty sure I wasn’t the only nominee, but I wouldn’t be sure on that.
So who persuaded you to stand?
GM: I don’t know any particular ones. I know Stan Arneil at that time encouraged me. I remember Beresford Calverley.
What about Ken Miller?
GM: Ken, I am not sure about that stage. I got to know Ken a lot better after we went on the Board. I know Ken was rather active. I think he was associated with the Transport Credit Union, is that right. The Transport Credit Union. I met a number of people at that time and I think Ken was also one of them at the time.
His credit union started ten years before yours.
GM: Yes, I know I used to get a lot of information off Ken at the time to give us information as to what was going on.
So where did you get your training, credit union training?
GM: Well this first Newport School, the one that you have indicated here. I think that is the first one I went to. I took the opportunity of going to as many as I could after that. As I have indicated before, I became rather concerned about the running of it and it really was the insight that started me on the business of administration, an interest in it, particularly in accounts, finance, accounting this type of thing. I had never had any formal interest in it before. It was the credit union itself that impressed on me the knowledge that you had to know something about it to be as effective as a Director as you should be. I am not sure if it was that Newport School or the one after that, no it was one at Leura, where they ran one which spoke a lot about loss prevention. I don’t know that there was much embezzlement in the early days, but I know there was a lot in America and it was more of less indicated to us that it can happen to us. Those sorts of things influenced me. If I am going to be involved with it I want to know what is going on and I want to be as effective as I can. I suppose that is what happened.
It must have been quite a problem to you to go down there to a School and attend your Board meetings and such like as well?
GM: That’s right. It was very time consuming. I don’t think a lot of people appreciate that. I don’t know what they do nowadays, but I don’t think a lot of people appreciate how much time was taken up. Particularly country people as Directors of credit unions, the time they had to put in. Even going backwards and forwards to Sydney, I know at the time I used to take time off work to do it, to get backwards and forwards. The Council was pretty lenient, they didn’t quite extend it that far but they were encouraging as far as the operation of the credit union was concerned. As I say, I was only one of many and we spent a lot of time encouraging other credit unions to form around here.
Did you have a Chapter around here?
GM: We did form into one but at that time we were the first one that started. The Dubbo Municipal Council one got off the ground just after it. I was not involved in getting that one started. The Postal Credit Union started not long after and I was involved in assisting in that one. I helped form another Postal Credit Union at Parkes and also the Central West which is the County Council credit union over there. Not long after I was involved in founding the community one here, which is now called the Orana Credit Union, I was Foundation Chairman and Director of that one as well.
Was there any discussion as to whether you should become a community one as well, here at Macquarie?
GM: Yes, in early days it was suggested that the Macquarie one become a community credit union.
But that was not agreed?
GM: No. We looked at the Common Bond aspect of things and perhaps we were more influenced by the concept of the Common Bond with regards to what we were then, that was a County Council credit union. I know there was opposition to going community-wide because we felt the Bond wasn’t there with regards to what we were existing even thought it was suggested to us that perhaps we should be the beginning of what could be a community one. But we had extended our Bond with the Macquarie one to incorporate some of the other Councils which made up the constituent councils to County Council. I think the fact that we were going that way influenced us to stay in that direction, and service that area. Perhaps we may have been a little bit reluctant to look at money being deposited other than by pay-roll deductions, which was of course an easy way for people to deposit money. At the time that was the decision made by the credit union and they have continued to go that way and have taken groups which are associated in some form with the Council. But of course when I became involved with the community one it became a community-based one, exactly what it is today.
Do you run branches around your Bond areas or do you have representatives?
GM: We have in each constituent council of the County who are a member of the credit union, have their own Committees and Secretary as such. But this is the only office. In other words withdrawals and that are still made through here. The Credit Committees in those areas make their recommendations and the members of that council deal with those Committees.
Do you make service calls?
GM: I think the General Manager goes out regularly, or every now and again, and services those people from time to time. They have other meetings from time to time.
Have they gone out to private industry and joined up pay-roll groups from that?
GM: Yes, they have. I think the cotton growing group at Warren are part of the Macquarie people. So yes there are some private groups within it. They are the ones, for arguments sake Warren Shire Council had a credit union which was amalgamated into the Macquarie one, because it had become too small to operate and their expansion of services was very limited because of their size. I think the influence of those employees there, the Warren Shire, with the people who worked in the area, particularly the cotton groups, influenced them to apply to Macquarie to join and which was accepted.
As far as the Association is concerned, the Schools, did you become more involved. I notice this one, the Advanced Learners’ School. Now there was a Leaders and Learners as well, did you go to that one?
GM: Yes I did.
Were you involved in any of these discussions from which they formed AFCUL, the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues?
GM: Yes, they were discussed in those early days.
Do you remember that actual meeting, the 1965 one, do you know Merv Callaghan?
GM: Yes, I remember Merv. The Police Credit Union in Queensland.
Well, he is still around. I saw him at Dermot’s funeral. He said that he and Stan Arneil and Dermot Ryan had some discussions at the 1965 Leaders and Learners and that from that Stan Arneil made out the proclamation, the following year.
GM: That would be right. In those early days there was a lot of discussion. You see one of the problems in those days, if my memory serves me right though it is a bit hazy at times, was the lack of legislation in different areas. I mean we worked under the Co-operative Act, the Victorians worked under some Small Loans and something or other Act. There was difficulty in impressing governments to do anything. I don’t say this was the major reason that AFCUL started, but it was one of the influences which I think brought AFCUL into being. By having a National Directorate, this would be seen by governments as an organisation that was growing. Of course to co-ordinate the growth too was most important, to share information, to try and some way instill that things were no different from State to State. But unfortunately we had to operate under different Acts of Parliament, of State Parliaments anyhow, how they actually operated in a functional sense. But I know that in those early days it became very apparent, particularly with the influence from the people from overseas who were lecturers at the time of the necessity to have some national body to be able to assist other States in growing as well.
They had this in the 1930s in America of course, before CUNA was set up.
End Tape 1A: 4172 Words: 1 hour 30 minutes
ANSWCU 10 : 19 APRIL 1990: INTERVIEWER RICHARD RAXWORTHY: TALKING WITH GEORGE McCREADY
We were just talking about the School and I was going to ask you, do you remember Room 19?
GM: Oh yes, the hospitality rooms. They were called hospitality rooms. They were the focal point, I suppose, the rolling point, the rooms that were never empty from the point of view that there was always people around to talk to. The Sydney City Council, if I remember correctly, were the hosts in that room and became very well known in later days, particularly the hospitality the City Council extended to everybody. I suppose you can say in some respects it made the School. It broke down barriers of people between States who were not able to communicate and all sorts of things. It was a great idea and obviously it has been carried forward ever since I think.
Everywhere else. They were well-known. Lots of people say that sort of informal discussions were important.
GM: They were very important. You go to these Schools, and the same sort of thing that happens today, it was one of the things, or it was my experience anyhow. You could sit and listen, you could even ask questions at question time, but to get a broader picture of what was going on and the fact that people will speak more freely, because a lot of people will not even speak in groups and I was probably one of those at that time because I had very little experience in speaking in front of groups, it was easier to loosen up. You could talk about your own experiences, hear about other people’s experiences and further explore all the sorts of problems that you thought you had by yourself and found that other people had the same sort of problem. It was great to share experiences and you did learn a lot.
