5 OCTOBER 1989: RICHARD RAXWORTHY TALKING TO CLARRIE MURPHY
You were involved I know not directly with Sydney Credit Union but with the League quite a bit, so I will ask you right at the start where were you born and when?
CM: Born in Casino, New South Wales, on 3 December 1919.
With the name Murphy were you or Irish extraction? What were your parents?
CM: Parents were born in Australia. Their grandparents were born in Australia, but we think there is an Irish link somewhere which we haven’t traced back yet.
Right. I am pretty certain there has got to be with a name like that. Were you Catholics?
CM: Yes.
What was your father?
CM: He was Clarence John Murphy and he worked for the Forestry Commission back in the early days and he finished up being a wharf labourer on the Sydney waterfront.
Your mother?
CM: She was Emily Murphy, I think she was born in Gulargambone. I can’t remember the year. She was just a housewife.
What sort of influences did you get from them?
CM: Bear in mind that at the time I was born the Depression was an influence on our lives. Mum and dad were reasonably strict, but not too strict. Also brought us up to be straight and honest and do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. Mum was a convert to Catholicism, but she had a great Christian influence on our lives. Dad was a great reader and student of politics so he always made sure that around our house there were good magazines and books which led us to look for both the good and the bad in politics of the day and further afield, internationally. Very strongly against Communism my father.
He was Catholic?
CM: Yes he was Catholic.
What sort of magazines did you have around the house?
CM: Well there was the National Geographic, all second-hand they were, and Saturday Evening Post. Reader’s Digest when it came along, so that was the style. Century newspaper too, Jack Lang’s paper.
Where did you live when you were a child?
CM: Lived six years in the country at a place called Coraki. Dad worked on the wharves in Coraki because the coastal boats used to go right up the Richmond River there in those days. When I was six we moved down to Ashfield. From Ashfield dad acquired a house at Punchbowl and we lived there. He died there.
What sort of political influence did you get from him?
CM: Well strong Labor orientation. Those were the days when Jack Lang was very strong too. Dad probably supported Lang all the way. He wasn’t, to my knowledge, an active member of the Party, but a great supporter of the Party. I always remember the next-door neighbour was a Scottish Communist and dad had many an argument with him. It blew up one night, talking politics of course and support for the Communist Party which dad was definitely against, and he said, “If your brains were dynamite you wouldn’t have enough to blow your head off.” Of course that finished any conversation with this Scotsman until the day he died.
Did he have any Union involvement?
CM: No. He would have had to belong to the Waterside Workers’ Federation. If you worked on the wharves you belonged to that Union. You didn’t dispute it, you just joined it, that was it. He was in the era when they had, I think, the bin system. The foreman would stand on a table or steps and the men would be surrounding him and he would nominate the people for work on that particular day. There was even graft and corruption on the waterfront in those days. If people were prepared to sling the foreman you were short of a day’s work. They were grim times and I know that he walked sometimes from Punchbowl to the waterfront and back because he didn’t have the fare to go on the train. They were grim times.
Was he ever completely out of work during the Depression?
CM: There were some days he couldn’t get work on the waterfront, so it was a day-to-day operation. You worked some days. He got the dole too and kept us going with food coupons they issued in those days. We were dressed in hand-me-downs. You knew what it was to wear somebody else’s clothes.
There was a number of you in the family?
CM: Only a brother and myself. Mum was a good cook and could make a good meal out of anything, so we never starved. We learned to eat the old bread and dripping and treacle and like it. They were great times, hard times but great times. There was a great trust among people. In the suburb in which I lived it was the Labor belt, there was no other Party but the Labor Party.
What school did you go to?
CM: I finished up going to Belmore Technical School learning woodwork, carpentry and technical drawing.
Did you like any particular subject?
CM: I liked the metalwork and woodwork and technical drawing.
Dislikes?
CM: No real dislikes. I liked English too. We had a teacher who encouraged good English and also he left the right magazines around for students to take themselves. Stood me in good stead later on because I became a Marketing Manager with the Railway Staff Credit Union many years later. Also, wherever I went in the credit union movement I believe that you had to promote your organisation. That is where the newsletters came in. I was associated with several newsletters in my time.
What do you remember of recreation when you were a child?
CM: Oh the old stick and a ball out in the back paddock, that was the recreation. Or flying kites, that was another recreation. That is about it.
Football?
CM: I never played football mainly because my father didn’t believe in it. He had seen too many fellows with busted knees and other injuries which he said came back on you later on in life. So he never encouraged it, we could have played but he never encouraged us so my brother and myself never took it on.
What was your first job?
CM: First job was working assembling electric irons in a place at the bottom end of Pitt Street. It doesn’t exist now, it has been torn down.
Which one was that?
CM: I firm named, I think, Love. We used to put electric irons and toasters together. Little things that stick in your mind, I had a hatred of being sent out for change. If someone would come in and buy or pay for an iron and put the notes over Mr Love used to ask me to go out and get change of a pound or ten shillings I used to have to run round the stores in that area to get change. I really hated that job.
Why was that?
CM: Well just the embarrassment of going into a shop and having to ask if they minded giving me change and not buying something from that shop. I thought that was a bit infra dig.
You couldn’t go to a bank instead?
CM: To my memory I don’t think there were banks down that end, not too many. There might have been but I just didn’t know them.
Where did you go from there?
CM: I got a position in a stationery manufacturing place, F K Riven and Sons. They were located down in Sussex Street. We used to make ring-back binders, lever-arch files and other similar things associated with the storage of documents. I worked there and one incident that I recall vividly was one of the greatest fires in Sydney when a wool store across from Pyrmont went up. Our building faced Pyrmont and we could feel the heat. We were on the fourth floor and we could feel the heat from that fire across in Sussex Street. It was one of the biggest fires in Sydney, a wool store went up. Then we moved from Sussex Street up into Foster Street, closer to the railway there. I became foreman of that particular factory. The original foreman went to the War and I was put in his place and remained foreman until I joined up and went into the Royal Australian Air Force. I stayed for about three years and eight months in the Air Force. Came back and worked for the same firm again but my heart wasn’t in that sort of a job I wanted to get into the aviation industry in which I had been trained in the Air Force. Eventually I applied for a job at an aviation firm in Bankstown called Kingsford-Smith Aviation Service. They had the contract to do up some lease-lend engines, American aircraft engines. I worked with them for a time at Bankstown and then transferred across to TAA, Trans Australian Airlines in those days. That meant travelling from Punchbowl to Mascot every day and working night shift and other shifts as well. In that period of time TAA transferred some of their DC4 aircraft across to Qantas, who were expanding, and my position became redundant. But TAA arranged for us to go over and be interviewed by Qantas because they needed extra mechanics and I was able to get a job at Qantas there servicing their fleet. Working on the engines, overhaul and maintenance on the actual engines in the aircraft. From there I went over to an aircraft company sponsored by Victor. Victor was getting into the aviation industry and they were after an inspector and I took that job on for a time there until the bottom dropped out of the aviation industry. They gave me time to apply for another position and I worked for a firm, Smith’s Instruments, at Granville until I applied for and got a job as the Manager of the New South Wales Credit Union League in 1962.
So you must have been involved in a credit union before that. When did you first hear about credit unions?
CM: Well I first heard about credit unions back in 1947. That was through who we regard as the founder of the movement, Kevin Yates. He addressed a meeting of Catholic men in Sydney. I was invited to attend and Kev gave the story of the credit unions as he had found them in Canada. During his term with the Royal Australian Air Force he was trained in Canada and he liked the idea and made inquiries both on the west coast and east coast of Canada in regard to credit unions before he was transferred across to England. He liked the idea so much and was an enthusiast and he addressed this group of men with the aim of eventually forming a credit union in Sydney. Well I heard that address and thought it was fine but didn’t do anything about it until I heard a school teacher. I went to a meeting in a parish hall dealing with social justice and a school teacher was a member, had joined this Universal Credit Union. He said it was a great idea and I should be in it. He told me where it was and I made the inquiries and went in there and joined Universal Credit Union. I took my required number of shares and started a savings account. I attended an Annual Meeting and because I asked a question or two I was nominated for the Board and became a Board member of Universal Credit Union. I became a disciple of credit unions from that time onwards. I was so enthused about the idea I even got people in Punchbowl to join. I used to go and physically call on their homes, collect their money, take the money into the credit union and get it entered into their books, bring them out there. I forget how many people I had in the end doing this, maybe twelve or thirteen or so, then the question was put to me, “Why don’t we have a credit union in Punchbowl?” The parish was St Jerome’s. The old parish priest, as long as he wasn’t involved in it, said, “Okay, go ahead.” So I took the steps, took the encouragement from the Secretary of that credit union, Bill Egan. He told me what to do with the paperwork and we set the formation meeting, formed a credit union with about nineteen members there. That credit union, just in September, celebrated its fortieth anniversary. It is one of the oldest credit unions, I believe, in the State. It is a community credit union which are the hardest to operate and maintain.
Did you have trouble with the law in that?
CM: Well no legal difficulties at that stage. The Registrar of Credit Unions or Registry ,at that time a Government Department, were helpful and didn’t place any obstructions in the rules there which would worry us at that time. It was formed on the understanding that it was to provide a service to the Catholic members of St Jerome’s Parish. Now that, in later times as we progressed, created a situation where we had mixed marriages and we could never see that it should be the aim of a credit union to maintain divisions in families because of one member being a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic. So we decided we would break that rule to a degree. We would lend to the husband who was a non-Catholic partner in the marriage. We were prepared to take him in as a member and grant loans. We just kept quiet about it, we broke the law and didn’t shout about it and we got away with it. In later years the bond of the credit union was extended, there were boundaries defined and we placed a liberal interpretation on it within the boundaries of St Jerome’s Parish. The name of the credit union was changed later to become Punchbowl Credit Union. We moved out of the little part-time office we had in the church school building and we acquired our own premises. So the name St Jerome’s faded and we adopted a name and changed our name to Punchbowl Credit Union.
Now when you became Punchbowl Credit Union that would make you a community-based one? So by that time the rules had been changed to allow community-based credit unions?
CM: I can’t remember. I don’t think they had been changed there, but we still placed a liberal interpretation on living inside the boundaries of the parish.
Did you ever hear about the Australian Antigonish Association?
CM: Yes that came along later. As a matter of fact we had visits from Father Gallagher, the principal architect of that. He took part in the organisation of what we called cottage discussions. A Director would ask somebody if they would make their home available for a group of people to come in and talk about credit unions. We got that response from people so you could have four or five Directors going into different homes on one night speaking about the value of credit unions and getting a response from them. Also the woman of the house provided a light supper for those people. So it created the nucleus of a good community operation and people became known to each other. In the early days of that credit union the Directors met in the homes of each other. There was a meeting every fortnight and one fortnight it would be in my home, one fortnight it would be in the Chairman’s. It would go right through so the families became involved with the credit union because the wives provided a light supper. Then there was the talk with them after the meeting. That kept that Board together. It kept the credit union together and more people got to know about it too. Also they knew and trusted the people who were running the organisation. Credit unions in those days were based on trust, trust in those who were running them. They weren’t big operators. You talk about twenty pounds and it was a lot of money. A loan of twenty pounds was a lot of money. There weren’t so many things to buy, not like you have a smorgasbord today on electrical appliances and toys and that, they just didn’t exist. It was just mainly associated with the necessities of life, purchasing a radio or something like that.
Was there any political involvement at that stage of the proceedings with the Catholic Workers’ Movement and such like?
CM: No political involvement. I would say, thinking back on the Board there, all the Board would have been supporters of the Labor Party. They may not have been members, I don’t know if they were actual members, but they would have been supporters of the Labor Party. We were living in that western belt there.
But it really didn’t have any political involvement at all?
CM: No.
I was just noticing that one of the first meetings, where Kevin Yates was asked to speak, was called by Dr Paddy Ryan in the late 1940s. He was interested particularly from a point of view of fighting Communism.
CM: Well that is right. Dr Ryan was the greatest fighter against Communism that I think the Catholic Church has produced in this State. He was building this organisation up, or encouraging this organisation to take root. Encouraging the study of social justice principles as proposed by the Pope at the time, and the other Popes as well. So out of that he was evidently enticed to see that in the credit unions could provide finances for the individuals who were hardest hit by recessions and depressions. He never took an active part in becoming a Board member or anything of that nature, just giving encouragement.
In your area he wasn’t involved at all was he?
CM: Not to my knowledge. From those meetings developed a great community spirit, an implicit trust in the Directors who were running the organisation and maintaining that bond of association which is terribly important in a community credit union. If you have got no bond of association you are going to flounder.
When did you become a staff member of the Credit Union League?