So what brought about your trip to America. Did you put up, did you put up for National Directorate from the League?
GM: Well I think originally I didn’t have much, I will not say much ambition to go because I think everyone likes to think they could have gone, but in those early days it would appear that those who were selected were those who had put in years of work and had a lot of knowledge. If I remember correctly, I was put up for it, I was asked to stand, because they felt that it was appropriate that I do that I was a Country Director and it showed that the Credit Union League was open to all avenues of people to have experiences and opportunities. I was very grateful. As I say it was unexpected, in fact I went home and told my wife afterwards and she was rather surprised about it all. Yes, it was quite a surprise and quite a great honour. I must say it has helped me tremendously, credit union wise, and I think life wise from that first experience of travelling overseas. Of course I was fortunate enough to return again the following year. They had further discussions about the on-going responsibility of our League to the international body and it was considered that there should be some form of continuity of people going, rather than just a new group go every year. Once again I was fortunate enough to be nominated and asked to stand to go back the second year, which was really a great honour.
Now describe the trip itself.
GM: First year? Well, the first year because it was a once in a lifetime, as I thought at that time, opportunity to go outside Australia, I spoke to my employer and they were supportive by suggesting that I extend my trip and take the opportunity to visit other supply authorities as I was able to move around. So they even supported me financially in some respects towards that end. So I spent up to about two to three months overseas. I travelled by myself and set up an itinerary. What I was hoping to do was get the maximum exposure and as wide a variety of things as I could look at, credit union wise and also organisational wise for my employer. I think I called in to New Zealand on the way and went to Hamilton and saw Mr Smith there who managed a credit union, I am trying to thing of his first name, Colin Smith. Then I went on to Fiji and met Father Ganey and he showed me round the credit unions there.
What exactly was the situation when you went there, can you describe the situation in Fiji at that time.
GM: Well it was a new experience for me so I wasn’t sure what to expect, other than I was told about this holiday place. Of course the things I saw weren’t necessarily holiday orientated. We had heard from Father Ganey and Joane Naisara, who had visited Australia over the various things that had happened there and some of the difficulties they had experienced and some of the good things that they had experienced. So I was a little bit open-minded as to what to expect. To me the simplicity of the way the people lived, the Fijians lived, I thought was the most striking thing that struck me, against the way the other strong part of the population, the Indians, occupied Fiji. I think that contrast was rather dramatic and it seemed to support some of the things that had been said previously about the Fijians being very much land orientated from the point of view that they didn’t seem to be business orientated in the sense that the Indians were. They were very much village people, looked after their own people, were honest people, were prepared to help themselves if they were given some assistance to keep going. That is the sort of thing that struck me, the simple way in which they existed, the clean and honest way in which they existed. I suppose when I went to Jamaica I looked at the differences there, which were quite substantially different. So from Fiji it had a long lasting impression and I don’t think I saw much of the tourist side of it at all and I wasn’t particularly interested in it really, at that time, which is I suppose surprising. Everything was new to me, as I say, and the contrast of what I had come from to what I saw there was quite different. I used that same impression when I went to the States. I went into Los Angeles first and I visited the supply authorities there. By the way, each time I went to one of the supply authorities I always spoke about credit unions and most of them also had credit unions, so they were quite multi functional visits at times. Then I went down to Jamaica. That was a different thing altogether, a different experience altogether than what Fiji was. Their lifestyles seemed to be completely different. There was two apparent extremes that I saw. One was in the towns themselves, there were the Jamaicans who had moved off the land or from the country into the city and had unfortunately become caught up in the normal city problems of overcrowding, no money, sub-standard housing. In fact, I was shown one place where the credit union was attempting to make in-roads into assisting people and it was a city which was made of cardboard and corrugated iron and rubbish and everything else, they showed me and I saw what was going on and it was alongside a rubbish tip. The City Council there to appease other people about the so-called squalor habitat ran the bulldozers through and just bulldozed down the places and people used to walk behind the bulldozers, pick up the material and build their houses again. The City Council had overcome their objections, they had knocked them down, so they would wait for another month or two and come back and do the same thing again. That was the sort of squalor that I saw in Jamaica there and that was rather a strain to see first up. I was then taken out in the countryside with the credit union people there and shown some of the rural areas and some of the rural development and the way in which people lived and the way in which they earned money. Once again it was a completely different atmosphere, even though the people were still honest in their endeavour, it was a completely different way of living and experience as to what happened to them. They were two extremes that I met on that first trip which were quite pronounced. Then of course there was the trip through America itself. It was the opposite again. I always enlightened it to what I could see of Australia in the future, in different ways. I am happy to say that to a large extent it hasn’t quite happened that way. We have inherited some of the modern approaches to things but I don’t think our lifestyle has gone quite the same way as America. But to see Fiji and Jamaica and then come back into America was quite a three contrast. Of course in America itself there are some strong contrasts. I took the opportunity, as I say, to move around a bit, once again with Council because I attended the ?????? Institute there. They had a big conference on which was aligned with the type of interest I had in the engineering field. I saw once again the way in which the American Negroes were living and it reminded me to some extent of the way the Jamaican suburban people were living because it was a squalor subsistence type operation. Then of course that was in the southern states. Then moving up into the Madison area, I was there visiting the international body’s headquarters. I then attended a meeting with CUNA International.
Was this the meeting where you wore all the cowboy hats?
GM: That was in Dallas, Texas.
Annual General Meeting of CUNA International?
GM: That was CUNA International’s Annual General Meeting. But on the first trip the International Meeting was in Dallas. I went to Madison first. Then I was invited to visit South Dakota, Rapid City and through that area, to look at the different credit unions there. The Ellsworthy Airforce Base, I went and looked at the credit union there, and some of the community ones in which I was a bit interest because at that time we were thinking about, if I remember correctly, the community one at Dubbo. So I was a bit interested in how community ones operated. Then I went down to Dallas where the large one in Dallas occurred and of course met up with my counterparts from New South Wales and Australia. Dermot Ryan, Ken Miller, Jack Ross from Queensland and Colin Smith. We had a wow of a time there. We ended up going native to some degree with the cowboy hats. If I remember rightly, Dermot taught them how to drink a yard of beer at that particular meeting.
How did you get on with American beer?
GM: Well, I am a non-drinker, but Dermot was quite an exponent of the yard of beer drinking. A lot of people who attempted to drink it ended up with it all over themselves. Dermot was very good. There was a gentleman from Tasmania there too, I am just trying to think what his name was, he was a terrific singer. I know we were invited to the Press Club one night there and most of us went down and, I will think of his name in a little while, he sang there that night and he was a tremendous singer. We stayed there quite a bit, we were invited a lot of times back to the Press Club, quite celebrities. The meeting itself, which was my first experience of such a tremendous big meeting, is hard to describe. The amount of delegates that were crowded into the hall and the manner and way in which the meeting was conducted. Hubert Humphries, the Vice-President, turned up in Dallas and it was the first time since the assassination of Kennedy that either a President or Vice-President had come back into Dallas again. The experience we had was that the security of the place was like nothing we had ever seen in our life, you wouldn’t read about it. In fact even if I see pictures now, or movies or films these days it still doesn’t impress me as strongly as it did in that particular time.