CM: Well first of all we will cover a period of understanding what the international movement was all about. At that time the only international paper that I know of was called the Credit Union Bridge and it was put out by what we call CUNA, the Credit Union National Association of America. The Universal Credit Union did subscribe to that magazine which came out once a month. Through Bill Egan I got copies of that magazine. In Punchbowl Credit Union I got them to subscribe to it too so I got to know all the personalities involved with the movement, principally overseas the heads of it there out of Jamaica and that sort of stuff. I got to know them through reading about them. That helped me promote Punchbowl Credit Union and also later on the League. Then there was the move later on to bring out from America Owen Spetland, a Director of the World Extension Department of CUNA. He came in 1957 and we extended a welcome to him there. He was taken around and introduced to the various Board members of the Association, at that stage. We had him out to a Special Meeting at Punchbowl Credit Union where he addressed a group of parishioners there in the home of a Director. A little aside here, we had a Director who worked for a big whisky supplier and he brought him a bottle of whisky and Owen Spetland made the remark it was the only place he had ever been in the world where he was given a bottle of whisky.
He, through his understanding of the young movement at that time, made a recommendation to the international movement that two students be selected for study in the United States and Canada and Fiji of the movement. Two students were selected and fortunately I was one of them and the other was Keith Young. He was at that stage, I think, Secretary of the Association. We went over there in 1958 to do a four month study course. It involved the British Columbia League, down to Portland, Oregan, the Oregan League, the Californian League. Across to the Illinois League in Chicago. We went up to Madison, the headquarters of the international movement, and did a two-week study course at the University of Wisconsin. Then across to Michigan and into Iowa, Witchita in Kansas, and also to Hamilton in Ontario. We went from there into Toronto to study the League in Toronto, the Ontario League. On the way back home I did six days with the Fijian Credit Union League before arriving back in Australia.
Did you meet Father Ganey there?
CM: I met Father Ganey in Fiji in 1958. Quite something that was too. Joane Naisara was the Manager of their League at that stage. I always remember the story he told of the League. They approached the banks so the Fijians in the outer areas away from Suva could do their banking, I think it was with the ANZ Bank at the time there, and they wouldn’t be in it. So what he did, he didn’t do it but he encouraged the League to purchase a Land Rover, which they did. They got a fellow who finished up driving that Land Rover around to the various Fijian villages there and collecting their money and bringing it back into Suva and banking it. They showed initiative at that particular time, that was back in 1958. Anyhow I came back to Australia. But to get that trip to America, I worked in the aviation industry at Sydney, I applied for four months leave. They wouldn’t give it to me so I threw my job in. I was determined to take this trip. So I had no job to come back to. But at that time, 1958, there were plenty of jobs available so I got a job at W C Stevens at Arncliffe. That was associated with the manufacture of refrigerator parts, portable petrol tanks. I worked there and got a lot of overtime which made up for the cost of living while I was away. I had to support a family of five at that stage, keep them going. So I worked night and day for twelve months and only got Saturday afternoon and Sunday off. But it enabled me to catch up with all the expense of keeping the family going. The next year I eased off a little bit and only worked three days and three nights a week and the occasional Saturday. Still I kept up with the credit union movement and maintained my position on the Board of Punchbowl Credit Union. It was an exciting time, and tough time, you could say. But the trip gave me that vision. Those four months weren’t wasted, they implanted in my mind a vision of a movement which must grow out in Australia here. We only had a small movement at that particular time. The Association was struggling along, not making a great deal of progress, but still it was there and we had something to build on. That is the way I viewed it, anyhow.
So you came across the Antigonish Movement there, did you come across Dermot Ryan?
CM: No he hadn’t got involved in the movement to the same extent I had at that stage. He was out at Lidcombe.
When did you start with the League?
CM: I started with the League in 1962, full-time. I was a League Director up until that time. I was at the formation meeting of the New South Wales Credit Union League.
If you were a League Director I have a little resume of Dermot Ryan’s which stated that Dermot Ryan, this was put out in Quest, had been a Director of the League in 1959.
CM: In 1959 he well could have been a Director of the League.
So what credit union would he have been involved with then?
CM: In 1959, he probably would have been involved with this one here, Sydney Credit Union.
No, he didn’t form it until 1963.
CM: Well in 1959 Dermot Ryan was a Director of Lidcombe Credit Union and came into the League. He was a Director in 1959, 1960 and 1961. He drifted off and came back in later years, about 1966. He returned to the League in 1966. So he knew Father Gallagher and had some disagreements with Father Gallagher over aspects of the movement, where it should go and how it should be operated.
When was that?
CM: In that period between 1959 up until 1966. Their paths didn’t come together.
Did you ever hear any of these arguments, or hear about them?
CM: I heard about them. I had fallen out with the same gentleman. He came into our Board meeting one night and he wanted to make a film of the credit union movement, or the Antigonish Movement, and incorporate us in it. I knew the strength of the movement, I knew the funds that were available, and they were pretty small. We didn’t have a lot of money to spend on anything apart from running that credit union. Nobody was getting paid, a totally voluntary operation, and he wanted us to go into the production of a film. I disputed this and he talked and talked and some of the Directors had to leave to get home, it was after twelve at night, and he got the motion through that we would support it.
End Tape 1A: 4333 Words: 1 hour 35 minutes
5 OCTOBER 1989: RICHARD RAXWORTHY TALKING TO CLARRIE MURPHY
CM: Father Gallagher came out to our Board meeting one night and put the proposition that we should support the production of a film related to credit unions which would incorporate our own credit union and the Antigonish Movement group with which he was directly involved. He just talked and talked and some of the Directors left the meeting. Finally the motion went through to support the idea of the production of a film. I recorded my vote against it. The meeting finished and I thought that on a technicality I could beat this man and I drew attention of Directors at the following Board meeting to the fact that there wasn’t a quorum there to really make that vote valid. I got a recession motion through but also, in some regards, had the pleasure of getting in touch with Father Gallagher and telling him that the Punchbowl Board would not support the production of a film. I don’t think he ever spoke to me in a serious vein from that point onwards. He realised that there were other people with other minds about the way this credit union movement went. He was a single-minded man. He had in his view the right direction for the movement to be pointed. Me and other fellows, including Dermot Ryan, saw there were other ways to approach this movement. While we would concede that a priest has got a right in matters of religion and faith and we wouldn’t dispute him on that, with regard to the commercial world we maintained that we had just as much right to put a point of view, even though it disagreed with his. So from that point on there was a cleavage in our approach to how this movement was going. I stuck to the idea of the international movement there producing the credit union, building the credit union up, going out and promoting it in other areas in line with the practice of the international credit union movement. Not just the way America did it, or Canada did it, but how it was expanding throughout the world.