What did they have?
GM: Well they had armed police everywhere. The streets were completely running with police. There were police up on different levels of the hotel. We were not allowed to take photos at all, or even to show a camera. We weren’t allowed to put our heads out of windows because anybody who did was threatened that they would be shot if they did. In fact I remember did bring a camera and as Hubert Humphries was about to enter into the main hall it was put up and these big minders, is the best way of putting it, just hurled him to the ground and dragged him out. It was one of the delegates who didn’t heed the advice and attempted to take a photo. Of course he was released later on but it was forcefully brought home. The security was something that I had never experienced before and when you see policemen coming down the street with their guns out, sort of thing, it was quite horrendous. But then again, when you had a look at where Kennedy was assassinated and you looked at the whole story and the circumstances while you were there, I suppose they had a right to be concerned. But as I say it was completely new, something we had never seen before. Very impressive.
The meeting itself was quite significant I believe from the Australian point of view and from the point of view of the world body. I was talking to Ken Miller about different aspects of the thing and he made a point that the overseas delegation actually had the balance of power.
GM: That’s right. The Americans became rather concerned about the direction that CUNA was taking because of the increase in numbers from the overseas bodies. If I remember rightly, Lyall Bruce by the way was the name of the gentleman from Jamaica who was also the Vice-President of our particular group, branch, just trying to think what they called the overseas contingent. Anyhow he was the Vice-President. Yes, there was a lot of concern as regarding the influence that we could extend. I think it was at that meeting, and correct me if I am wrong, or the next one, that the proposals for a change in the structure of CUNA.
The next one I believe.
GM: Yes but I think it was opened up at that one that there should be a change of structure. Nothing happened at that one, but after that they started to move to look at changes in by-laws and structures.
I don’t want to prompt you because in actual fact I am looking for more detailed information than I have got, so I don’t want to sort of prompt you.
GM: It is a long time ago and prompting me does help me remember things.
Well, do you remember the issue? The voting was close and the balance of power was held by the overseas delegates. Do you remember what issue it was about? I can remind you, if you like and you can say whether you agree or not. Now the issue was in fact an argument between CUNA and CUNA Mutual.
GM: Right. I wasn’t sure whether that was the one where it happened there that a great split occurred after that, or not.
That is what I am asking you. I get the impression it was, but I am not sure.
GM: There was, and this is something that I detected. Prior to the meeting, as I said, I went to Madison. CUNA Mutual invited me to also to a training session they were running there for their representatives in the credit union movement to assist credit unions in marketing their insurance policies. Yes that was the thing that was surprising to me, anyhow, and probably surprising to perhaps most of the Australians and that was the animosity that seemed to have occurred between CUNA and CUNA Mutual. Why it was difficult for us to understand was that CUNA Mutual, or the representatives of CUNA Mutual who we knew in Carlos Matos and Compton in Australia assisted to no end and what appeared at that stage to be no apparent advantage for CUNA Mutual in getting the credit union movement going. Yes, at a later stage they were looking at credit unions using their insurance medium, but to us it looked like in the short term there was no monetary gain whatsoever to be gained from it and they were all the same type of people. I think that was more or less my feeling of it, why were they arguing so much, they were the same type of people. Except it appeared unfortunately like a lot of organisations that when you enter a business aspect of any voluntary group and that business aspect becomes profitable, then there is antagonism developed between those who are doing things voluntarily and are receiving monies to operate not through a business sense by a membership fee and there are limitations to what they can do or can’t do, because they are answerable to their membership for their costs, then apparently this is where the antagonism must have occurred. This is the way we saw it. They were concerned that CUNA Mutual was going to more or less tell CUNA how to run their operations. There did also appear the move towards CUNA saying, ‘Well perhaps there is other insurance,’ or ‘Perhaps CUNA Mutual is not doing what we want them to do.’
What do you think was the main reason behind the trouble. Do you think it was anything to do with these policy holders coming onto Advisory Committees?
GM: I think, once again, I suppose it is from where you stand. I think the problem appeared to be with CUNA Mutual, because of the money they had available through their operation, were more ready and able to run workshops, run training programs, do all sorts of things that I think CUNA thought they should be doing. Probably so, except that of course, as I said before, CUNA’s income was based on membership fees. I think this is where they became concerned because all of a sudden they could see CUNA Mutual doing things that they should be doing, in other words they felt that CUNA Mutual was trying to take over the movement.
Now in Australia anyway, it wasn’t only that surely, it was the fact that CUNA Mutual was using the same money, they were using the insurance rebates, they were nobbling them into a special fund, so they could apply it as opposed to CUNA. The attitude of CUNA was the same as the League in Australia, they should be the ones because they were elected by their own people.
GM: Well it becomes one of those situations.
Do you think that is right, or not?
GM: I think that is the perception, definitely the perception. I am only looking in hindsight now because of my further involvement in the business world. I could see, if I looked backwards, yes, I would be concerned too if all of a sudden someone else was doing our work and yet not elected to do it. They are doing what they see and were therefore apparently directing effort to where it was more profitable for that group rather than what the organisation wanted to be done.
So this was why the split took place, both in America and in Australia.
GM: Well, unfortunately I think it did spill over. I am not sure how it became so strong in the two camps in Australia. It appeared to me that some of them became strictly anti-insurance for their own reasons. I wasn’t always sold as to exactly why, what were the true reasons behind it. I understood at the time that CUNA Mutual were prepared to accommodate some of the concerns that had been expressed. But I think it is like a lot of things, people get their extreme views and they are not prepared at times to compromise. I am afraid I become rather concerned when all of a sudden factional fighting occurs over things which you should sit down and talk about. I think in those days, particularly in America too, they weren’t prepared to sit down and talk about the problem.
You were in on the decision in the States, at that meeting at Dallas, Texas, were you in on that to vote against CUNA and for CUNA Mutual?
GM: I think, if I remember rightly, we had been lobbied to effect our vote in one way or another. At that stage, my impression was that we were waiting to hear argument. We had no allegiance at that time. Even though we had had visits from CUNA Mutual reps, we had also had an association with CUNA itself, and I think we were opened-minded at that time. The Americans, of course, were very strong on commitment one way or another. I think as it turned out we were the swinging voters so this meeting had the influence as to which way things went.
Well the way they did go, do you think that was the right way to go?
GM: I suppose you can always sit back in hindsight.
What side would you be on in that situation. Would you be on the side of CUNA, elected people, or on the side of CUNA Mutual who are appointed people, by a company. They were supposed to have been appointed by CUNA anyway.
GM: That’s right. I think that was part of our dilemma. We were all the same people and we couldn’t work out why the argument was so complex.