A great thing that I always maintained and spoke about in this movement, tourism wasn’t an in thing at that time. This movement was promoted virtually throughout the world without the use of a gun. I think it is something that we should never forget, that we crossed barriers of language and culture but it could always be slotted into any particular part of the world where there was a little bit of money available. Like in Peru there was a Father McClellan who had got the Mayas in Peru, which is a poverty-stricken place in his days and still is. He always maintained that everybody was able to get a little bit to go and buy a drink. The same applies, when you think of it, to every part of the world. Even if there is a recession on there is always enough for a fellow to go and get a drink. He built on that and got the people to save a bit of money. He, and other people throughout the world. So it could be slotted into any culture in any part of the world having the support of the international movement. They had some good men there and they didn’t demand that you do it this way, they would point the way and you would work it in with your own laws in the particular country you were in. We were fortunate in this regard that we had laws already on the Statutory Book there which allowed a co-operative to be formed and this was part of the co-operative movement and didn’t mean a great change of laws. We weren’t battling the government. That came after when we were after our own Credit Union Act, I forget which year now, there were political battles involved in that. But finally the movement got its own Credit Union Act.
Well there was more to the Antigonish Movement than credit unions weren’t there?
CM: They set up a Housewife United Buyers’ Co-operative and they established a store and the then Secretary of the Universal Credit Union was appointed the Manager of that for a period of time. It was to go out and get housewives to buy through this United Buyers’. The idea had application but distance was a problem, you could only see the goods at one place and in my mind it wasn’t a success. We never promoted it and it battled on for years and years.
What about the education side of it?
CM: Well they maintained, and this was rightly so, that with this credit union movement there always had to be an education arm. His education was built on the idea of cottage discussion, which we followed to a certain degree. It finished up culminating in one big meeting after we had the cottage discussions. So he did our movement some good. We would go along with that sort of approach. But it never interfered with how we were managing our credit union, so there wasn’t any dispute at that particular stage.
He kept this little group of credit unions, the Antigonish group, together and he had a great battle over the rules with the Registrar of Credit Union over the idea of a community credit union up in the Port Macquarie area, Lake Macquarie area. He beat the Registrar on that one. He took the Taxation Department to task over the taxing of credit unions and he beat them. He was a success story, but he just virtually couldn’t work with people who had different ideas from his.
You were a co-operative sort of person in the way you worked with other people, was Dermot?
CM: Well my contact with Dermot was when their Board came over to meet our Board at Punchbowl one night in a home. They wanted to see how things were done and how much they took away from us I don’t know. It was only a casual relationship with Dermot at that stage, so I wasn’t involved with his personal disputes or his disputes with Father Gallagher which I heard later he had. They were pretty violent and hard words were exchanged so Dermot went his way and Father Gallagher went his way. I couldn’t say how Dermot operated at that particular time. I saw him later on because he was on the League Board and I was the League Manager. He was a single minded person too.
How did he operate then?
CM: He had control of a lot of various contacts. He was a great contact man, Dermot. I sometimes wondered whether he was running the Town Hall, the administration. I used to have to go down and see him sometimes and I would ask where he was and they would say he was around somewhere but nobody could pinpoint that somewhere. No doubt he was doing some work for the credit union because it prospered down there and got a good name for itself, so I guess he was doing a lot of work for the credit union being paid for by the City Council. He mightn’t have admitted that, but it is just an observation.
You were the League Manager and he was a Director, how did he deal with you then? How did you get on with him?
CM: Well I got on with him all right as a Manager. I wasn’t a drinker, you know I didn’t touch the liquor to any great extent there. He came from a group who liked to drink, let’s put it that way. So I never bothered to try and break into that part of it. That was his way of conducting business but it wasn’t mine. I had to maintain a neutral stance as the Manager of the League. I couldn’t enter into disputes, foster anything, it had to come from the Board. I was directed to do things and that was my task. I could see he was a strong man, Dermot was a very strong man. Forceful in his presentation of his point of view and very persuasive. I might leave it at that.
What about behind the scenes?
CM: He was a manipulator. In my observation I would say he was a manipulator. He knew how to deliver a majority of votes on an issue. He believed, this is my observation again, that you never worry about the minority you worry about the majority. If a Board has nine Directors you worry about five. You have only got to worry about four, because you have your own vote, so you work on four. It was successful. That operation was a very successful one, counting the numbers, that is what you call it, counting the numbers. Don’t worry about the minority, work on the majority. Interesting times they were. It was virtually like a political party, they work on numbers too. Dermot had plenty of experience in that because he was a member of the Labor Party and I think up to the day of his death he would have been a member of the Labor Party. He might even have been a Branch Secretary. Had a great association with the Federal politician Tom Uren. He spoke about him many times and he had open the Historical Co-operative Annual Meeting in 1987 down in Canberra. Tom spoke of how they had to co-operate in Changi as prisoners so he had an affinity, he maintained, with the co-operative movement. Dermot was probably in the same Labor area as Tom Uren. Dermot knew all about politics. The movement needed people like that, who were forceful. It needed that sort of man, the likes of Stan Arneil, to give a push. Push the timid. Visualise something, make it a target, get co-operation from the majority of the members and then sell it to the movement. So these people played a very vital part in the movement.
When did you first meet Stan Arneil?
CM: 1961. Stan became a Director of the Association, or League at that time, and he was closely allied to the ABC Staff Credit Union. That was when I first came across him, back in 1961. I wasn’t on the staff at that stage.
How did he strike you at that time?
CM: He played it cool for a while. Stan was actively involved in the ABC Staff Association. He could see the benefit of this and he promoted the ABC, formed the ABC Staff Association, and went further and formed them in various Staff Associations throughout Australia, credit unions, he formed one in every State in Australia.
The Staff Association was a Union, did he form that first?
CM: I can’t say. The nucleus was there to provide the bond of association, the Staff Association. So he formed, in this case, the Staff Association Credit Union of New South Wales. He did the same in every State. So he was another man with a vision, forceful presentation, maybe some would say ruthless in his application of achieving goals.
How do you mean ruthless?
CM: Well if he believed something should be done he made it a goal to get that done. Moved people to accept the idea, vote for it and then work on the nuts and bolts to get that idea through.
That is not particularly ruthless.