Do you remember Dermot putting a point of view why you should vote the way you should? You can’t remember that? Can you remember the whole of the overseas group getting together and realising that they had the balance of power?
GM: Yes, I do remember we had a meeting, a special meeting. Actually there were a couple of meetings on that.
It must have been quite an interesting time.
GM: Yes when you come from a point of view of obscurity all of a sudden there is a group, they are the balance of power, all of a sudden they’ve got to be wooed. As I say the Americans do it in great style. But I think, particularly in our own group and I know the Irish seemed to be, there were two Irishmen there too, the Irish, ourselves, the Jamaicans, Koreans, I sat alongside one of the Korean gentlemen and I have a photo of him at home, we became rather, how can I put it, noncomittal. Well we didn’t become noncomittal but we had to be convinced and we wanted to hear argument. We had no preconception like most of the Americans did when we got there. As I say, the attention that was paid to us all of a sudden was unusual.
So what happened when you actually voted? What decided you, which way you would vote?
GM: I think at the time, just what we heard at the time and what we felt was right.
Was it the issue or was it the matter of whether you should have the balance of power or not?
GM: No, I don’t think whether we should have the balance of power was a consideration.
Dermot wasn’t arguing that?
GM: I am just trying to remember now. I think it was still turning around what the issue was, rather than who had the balance of power and trying to make a point on that.
That is a slightly different perception to Ken Miller’s. Then when you actually voted, what happened then?
GM: If I remember rightly we weren’t popular. I guess they felt that we had sold them out.
But you were popular with CUNA Mutual.
GM: As I said, once again because we could see what we felt wasn’t a problem or the same problem as perceived by the Americans. But no we weren’t popular.
So where did you go next? Did you all break up or did you all go together after that?
GM: I am just trying to think. No we did break up because I went to Los Angeles. I was there at the invitation of one of the credit union groups and I ended up at Santa Monica, if I remember rightly, at a training session up there. One of the credit unions had taken a number of their representatives away and I was asked to attend that, which I did. So we broke up again there. I think Ken and the others were doing the reverse to me. They went from there to Madison where I had come straight in. It was an experience and a half that first one. One thing I learnt there too, purely, be very clear what you have got pinned on your jacket because if you had a certain type of pin that showed that your allegiances were in a certain direction. We had these kangaroo pins and they all wanted to know who was it we were supporting in the election.
End Tape 1B: 4342 Words: 1 hour 35 minutes.
ANSWCU 11 : 19 APRIL 1990: INTERVIEWER RICHARD RAXWORTHY: TALKING WITH GEORGE McCREADY
You then came back to Australia. I suppose that has just about covered that trip. Now the following year you went over to America again.
GM: That meeting was at Madison.
Ken Miller was there that year as well.
GM: That’s right. I think there was Ken and myself and I am just trying to think who the third one was.
Owen Jones?
GM: Owen Jones, that’s right. Owen Jones is the one I was thinking of from the City Council. He was the Manger of the Sydney City Council Credit Union.
Now what was your impression of him?
GM: Owen? Well Owen I suppose was the most unlikely Manager of a credit union. He was a person who was very down to earth, called a spade a spade. I suppose you could say he was the person who would be a typical city council employee. I think he was very enthusiastic in the job he was doing, related very well to his staff, to the members of the City Council. From what I can remember of him he understood their problems pretty well too. In fact I used to visit Owen a number of times to. Going to Sydney it was very convenient there at the Town Hall to nip down the office and talk to him at different times. As I say there was nothing fancy about Owen. He was very straight, your typical Australian in a large sense.
He had been in the Airforce during the War, he was a rear gunner.
GM: I wasn’t aware of that.
Not a good thing to be, I don’t think, lucky he survived.
GM: That’s right.
Did he used to come up here?
GM: Owen had been up here a number of times yes. A lot of them seemed to like coming up in this direction. Maybe it was the country hospitality. No we used to invite them up at different times, as often as we could.
There was one occasion I believe that he came up with John Gormley, was due to come up with John Gormley and he missed the plane and he drove up.
GM: That’s right. I am just trying to think what meeting that was.
John Gormley couldn’t think what meeting it was either. He remembered the story that’s all.
GM: Yes, they didn’t know where he was. I was just trying to think what he borrowed to drive up. I know he arrived late because we couldn’t work out how he got here because there was no plane. He said, ‘No, I missed the plane and decided to drive up.’ I don’t think he realised at that time how far it was to drive, because he said it was a bloody long way. I think that was one of the combined credit union meetings we were having at the time. John was very interested in helping us out at that time too. John was with Electricity Commission or the Sydney County Council? Sydney County Council Credit Union, that’s right. I actually knew of John prior to that because of my old employment with the Sydney County Council. Col Day was another one from Sydney County Council. I knew Col when I was only a young fellow with the Sydney County Council. We played tennis and used to go away and play in tennis tournaments and of course Col turned up, where, in the credit union movement.
Why wouldn’t he?
GM: Yes, that’s right.
Well in America, on the second occasion, so what was different about that trip? You didn’t have Dermot along with you.
GM: Oh well, I suppose, the first one, as I say, was the breaking of the ice for Australians I think, well typical Australians in some respects. It was a bit different. I remember there was a hospitality room also put on at the second one but it was run by the Jamaicans if I remember correctly.
That would be something.
GM: They were using Jamaican rum to make Irish coffee.
Well, it is the same thing, just a different liquor that’s all. Jamaican coffee. Did they get you on that, did they.
GM: No, I was still a non-drinker and I remained a non-drinker. No I remember they ran out of the Irish whiskey I think to go in the Irish coffee and they ended up with this Jamaican rum in it. It was late in the evening, I might add, or early next morning, something like that. That was a bit different. I think the Americans saw us in a different light from the first one.
Who tried to persuade them that time that they should change their structure of CUNA International, or did they think of that themselves?
GM: I think once again, the fact of the increased membership of the overseas contingent and the Americans all of a sudden realising there was something more than Americans.
After they got rolled the previous year.
GM: Yes. But I think they realised that the meetings were becoming a bit bigger than the Americans. I think it become then, I suppose, the take off point for a consideration of restructuring in a different way. I remember I attended one of the World Council Meetings when it was held in Sydney.
Was that the first one? There was only one in Sydney, 1979.
GM: Yes that is right. I think it was the first one they had held outside America.
Yes I think it was.
GM: I went down to that one. That Texas one opened their eyes that there were people other than Americans and the second one in Madison, we were more consulted than being told, I think that was probably more the emphasis.
Well the following year the decision was made. You weren’t there were you?
GM: No.
The argument was put in 1968.
GM: Yes, It was put up in 1968 to develop the World Council.
Who put the argument, do you remember?
GM: Well, I don’t know exactly who put it but I do remember it came out of our region. As I say there were a number of movers because Lyall Bruce was one of the ones who was all for it. The other one you mentioned before, was a Vice-President of CUNA.
Paddy Bailey?
GM: Paddy Bailey was also, if I remember rightly a supporter of the change in structure at the time.
He was an American?
GM: Yes, he was an American.
Did you know him? What was he like?
GM: Yes. A very nice chap, very sincere. I think he was very dedicated to the movement, there was no two ways about that. He always seemed to have a strong concern over what was happening with the movement.
Right, I will leave your overseas perambulations and AFCUL and such. It is pertinent to the League because you were League Directors weren’t you, you were Directors of the League in America. Now we were talking about Schools, do you remember any other of the Schools, particularly, that you went to?
GM: As I said, I remember there was one at Leura and that Loss Prevention was part of that one, I remember that.
Did you go to any of the Association ones at Prince Henry there, the School of Administration?
GM: Yes, at the back of the hospital there. Yes, I remember going to one of those.
What was that on? Was that Directors?
GM: I think it was Directors.
Were you a member of ICUD, Institute of Credit Union Directors at all?
GM: No, hadn’t started at that time. I was on the Credit Union Advisory Committee, CUAC I think they called it at that time, that was the co-op committee on which I represented community credit unions at that time. I wasn’t a League representative on the Parliamentary Committee, that was the one that reported to the Minister.
That was a League committee.
GM: No it wasn’t it was a Government committee.
So you weren’t on the Credit Unions Advisory Committee?
GM: That’s the Government one that reported to the Minister, that’s right. But I wasn’t on there as a League representative, I was appointed as a community representative. Even though I was a League Director, I was representing community credit unions.
Did you go to the Schools as a lecturer at all, did you take part in that area?
GM: No, I started my career in lecturing after that. It influenced me tremendously and I got involved in lecturing and all sorts of things after that.
Now when you were on the Board of the Association, do you remember who was President at that first time?
GM: Where we used to meet, we used to meet at the old Devonshire Street in a little room.
141 wasn’t it? Where the old Universal Credit Union was.
GM: 141 Devonshire Street sounds right. Yes that’s right, the Universal Credit Union was down below, I think, and we had a room upstairs.
Why, during Beresford Calverley’s period did you meet in the Irish Club there?
GM: We did meet there a couple of times, but we didn’t meet continuously there?
Why did you meet there?
GM: At all? I think the simple reason was there wasn’t enough room in the other one, particularly when the Country Directors were appointed to it.
You weren’t a Director during the time Beresford Calverley was President, oh the second time you were. You weren’t on when Don Harvey was President, were you? 1965, you might just have been.
GM: No, I remember Don, but I don’t remember him being President at the time.
I heard that he was Vice-President to Stan Arneil’s President at one stage in the proceedings. Then when Don became President, Stan Arneil didn’t like it, somebody said.
GM: Well, I think Stan went through a problem area with various members of the then Board in as much as Stan had strong ideas, I think he probably still has. No he had strong ideas, he had strong notions of direction and I think at times, I know he did, conflict strongly with other members on the League Board at the time.
Incidentally, I have often felt, talking to different people, that the ones who say that credit unions have gone wrong, somehow, they seem to differ but they all say that, that there is something gone wrong with them and they seem to agree. Yet they differed so much in those days. I wonder what it was about?
GM: Well, Stan had a strong philosophy about the way in which you treat people who borrow. I think then, and it still is today, some credit unions have different rates of interest for different sorts of borrowing. I remember one of Stan’s strong points in those days, and we had the same problem here particularly in the community credit union we have got going here, they started charging higher rates of interest to people who could least afford it. In other words, they had different rates of interest and seemingly the person who could least afford was paying a higher rate of interest than those that could afford it. Stan’s philosophy, if I remember correctly, was it should be same rate of interest for all loans, for everybody. I know there were at that time some credit unions using different rates of interest for all sorts of loans.
Well they do now, surely?
GM: Macquarie still doesn’t, I am glad to say.
You mean to say you still charge the same rates of interest for all your loans. Well you must be one of the very few.
GM: I stand to be corrected about housing loans, which are a different loan, but all the other general loans it is all the same rate of interest. Doesn’t matter what you borrow for, same rate of interest, I am glad to say because that was my philosophy too. But the community one, no. It has different rates of interest and I don’t like that.
Well Sydney does.
GM: Yes. I think that is what I remember of Stan’s philosophy and that is one of the things that has stuck. I know Jock Dunn and a few of the older ones here that we have kept going.
Dermot didn’t agree with that. He reckoned that it should go the other way.
GM: Should be cheaper for the ones that could least afford it? But it didn’t ever seem to work that way.
Well it is obvious. More of a risk.
GM: Well, that’s right. I haven’t liked the way some of them have gone and I have said it openly down here.
That makes you just like a bank.
GM: Well, that’s right. Some of the ones in the early days, when I say my early days anyhow, what I saw of them in Sydney were acting as a bank, or another finance company, and they are only an extension of it. To talk about it is run by the members for the members is not quite correct.
I don’t know, it is for the ones who put the money in, not for the ones who take it out.
GM: That’s right, but the borrowers are just as equal a member as anybody else. No I don’t like some of the things. They do the same thing at hire purchase companies and I have had my daughter have the same experience down here. They go in and the first thing they ask you is what is your security, or they must take security, not the basis on which the whole thing was based on that I am my security. In other words the fact that I am a member of the common group, we have a bond and therefore I am trustworthy, rather than saying we don’t trust you before you have proved that you are trustworthy.
But the regulations say that over a certain amount you have got to.
GM: When you have got to work within the law that’s fine, but when you don’t have to and you still take security, that is what I hate.
So what would Dermot Ryan say?
GM: I am sure Dermot would have agreed with me that you shouldn’t take security from these people if the law doesn’t require you to take security.
But if the law does require you, what would he say?
GM: He would still argue that the law was wrong.
So he would say change the law, wouldn’t he?
GM: He would say change the law and I would agree with him. But unfortunately it is like a lot of things, the law is only made for a small few, but it is everyone who cops it.
Do you remember when they did set out to change the law re the tax. Did you have anything to do with that?
GM: No.
Nothing to do with the legislation?
GM: This is when they were taxing credit unions on their surpluses. Yes I do remember the thing partly, but not very well.
Do you remember the legal challenges? What was your involvement in that?
GM: Yes. Only on the Board.
The challenger in New South Wales was the Water Board. Who decided it was going to be the Water Board?
GM: I think they offered to do it. Like everything, there had to be a test case and they were prepared to take it.
Were you part of that decision?
GM: I think I might have been part of the decision that agreed for them to proceed in that case.
What about when they transferred it to South Australia when they realised they could have one ahead down there? Were you a part of that decision?
GM: I only remember vaguely that that type of thing did happen. I think what they had done was stood aside the one here.
The other one was already started and they didn’t know about it. Frank Crean actually told them about it, I understand. ?????? told Dermot through the Labor Party. I wondered whether the decision was taken up here at the Board meeting?
GM: Well it was taken from the point of view that we became aware of the information and the information was that that was the better way to go, or the quick way to go. As I say, we had no control over the Water Board other than making a recommendation to them.
The League was financing it, wasn’t it?
GM: Yes.
That failed, that one down in Adelaide failed. Then that was when they decided they were going to get the legislation changed. Was that a formal decision? Dermot hadn’t become Chief Executive at that stage of the proceedings, when they actually started. It was only a matter of months after that he did become Chief Executive.