CM: Well, say at a meeting you can adopt a timid approach to your idea or you can enthuse people, supporters, to support your case. Now that is what Stan did. He would enthuse people sufficiently to support his case. In most cases it proved of advantage to the movement in New South Wales and ultimately Australia.
Did he work behind the scenes as well?
CM: I would say yes, from the results that I saw, he worked behind the scenes and pulled a few strings. He might also have bashed some heads, but there are other ways of getting your way.
How was he different to Dermot?
CM: They were both of the same ilk. Both very similar operators. This produced a violent clash later on in the movement’s history over insurance. That is another story which somebody else will have to tell you about.
You were involved in that.
CM: To a certain degree. The insurance issue was a big thing. Are we going to far ahead of the story?
Well a little bit, we will come to that in a minute shall we say.
CM: Well Dermot and Stan, in my estimation, were very similar operators, but they did achieve a lot for the movement. Because of their rugged nature and approach they ruffled feathers, but when you look at history anything achieved in history was achieved by ruffling feathers and in some cases there were wars started. Fortunately in this co-operative movement it didn’t get to that stage, but some people couldn’t take it and they didn’t stand for the Board positions or resigned.
So you came in after the League had been formed in 1957 wasn’t it?
CM: 1956 I think it was.
AFCUL had been formed in 1966. You were already well into the movement by that time.
CM: I was. I was appointed Manager of the League in late 1961, early 1962.
Who was the President of the League at that time?
CM: It was Stan Arneil. I worked under Stan Arneil.
How was he to work under?
CM: Well I found him a little hard in this regard. Because of his involvement in so many things apart from the ABC Staff Credit Union, he was also I think head of the paper for the army unit he was involved with. I used to have to take papers down to his office in Castlereagh Street and sometimes I would have to wait while he attended to matters inside and it was a bit hard because he was a very active man. Maybe a hard man, but I would say reasonably fair. He wanted things done, he wanted things achieved, that was it and it was my job to carry that out.
Ken Miller?
CM: Ken Miller wasn’t on the scene in those days. He was in a credit union out at Motor Transport Department. Ken didn’t come into the League until later on.
He didn’t come on the Board until 1966, right. So who was the next President after Stan Arneil?
CM: Beresford Calverley was also a President, I worked under him. He came from Motor Transport Credit Union and he was one of the Foundation Directors of the League I think, from the early days. He was a credit union member right until his death, I forget which year that happened now. He was Chairman later. Not a real exciting Chairman. Stan Arneil was the pusher.
Who was the next one you remember then?
CM: Don Harvey from the Sydney Water Board. He was Chairman of the League I think for at least twelve months.
Was there a President and a Chairman?
CM: No, the President was the Chairman. Then we had a Vice-Chairman as well. In 1961, 1962, the Vice-Chairman was Tom Ryan, the Manager of the CBOA Credit Union.
Any relation to Dermot?
CM: No relationship. But very similar in approach though. Rugged, tough men. Tom had a great brain for figures, he was a computer. Always made a fair decision, his decisions were thought out and always fair and with the aim of advancing the movement not himself. We had a interesting group at the top there who were rugged men in their own right, but they were needed at that time to push the movement along.
Well during that time what were the actual issues that you were pushing?
CM: Well I think the number one issue at the time was to get a Credit Union Act. So instead of working under the Co-operative Act with all the stuff that didn’t concern us really, these Directors and Stan Arneil in particular said we needed a Credit Union Act and they would go out and get it. So they fought hard and long for a Credit Union Act and got it through. Did a lot of hard work and pushed it through.
How were you involved in that?
CM: Well I was the Manager at the time. We used to carry Press Releases down and deliver them to parliamentarians and see that it successfully got through.
Did you do any of the lobbying yourself?
CM: No I didn’t do any lobbying, I left it to these Directors. These fellows had the contacts. Stan was also a member of the Labor Party too, like Dermot Ryan. They could put their finger on a few blokes who could get in touch with politicians. It wasn’t my role. I kept neutral on politics and religion. In my situation I felt it better to keep politics and religion neutral. I didn’t want to get involved in supporting one Party or one religion against the other. Probably half the blokes at this time would have been Catholics but you couldn’t make that an issue. You couldn’t make religion an issue, you couldn’t make politics an issue, although they used the politicians of the day to push the idea of getting the Credit Union Act and it was a successful one too.
Where did the little man with the umbrella come from?
CM: It came from the international movement. They adopted that as their symbol and it was an easily understood symbol. It mightn’t be au fait with today’s marketing but the idea of an umbrella, everybody knows what an umbrella is for. The rain beating down at that time stressed hard times, sickness, financial distress. Now they were the things that worried the ordinary person. The umbrella was the protection, the credit union was the little man. I firmly believe that was a great slogan at that time. The movement has changed it since then, but you never had to give a long discourse as to what that meant. You can look at logos today and you wonder what they mean, but you never had to tell anybody twice what the little man meant. A great symbol, to be working in a movement that had that as a symbol.
I remember one in England. The building societies had the umbrella in the shape of a roof, house roof.
CM: Very similar, very good understanding. So the movement was pushed along by the likes of Stan Arneil, Dermot Ryan and a Board including Tom Ryan of the CBOA. Beresford Calverley was there, he had a bit of an in with some politicians too. All of these guys were playing some part in keeping up with the politics.
When you got your own Act what was the next thing?
CM: Well I think along came the idea of a Stabilisation Fund. Dermot was involved with that.
What about the Liberal Party and the tax they put on, turnover tax as they called it?
CM: Gallagher in his fight with the Taxation Department really saved the movement thousands and thousands of dollars there, because the interest paid on members’ savings was tax free at that time. That was a fight that we didn’t win but we are very thankful he won it.
You mean State taxes?
CM: No it was a Federal tax, income tax thing.
Surely that was done by the Whitlam Government later on?
CM: Possibly so, but it had to be fought out. I forget which Liberal Government was in power then. They had to actually challenge the Taxation Department in the High Court.
But they lost that case.
CM: No they won it. Gallagher won that case.
I think we must be talking about two separate cases.
CM: Which tax are you talking about?
I am talking about the Federal income tax.
CM: Interest on the savings was tax free to the credit unions, the credit unions didn’t have to pay a tax on it. Maybe you are talking about another tax.
Well I don’t understand because what I have heard from most of the others didn’t mention Father Gallagher at all.
CM: Well not a lot would know about him.
Well Jack Coyne would because they went on deputations together, but I thought that was to the State Government, it was after the Stabilisation.
CM: This might be something to do with the taxing of Loan Agreements.