GM: That was when he was in Lidcombe wasn’t it?
Did you go up there?
GM: I went up there once, if I remember rightly.
What was it like?
GM: It was only a very small ?????
Why do you think he was out there?
GM: Oh, it was convenient.
For whom?
GM: Oh well it was convenient for the people who were using it.
The people who came from America to see him.
GM: You do these things for reasons at the time. If they are appropriate and they work, well.
Can you describe the office there?
GM: To be quite honest no.
What about the League offices. You said they were at 141 Devonshire Street.
GM: Well we moved from there to Burwood Road, Burwood, down near Parramatta Road Inn. It was a small building down there and we had the ground floor, if I remember rightly. That was in 1968, would that be correct.
Were you a Director when it was up in Hurstville, temporarily?
GM: No. I know we moved from the bottom end of Burwood Road to the top end of Burwood Road, to the southern side of the railway station.
That is where it is now.
GM: To be honest, I don’t know.
Well you know where it is now, it is in Railway Parade, a new building. Not a brand new building because it is a few years old now. TAB next door.
GM: I wasn’t aware of that, I’m sorry. I haven’t followed them for a long time.
As far as the Association is concerned, the League as it was then, who do you remember of the Presidents and such like? You were involved with Berry Calverley and Ken Miller and they were very different, weren’t they?
GM: Oh yes, two different types of people altogether in the respect of not only their age. Ken I always felt was more of a conservative thinker, approach, although at times he really didn’t want to be, he didn’t have to be. At the same time he could put a strong point. But Berry was a bit, I suppose, of a fighting cock at times. Very outspoken. He was the official putter of what they used to classify him as, the official mover anyhow. He used to sit down the front and every time they wanted a mover or a seconder, or whatever, he was the one to be recognised by the Chair to get the business moving. He was very much one for trying to stick to the correct rules of debate. As I said he could be very outspoken at times. He was very strong in what he believed. He was very difficult to move from an opinion. Ken, I felt, being different, Ken was prepared to listen to argument possibly more so than Berry was. But they were both impressive in their own different ways. I think they both contributed rather strongly in their different ways. I think Berry was admired because of his age, his knowledge, his strength I think at that time. I remember he brought his mother out at one stage to Dubbo. We had him out a number of times. He was a very popular type person.
Not with everybody, you know.
GM: Oh no. I think the fact that he was so outspoken at times, as I say he was strong on points, it was very hard to change his mind. But as I say they were both characters and they both brought their different perceptions to the League in different ways. Of course they were all different times in the League. I think from where Berry was to where Ken was was a phase that had to change. I think when Berry was there things were up to that point were inclined to be run by the seat of their pants type thing. We were never very financial.
Something that puzzled me about meetings that he led. Reading the Minutes, when he was President they seemed to be in his shorthand and that sort of thing. The whole thing was all him.
GM: Berry was very much a front person, liked to be in the front, liked to be seen, liked to be heard.
Yes but it was as if he wrote the Minutes, apart from anything else.
GM: I am just trying to think. At that time he used to take them. He used to go over them.
That would account for it. When you read the Minutes there are all sorts of people involved. But when you read these Minutes an awful lot of it is Beresford Calverley.
GM: As I say, he very much had to be in front, and he liked to be in front, he liked to be seen. But as I say, he was still a character in his own right. I think at the time, the time he went through, like Stan Arneil’s time and that, there had to be people at the front who had to, to say put the show on the road might sound incorrect, but they had to be more visible to get exposure. I think Ken brought a different perception to the position of President.
You would have been six years a Director of the League. You were there over the insurance controversy period as well, weren’t you, into 1972. As a matter of fact you departed just after that.
GM: It didn’t have any bearing on it I might add.
Your credit union, I understand, stuck with the League on that. Do you remember those meetings though?
GM: Oh some of them were pretty tiring. Once again, it became a peculiar argument I suppose in some ways like the one in the States. Who should be running the place and if I remember rightly my view was that the League ran the credit union organisation. CUNA Mutual was there to provide a service as required, if it was wanted by the credit unions. I still believe that it is not the best that is available, if you can get something better somewhere else, then you use somewhere else. Even if it is to the detriment of your own.
I don’t mean that necessarily, but it was rather interesting at the time that the competition was in fact TNG which was, in fact, substantially owned by AGC, which was the Bank of New South Wales. One of the reasons that credit unions in Australia existed was because of companies like AGC.
GM: That’s right. Well, when CUNA Mutual did come in of course they also met the competition. I know there was arguments at the time that if they could meet it why didn’t they make it better earlier. If they had made it better earlier than perhaps CUNA Mutual wouldn’t have come in. There was all sorts of to’ing and fro’ing.
Also there were the two other aspects, which I haven’t really studied in the States, but I have here. It seems to me that the policy of CUNA Mutual to have these Advisory Committees of Policy Holders meant there was a lot of dealing between the credit unions and CUNA Mutual, rather than going through the channel of the League. Maybe for the best of reasons.
GM: Oh yes. I think, they used it two ways and I think there had to be a two-edged approach to it. First of all they were seen to be doing a service to their policy holders by bringing policy holders together to talk about credit union problems. I think this is where the whole thing appeared to come unstuck, because the League or CUNA saw that as their role.
Surely it didn’t just appear to come unstuck, because there was a lot of people got out of the League or who weren’t in the League who were policy holders. So in actual fact they were getting their commissions directly, whereas the other lot wouldn’t get them at all because they would come round through the League and they were being used for something else. Surely this was a problem anyway, because of the discrimination, you would think, against some credit unions. If you are working in the interests of your members, which is the way you should do it?
GM: Oh yes. I suppose it is an argument for which is the most effective.
Well, I am putting it, putting both sides so to speak.
GM: Well, when it comes back through CUNA, where it came back through the League for argument’s sake, in other words the profits to be distributed come back through the League, if there are things of common interest which need to be developed, then this is one way in which the cost is shared across all credit unions. With the other one it doesn’t. Each one gets back their own surpluses and therefore they are not contributing back.
Dermot Ryan wanted it put in the Savings Stabilisation Fund didn’t he?
GM: That’s right, to use it as a basis for all credit unions.
But what about the ones who aren’t in it?
GM: That is what I am saying, that is the dilemma that you end up with. Of course you have, like in every aspect of things.
End Tape 2A: 4373 Words: 1 hour 35 minutes.
ANSWCU 11 : 19 APRIL 1990: INTERVIEWER RICHARD RAXWORTHY: TALKING WITH GEORGE McCREADY
Do you remember that battle between Dermot and the Board over the Savings Stabilisation Fund? Do you remember what he did? I got the impression he was turned down by the Board and then he got permission to put it to the Annual General Meeting and carried it. Then they rolled him again and he did it again.
GM: Yes, I am just trying to think, I think you are right. I am just trying to think if that was the right sequence.
I think it is ????? Were the arguments just a simple as that, that everybody wasn’t in it so therefore you couldn’t do it that way? He managed to carry the first part of it which was that you were going to keep the insurance rebate, you are not going to give it back. But what he couldn’t carry, although he carried it with the Annual General Meeting, but he couldn’t carry with the Board was the business about using it for the Savings Stabilisation Fund.