Yes it was the Stamp Duty.
CM: They fought battles with the State Government on Stamp Duty.
Turnover tax, as it was called, payroll tax.
CM: Gallagher fought him on the other issue on the savings of members, so he had a victory there.
What year did he succeed in that court case, can you remember? Was he still at Lidcombe or was he at the Little Sisters at that time?
CM: He would have been over at Lidcombe at that stage, so it was an early battle. It was recorded in Hansard and everything, because that was big news. Big companies couldn’t beat that Taxation Department and yet he had a victory.
So the Federal Taxation Department?
CM: Yes. There was a battle with the State Government over various aspects of taxation. I wasn’t involved in that.
Eventually the tax exemption was granted which was the promise of the Whitlam Labor Government and actually brought in under Frank Crean as Treasurer. What you are talking about is much earlier than that. What were you doing at the time this was going on? Were you Manager at the League then?
CM: I finished in 1967. I retired as Manager. I was no longer Manager in mid-1967.
So had this battle been fought by Father Gallagher at that time?
CM: Yes it had been, and been won.
This is something I didn’t know about.
CM: Well when you are talking to Rose Gallagher ask her to elaborate on that success. It is something worth recording.
The other battle he had was regarding community credit unions at Lake Macquarie?
CM: Yes, he fought the Registrar on that one. It was a State matter.
Was that a Tribunal Hearing?
CM: Again I can’t tell you. It got to court so it was a State Court matter.
That is interesting.
CM: Again you can see the need for these strong men, the Arneil’s, the Ryan’s, the Gallagher’s. They ruffled feathers and ruffled each others on the way up there. But it was like the clash of two boxers fighting for a championship, one has to win.
Jack Coyne told me of an occasion when Dermot Ryan said Father Gallagher said that he should give him, Dermot, a punch on the nose. Did you ever hear that story?
CM: I heard that story yes. I don’t know if it got to the physical stage.
It didn’t say he was going to he said he should have. That is according to Dermot anyway.
CM: That’s right. I heard the story from Dermot’s own mouth so no doubt it was true. I know Father Gallagher was a man who provoked aggression. You had to be aggressive to beat him. The only way, if you laid down and accepted it he got his way, roll over the top of you.
Can you tell me that story then, because I haven’t heard it direct.
CM: No I can’t tell you. From my recollection it was after a meeting where he stood up to Father Gallagher. It must have been over some disagreement and it got to a threat.
I don’t think it was, he didn’t say he was going to give him a punch in the mouth just that he should give Dermot a punch in the mouth. Dermot said, “Don’t let the collar stop you.”
CM: That is the way I heard it. He would have meant it too.
What do you think was the next battle that went on during the time you were still Manager?
CM: Well the insurance battle was one that was brewing. At that stage the credit union movement had through the League negotiated a Loan Protection Insurance. The overseas movement always had this Loan Protection Insurance through CUNA Mutual Insurance Society. They, for technical reasons, couldn’t come straight out here in Australia even though we had become affiliated with them. Affiliation was granted in 1958, when I was at the Annual Meeting of the World Credit Union Movement. They put a motion through to accept Australia as part of CUNA International. I was given the opportunity of speaking for the movement in thanks and praise for their acceptance of that motion. We became accepted by the world movement, but we couldn’t get the CUNA Mutual Insurance Society out here.
You couldn’t get it off any local insurers?
CM: The Secretary of the Association, the League. before I became full-time Manager was Keith Young. Keith Young, through association with the Sydney Manager of the National Co-operative Insurance Society.
You took over from Keith Young did you?
CM: Well he was Secretary and I was Manager. They had negotiated with various companies and gained acceptance of the MLC Company to promote their loan protection insurance cover for credit union members in the League. They went along with that company for several years. I, as League Manager, used to get the monthly returns in from the credit unions, collate them and give them to the company. If a member died his outstanding balance was paid back in full to that particular credit union. It was a great scheme. We pioneered that in New South Wales anyhow.
Who was covering it?
CM: MLC. There was always the aim and desire to get CUNA Mutual to come to Australia.
Why was that?
CM: Because it had such a great name overseas.
But it had been causing the Americans a lot of trouble.
End Tape 1B: 4340 Words: 1 hour 40 minutes
5 OCTOBER 1989: RICHARD RAXWORTHY TALKING TO CLARRIE MURPHY
You have got a date there for when you became a Manager of the League and resigned from the Board.
CM: Well I had been an original Board member of the League and I resigned at a Board meeting held on 31 August 1960 prior to taking up the position as League Manager. The League had a very active Secretary, Keith Young.
He wasn’t paid he was a voluntary Secretary?
CM: A voluntary Secretary. He had put a tremendous amount of work and effort into promoting the League. He was a publicist and a speaker and he attended many Board meetings and meetings by invitation to promote the League. He produced a newsletter under the name of New South Wales Credit Union News. It was a roneoed publication, but at least it kept those who were affiliated with the League in touch with what was happening. A very important means of communication to a young movement. Now Keith, on the appointment of a Manager, myself, relinquished his position as Secretary. This is recorded in the Board Minutes of the League on 26 September 1962. It reads, “That the Board place on record its appreciation to Keith Young for his contribution to the credit union movement.” He had played a very important part in keeping the League together up until the time of his resignation.
Did you get on well with him while you were at the League?
CM: Yes.
How did you get on with him in America?
CM: Very well. Keith and I essentially believe in the same things. We wanted to advance the movement. We wanted to learn as much as we could about the operation in America and Canada. There was no great conflict. To me it was my personal good fortune that I was travelling with him. Number one we could discuss the various events of the day, make a contribution to what we thought could be utilised back in New South Wales. A good travelling companion. It wasn’t a case that he was looking for glorification, he wanted to see this movement advanced and he did something practical to make it happen too.
What credit union was he with?