GM: Yes, I think you’re right. I think part of the problem with that was that the Stabilisation Fund was also used to help stabilise credit unions that weren’t members of the League or were not contributing the insurance policies that were coming back.
That’s it.
GM: Yes, that they weren’t contributing to the surplus money that was going into the fund. I think that was the major argument. They were getting a benefit to which they were not contributing. That became a continual source of arguments too.
Yet they never put up the possibility of making it compulsory. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Minutes.
GM: I think it was put up. I think it was considered though and I think it was more or less an unpalatable thing. The principle of trying to make it compulsory was not something that was acceptable in general terms.
So it was pointless in putting it up. But it was discussed was it?
GM: If I remember rightly, I am sure it was discussed.
Now all that time that you were through there they were trying to get the Stabilisation Fund, it was actually got off the ground wasn’t it, but not compulsory?
GM: That’s right. It got off the ground. There was no compulsion to contribute to it. It wasn’t until some time later that the State legislation was brought in which made it compulsory, that you had to pay a percentage. I think too, one of the first one or two of the credit unions were ones that weren’t contributing either. Which I think is one of the reasons that it was finally brought into the Credit Union Act, I think it was the Credit Union Act when it was brought in had something in.
That was 1969.
GM: 1969 was it. Wasn’t it in the Act the first time.
Didn’t finally come in until 1978.
GM: I think initially they said it wasn’t a necessary thing.
The Association, the League, was putting to the Government at that time, were the League putting to the Government that they should have it compulsory?
GM: I don’t think they were.
Were you involved in any of these delegations to the Minister?
GM: No.
Were you ever on the Advisory Committee?
GM: I was on the Credit Union Advisory Committee.
You were on the Credit Union Advisory Committee, you were on that. Well weren’t you at delegations then?
GM: No, that is different. The Committee that I was on was a Government nominated Advisory Committee to review the operations of the credit union aspect under the Co-operative Act. We reviewed the different applications of the law. The difficulties that we were experiencing.
What did you review during your period? I can’t find any paper work on this you see.
GM: We used to deal with a lot of the Inspectors’ reports, the Registrar’s Inspectors’ reports of the difficulties being experienced in different credit unions. It was presented to the Committee what sort of action or whether there was any recommended action apart from what was the standard practice should occur. There were reports on credit unions that had been formed, or had applied for formation, for variations of the Bond, they were discussed at different times as to whether they were acceptable to vary the Bond. In other words, what the Bond was. ??????? I know there was a lot of argument whether we could extend to people outside the Council, constituent councils, for arguments sake. So that was the sort of variation of the Bond. Those sorts of things were discussed by the Committee and recommendations were then made. There were also recommendations made through that Committee for variations in the Act to assist in the operations of credit unions. That was some of the sorts of things that we were discussion on CUAC.
Now, who was on when you were on? Jack Coyne, Dermot?
GM: I am just trying to think who was the representative from the League.
You weren’t on when Stan Arneil was on?
GM: No.
Just quickly, do you remember the proposal to take over an existing co-operative bank? The proponent was Tom Kelly.
GM: Yes, that’s right. I am just trying to think exactly when and how. Was it Tom Kelly or Stan Yates.
Tom Kelly was one of them.
GM: Well I think Tom and Stan were pretty close, when I say that they used to be involved there a bit. Yes I am sure Tom was always on about a co-operative bank.
Do you remember the argument that went on and what happened to Tom over this?
GM: I remember Tom was ostracised once.
Lost his Vice-Presidency too, didn’t he?
GM: He lost support of the Board because of his conviction that they should move in those sorts of directions. Can I just say, one of the things I found as being a Country Director at the time was that you were not subject to the same kind of political in-fighting that occurred. Those that lived in the city saw each other more often, had more direct contact with each other and I always found at a lot of the meetings I would come down and wouldn’t know half the things that had been going on, another currency to be dealt with. I always found that I had to try and get the information that I wanted at the meetings, or prior to the meetings, to be able to make some form of proper decision in my own light as to which way it should go. That always became rather difficult. But no, Tom became unpopular, I think. I am just trying to think of something else Tom wanted to pursue that became unpopular.
Quest?
GM: Quest, that was his other thing. Editorial freedom I think. Whether the Quest was the League’s or whether the Editor had the right.
There was more to it than that though. There was an economic situation. He was getting free work out of all the Broadway Credit Union boys until the insurance split. After that they were on the other side and he had to pay for people or write it himself. Whereas before he had all the top reporters. I notice all the main meetings there are written up and one of the one’s was Simon Townsend, would you believe. Max Fletch, they were all writing for the Quest. A whole lot of top talent.
GM: Tom was another quiet person with very strong ideas too. He was a man of very strong conviction and I expect he still is.
Yes. We had someone up from South Australia not so long ago, came up for the week. Tom inveigled him in there and I spent the whole day.
GM: Glover, what was his first name, ‘Voice of Australia’. He was a radio announcer, he was tied up with the credit union movement too for a long time. Glover was his name, ‘Voice of Australia’. He went overseas too.
Now, of the people that you were co-Director with, there was Ken Miller as President and you have spoken a bit about him, do you remember those meetings that he Chaired during the time that they actually changed over the insurance, the row?
GM: There were a lot of heated meetings at times. I am just trying to think who some of the people were. Was there Gleeson, Kevin Gleeson, Don Jones, Lee Nash.
Did you know Kevin Yates?
GM: Yes, I knew Kevin.
He came back on the Board there during that period when you was on. How did you get on with him?
GM: Oh, I don’t think I ever knew where I stood with Kevin. He was a quiet chap. He was another very strong-minded person. He seemed to have a strong direction as to what he wanted to do and which way he thought things should go. He was always a gentleman as far as I was concerned. I don’t think he ever appeared to do any wrong by me. He was always receptive, but as I say, I think a lot of the early ones in the credit union movement were very strong willed, very strong minded as to what they thought should happen.
Right at the beginning of the credit union movement in Australia, you weren’t involved.
GM: Kevin Yates, was, Stan Arneil.
Bill Eagen, I gather was the main one down there because he was right from the start. Not your Bill Eagen here, Bill Eagen was a Manager of the Hibernian. He is now living in Bathurst and I am off to interview him tomorrow. He is tomorrow afternoon. In the morning it is Pat Eagen in Orange.
GM: Ron Birch was another one.
Ron Birch is still very much going. He is now of course one of the leading lights in ICUD. How did he impress you?
GM: Who Ron? Oh Ron and I seemed to get on pretty well because once again it was another place I went to quite often. Mr Cooper. I knew Ray Cooper as well.
Is he still around? I can’t find him.
GM: I haven’t seen Ray for years. He was with Sydney County Council too, wasn’t he?
Electricity Commission he was with.
GM: Yes. I haven’t seen him.
What about Vince Martin? You were on the Board with him one year, 1968 I think.
GM: Clarrie Stewart is the other one, I remember Clarrie. I probably didn’t have as much dealings with some of these. Ray I did and Ron Birch, because I used to go and visit Ron’s credit union and talk to his General Manager Ray.