CM: I believe he was associated with an Anglican credit union at Balgowlah. I think that is where he came into the situation. You were asking about some of the major issues, we also have to include some major incidents, or appointments, in that period of time we are talking about. We see from the Minutes of the Board meeting that Mr Arneil advised the Executive of his appointment as a Credit Union Development Officer with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Department. This was recorded in the Executive meeting Minutes dated 17 August 1964. This meant he was seconded from the ABC to work full-time with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. His efforts there were mainly to promote credit unions within the State. He got into this job with a great deal of vigour and might have upset the public service because in the public service journal called Red Tape there were protests about such an appointment being made of somebody from outside the service. There was evidently a great deal of jealousy which exists in the various public service organisations in the State. There were vigorous protests made and record in Red Tape about the appointment of S F Arneil to such a position within the Registry of Co-operative Societies. We made mention of the introduction of the Credit Union Act, which was a combined effort of the New South Wales Credit Union League Board, our Solicitor, who was J Lange at the time, and it meant much time and effort to acquaint the parliamentarians of the need for this Act and acceptance. We see from the Minutes of the New South Wales Credit Union League there was a section, it is a report by S Arneil, which reads,
The Credit Union Advisory Committee reported that:
(a) The new Credit Union Act was now in the hands of a Parliamentary Draftsman.
(b) The Credit Union Advisory Committee has been reconstituted with S Arneil, B Calverley, D Arrivolo and V Turnbull as representatives.
This is from the Board Minutes of 7 February 1964. So that was an important step on the road to the final achievement of the Credit Union Act, which the League promoted. It was a success story.
Now were the talks started by the time you had left as a Manager of the Credit Union League, on making the League national? Bringing the other States into it?
CM: That was to promote AFCUL.
But AFCUL hadn’t been founded at that time, had it?
CM: No. The direction of our League through the Board was that we would give any State any assistance they required at the time. We didn’t have the money to send a Field Representative down into Victoria or something, but Stan Arneil had done some good work in promoting the credit union in every ABC Staff Association in every State so there was a link. There was a link there.
Every year two or three representatives of the League would go over to America, wouldn’t they? The State Leagues would go to America?
CM: Yes through our membership of the CUNA International we were entitled to send representatives from New South Wales over to their Annual Conferences. This was on the basis of the number of dues paying members in our League. It started off with one, our first National Director was Kevin Yates. The second one, I think, was Harold Hoyle and the third was possibly Dom Arrivolo. Our membership was less than 10,000, or in that range. Later on it built up as our membership built up. They sent two, then they got to three, then they got to four, at one stage there might have been five. Anyhow the international movement changed its composition and it cut out a lot of that.
Did you hear of how much Ken Miller and Dermot Ryan were involved in the changing of that?
CM: I believe they would have probably put the view that it hardly warranted such expense to keep such a structure going. As to what part they played in the detail I can’t expand on.
It was mentioned by Ken Miller actually that when they went over they got themselves in a lot of trouble because they found themselves in the middle of the insurance controversy over there. Did you hear anything about that?
CM: Well the insurance controversy had played a big part in the movement in both Canada and America.
Ken Miller said to me that when he and Dermot got over there they didn’t realise what they were getting into.
CM: Well I think on the agenda of the Annual Meeting was thrown all the issues that pertained maybe particularly to the United States and Canada, which was the largest segment of the movement. Here we were the Australian movement not directly involved with such issues, particularly insurance as we didn’t have CUNA out here at that time. They saw there was going to be a lot of time, effort and money wasted in being part of such a grouping. Later on steps were taken to change that. Some other members carried that through, I wasn’t involved in that.
1967 was when Ken Miller and Dermot Ryan went over. Of course Owen Jones went over. Did you know Owen Jones? How did you get on with him?
CM: He was a pleasant sort of guy. He was a Board member of this Sydney Credit Union.
He was Manager for a number of years. How well did you know him?
CM: Well only through attendance at various meetings of the Board, he was always a representative. On a personal basis I didn’t know him too well.
Are you aware of the fact that he had to be forced to resign?
CM: I guess from information coming to me that pressure would have been applied to him. I wasn’t personally concerned with it so I have no knowledge of it. It was just an observation and that is all.
Jack Bannister has recorded the fact of the circumstances of that. You managed to work well with him as a Director of the League?
CM: As a Director of the League I worked well with him, no problem. Direction usually came through the Chairman of the Board, who at that time might have been Stan Arneil.
The reason I directly asked you was because you said to me you used to keep clear of the ones that used to decide things over a drink.
CM: Yes I did.
I have heard people say that Owen was trying to keep off it, but didn’t succeed, and this might have been part of his downfall.
CM: I could relate to that from what I have been told. But not being a personal friend I never observed his habits, let’s put it that way.
He was in trouble because he was in a position where he found he had to drink because a lot of things were decided over a drink.
CM: That is what I observed. Not that I saw the drinking, but I knew what was going on. As a Manager you have to keep your ears to the ground. You had to be aware of the things that were happening, not necessarily at the Board table. These things filtered through to you. Even though you might have asked a question you got an understand of what was going on.
What were the circumstances of your leaving the Credit Union League as Manager?
CM: Well number one when the application for a General Manager came about I applied for it but I knew I had a certain omission in my training that would not have fitted in with a General Manager. That was a deep understanding of Treasury work, that wasn’t my field. Anyhow Les Robinson got the General Manager’s job and I had to work under him at the League headquarters. I wasn’t happy in the situation I saw developing out there.
You had been virtually replaced in actual fact.
CM: I had been replaced as General Manager. I went on to the field staff but I just didn’t feel that there was going to be a permanent place for me in the organisation with the new management.
Were you aware of the moves afoot to put a Manager in?
CM: Oh yes that was publicised in the Minutes and I had to arrange for the introduction, put it in the paper and that sort of thing.
Was there anything behind the scenes?
CM: Well yes. The thing behind the scene was that they wanted the movement to get bigger and bigger. That meant more members, a bigger administrative staff, you might say, and an increase in the field representatives. That was their aim, to get an Administrator in, increase the field staff and promote.
You had been doing the promotion during this time?
CM: Doing the whole box and dice. I had one field staff, in the latter days of being Manager. I personally knew that couldn’t go on.
Were you asked to do the job of General Manager?
CM: I was given the option to nominate. I nominated but I really in my heart knew that there wasn’t much chance of the job going to me, not being trained as a figures man. When you get in the big stuff you have got to have people who understand figures and make it happen.
Well Dermot wasn’t exactly a figures man was he? He was at AFCUL.
CM: He was at AFCUL so he would have possibly been caught in the same sort of a trap as myself. As things get bigger you have got to have people who understand figures up at the top.
You decided to get out?
CM: Well I was on the Board of National Co-operative Insurance Company through which the League was doing its early insurance work.
What was the background of that insurance?
CM: Well to safeguard the funds of the members and to give an assurance to the members who had put their money in that those who were handling the money would not take it and run, we had to have fidelity bonding on every person who handled money. The group bonding which organised was through National Co-operative Insurance Company. They form a credit union, they elect a Board, the Board had to be covered by fidelity insurance which in nearly every case was done through National Co-operative Insurance Company.