What the Water Board?
GM: Yes.
You didn’t know Vince Martin, or you did?
GM: Yes I knew Vince. He was older than me. He was from Main Roads or Income Tax? Income Tax.
Do you remember when he and Dermot were going for the tax exemption? You weren’t on then were you? Mal Samuels, do you remember him?
GM: Yes, I remember him. White headed fellow. He was a Director of the credit union at the first meeting I ever went to, probably Canterbury Municipal Council.
Kevin Yates was on at that period too, Owen Jones as well. What about Daniel?
GM: Jack Coyne was the other one I was thinking of too. Jack Coyne was also from Sydney City Council.
Owen Jones was on with you at the same time as well, because that was the year you went to America. So what were the issues during that period?
GM: The turbulent years that I remember were the CUNA Mutual years, the insurance years, the Stabilisation years, the income tax not so much. The expanding years, the growing pain years. We were under the Co-operative Act. There was the move to get our own Act. The growing pains generally of people wanting to go and get directions. The Quest, I think, was the first time the Quest came into being, I know there was something to argue about. What size it was going to be and the sorts of content, editorial freedom, those sort of things.
So I suppose we had better check a few of the other things now. When you were here, when you started the credit union, did you have any negotiations to get pay-roll deductions in the first instance or did you start straight away?
GM: With Macquarie? All we did was made an approach to the Council at the time. As a matter of fact Stan Arneil spoke to the Council. They indicated their support for a credit union to start in this Council. If I remember correctly, at that time they also gave an undertaking for pay-roll deductions. So pay-roll deductions have never been a problem as far as this Council is concerned.
Were you involved in any of the computerisation decisions within your credit union and then within the League?
GM: No. I was out before computers became involved. It was very much a manual system. There was consideration of computers but we always felt we couldn’t afford them.
What about the ??????? system, you know an outside service?
GM: It was considered. Let me correct that. We had the Alma accounting machine initially. We were concerned, this is Macquarie wise, that our capacity wasn’t great enough to warrant a computer. There were some quite long discussions over a period of time as to when we would reach the capacity of our accounting machine as against going on a computer panel. It was after I went off the Board that computers were finally approved.
You know when the community credit union mergers took place, or the extensions of the Bond, were you involved in any of the decisions? Industrial ones were becoming community ones.
GM: This is the community one you are talking about now? Well, I know when I was on the Credit Union Advisory Committee there was always concern about the extension of the Bond, I mentioned that before, that was one of the things we discussed from time to time. I know the Registrar was always concerned about allowing industrial ones to go community and how far the community wanted to go which they saw to be outside the Bond. In other words if you take for argument’s sake Dubbo here, when they changed their Bond they extended it to Wellington and Narromine. That was quite a problem in convincing the Registrar that that was a desirable thing. They used to have the same problem in Sydney. I think the Universal Credit Union was all the County of Cumberland, and yet that to me was a looser Bond.
It was a diocese of Sydney.
GM: Some dramatic size.
Took in Newcastle as well.
GM: Yet other areas had problems when they wanted to extend Bonds and that one was so loose.
The Catholic diocese.
GM: I knew it took in most of the County of Cumberland. Yes in early days as far as negotiating a change in the Bond areas, I was involved in, but not on the final extension ones later on.
Did you have anything to do with the controversy that went on re the appointment of a South Pacific representative of CUNA International?
GM: Yes. I will even say that I put an application in for the job myself. Yes there was some controversy at the time as to whether there was a need for a representative, how it would be financed.
What about who got it though?
GM: Who got it, in the long term. As to how the decision was made. There was quite a lot of argument.
How was the decision made?
GM: Well it wasn’t made by us.
But you put the names up I understand? No, they advertised it and then after that they didn’t have control over it. When it finally came down it was somebody from a credit union outside the League. Who was it?
GM: I am just trying to think of person. You are right, it was somebody outside the League.
Well it wasn’t just somebody it was somebody who was a Manager and his own credit union was outside the League.
GM: I know it didn’t go down too well. I don’t think it was Maurie Ryan.
Was it Tom Ryan, because I know the main objector was Dermot Ryan. ‘We are not going to have this fellow shoved down our neck by an overseas group.’
GM: Oh quite right. The League was not involved in making the decision which seemed rather crazy when it had to service the so-called South Pacific region of which Australia is one of the major components.
Did you have anything to do with any of the other Leagues within the States?
GM: No.
You weren’t anything to do with AFCUL were you.
GM: AFCUL came into being while I was still there.
The World Council, you went to the one in Sydney.
GM: That’s right.
What was your impression of that one in Sydney, was it well run, you can’t compare it to any of the others?
GM: I couldn’t compare it other than to a main CUNA meeting. In fact it struck me as a bit more disjointed. That is just an observation in trying to compare it with what the CUNA meetings were like.
Is there any area that we haven’t covered that we should have done that you were involved with? Any decision-making or organisation that we have missed?
GM: Not really. I think the only other thing that I was involved with was trying to get Chapters working in the country areas, which is always a difficulty.
You never did establish them?
GM: Well we attempted to. We only ran irregular meetings because of the distances involved and getting people to them. Even though people considered they were a good thing it was still a long way to go for some people for a one night meeting, travel a hundred-odd mile and back again. It was seen as a little bit far to go for a meeting. I think now their meetings are regional meetings now, which are quarterly or half yearly which is probably a better way to go. But initially Chapters were the thing that we tried to push because they were working in the city area. But as I say they had their difficulties in the country area because of the distances.
The Institute of Credit Unions they are having country meetings now, they have meetings in this area don’t they?
GM: I think they have a meeting of credit union Managers in areas.
They are at Albury, once a year.
GM: So there is probably a bigger network of meetings.
Les Robinson and the central banking system, do you remember the move towards that?
GM: Well the central banking system that started just after we moved into the new building at Burwood. It was another one that initially started as a voluntary deposit. I am not sure whether it still is. It was considered whether it should have been a compulsory deposit in the first instance. It was something that came up when I was on the Board. Is Les still there, by the way? What is he doing now?
He is retired, had another by-pass. I am going to do a joint interview with him and Ken Miller and another one of each of them separately.
GM: I think Les had a rocky road a couple of times.
In what way?
GM: As Manager. I mean like any Manager you have got to work with the Presidents of the organisation and still try to cater for what member want.
So which one was it?
GM: Did Ken go off the Board as President and then come back again?
No he didn’t. He became President and he has never been back again.
GM: Who was on before Ken then?
Before him was Berry Calverley. Berry Calverley was back on after Don Harvey who was on for one year. It goes, after the War, Berry Calverley, Stan Arneil, Don Harvey.
GM: I remember what Les was involved in, because Les was there when the insurance arguments were on. I remember Les having a lot of heartache at that time because of the pulls within the Board.
The Board were all on side then.
GM: I think you will find that the League was getting a lot of flak which he took as General Manager. I think Les had one of his breakdowns or was ill at one stage.
End Tape 2b: 3457 Words: 1 hour 20 minutes.