Other people were actually carrying the risk, like MLC and so on?
CM: No in this case on fidelity insurance it was the general insurance company who carried the risk for theft. If a Director or somebody in charge of money stole from the credit union that was covered by fidelity insurance. Loan protection insurance was a different issue. That was covered MLC, as we explained earlier. Now MLC was the one who got the nod from the League Board to cover the members on loans. The outstanding balance in the event of death would be paid back to the credit union, no charge against the member’s estate. They had that overseas. They had it through CUNA Mutual Insurance overseas. The League Board desired for it to be obtained in Australia but through technical matters it wasn’t readily available. Mr Arneil saw there was a way to getting a general insurance arm of CUNA Mutual and they got it out here and got it registered and he joined the staff. In fact I will read out to you the extract from the Minutes of the 8th Annual Meeting of the New South Wales Credit Union League held 17 October 1964, “Mr Arneil reported that CUNA Mutual had offered to appoint him as their Australian representative.” That was also highlighted in the Executive Minutes of 26 July 1965. So he was going to become a staff member of CUNA Mutual.
So they had already moved out here? Or were they in the process of moving?
CM: Well they had made the preliminary investigation with our Government out here and got permission to open an office out here. He was going to be the Executive out here. They brought their own man out, Charlie Compton, as the Executive Officer of CUNA Mutual and he set it up.
Was CUMIS brought out at the same time?
CM: Correction, that was CUMIS. It was an off-shoot of CUNA Mutual and it was called CUMIS.
That was the general insurance?
CM: Yes the general insurance arm. That is where Mr Arneil was appointed as their Australian representative. That allowed him to travel around the State and promote credit unions. It was also a power base, let’s face it and be honest, it was a power base. I think some of the League Directors were a little alarmed at that approach, the fact that he could travel around the State. Naturally if you are handling insurance and you are discussing it you can also possibly have an influence on who gets on the Board. The Boards are the ones that determine what moves and what doesn’t move. I think this actually happened and it may have led to trouble down the line when other matters concerning CUNA Mutual came to a head in Australia.
Trouble with whom?
CM: Trouble with Mr S F Arneil and the Board of the New South Wales Credit Union League and possibly AFCUL. I don’t know to what extent AFCUL might have been involved, but certainly the Board of the New South Wales Credit Union League.
He had already set up AFCUL at that time, 1966.
CM: It was in 1965 that he was appointed.
Stan Arneil didn’t set up AFCUL until 1966. It wasn’t complete as an Australia-wide body until 1968.
CM: You mean not all the States had joined it?
They hadn’t all joined. It was complete until 1968. It took them two years to do that.
CM: He had been offered the appointment of the Australian representative.
We don’t know that he had accepted it?
CM: I would say at that stage he had accepted it. That is not saying it in the Minutes, but the moves were made.
After that he was already setting up AFCUL.
CM: AFCUL then became an arm. He could promote insurance through AFCUL too, because he moved around State to State. He was the only guy with the means and expense account to do it. It had a bearing on his insurance company when it got rolling. That is how things started. In the meantime, in 1967, after the establishment of AFCUL, I had decided to leave the League and I took up an appointment with the National Co-operative Insurance Company as an Insurance Adviser. That was 1967, or 1968. One of the first things the Manager, Mr Boyd, asked me to do when I joined was to negotiate with companies in Australia a loan protection insurance policy. Well I approached six companies and the best one was MLC, which was also doing business with the League. Well the company accepted the deal and I promoted MLC’s loan protection insurance policy to any credit union that wanted it, whether they were in the League or not. I gained quite a number of acceptances for that company.
But you were working directly against Stan Arneil and CUMIS in that case weren’t you?
CM: You betcha. I was selling fidelity insurance too, but I realised after seeing the policy that CUMIS offered and what National offered, CUMIS had the edge. They were far superior in their coverage and Boyd, the Manager of National Co-operative Insurance, wouldn’t move. He wouldn’t take the next step. He had assurances from the big National Co-operative Insurance in America that they would support him, but he wouldn’t take the next step to get the maximum cover, equivalent to CUMIS. So I was selling something which was inferior and in the end credit unions wouldn’t take it, they were going to CUMIS. Some stayed with us, those who had resigned from the League.
Didn’t you get involved with T & G in general insurance?
CM: No, not T & G.
Where does that come from then? It is mentioned in a lot of the paperwork.
CM: T & G may have been sold by the Association down in Wollongong, the other branch of the opposition.
The opposition you say?
CM: Yes the Association of Southern Credit Unions. There was a Northern group too. They were outside the League. Newcastle and Wollongong. They could have dealt with another insurance company.
Why these three? Couldn’t you get the whole of New South Wales in one League?
CM: No. Again we look back to the vigorous and rugged approach of Stan Arneil when he was President of the League. I had a contact in BHP, Australian Iron and Steel, and I was able to get the then Chairman of the AIS Credit Union, which had the potential to be a giant down there and it was, to come and speak at our Annual Conference. He wasn’t in the League then but we thought as a matter of courtesy we would get him along to maybe say a few words. Well Stan got up and rubbished him. This is a man from a big top company. He just got up there and humiliated the man and we never got Australian Iron and Steel Credit Union to join the League from that time onwards. They came in many years later.
Did they start the Southern Association before that or after?
CM: Oh they had it going in 1967. I think they formed it in 1962. They had Australian Iron and Steel going in 1962 and they promoted other credit unions down there which we couldn’t get into.
So when did they start the Southern Association?
CM: I think they started it soon after 1962.
Well at that stage in the proceedings who were they getting insurance from?
CM: I am not sure. Could have been AMP, but I am only guessing.
It wasn’t coming through you anyway. What happened with regard to the other ones up north?
CM: Well again I don’t know who they arranged their insurance through.
No, I mean how did they form? Were they a breakaway?
CM: They were a breakaway. They were a go-it-alone crowd. There was one of the big building societies, BHP up in Newcastle there and a few other ones that tagged on. There were three organisations. They didn’t join the League until many years later, after the influence of Arneil had gone out of it. He was a stumbling block. Him and a few other blokes too. A lot of them jumped on the bandwagon of trying to humiliate these people, saying they were no good and not to have anything to do with them and so they went the other way.
Were there any issues involved or was it just personalities?
CM: Personalities would have a lot to do with it. They also didn’t want to pay the affiliation fees which had been set by the League Board to become a member of the League, so much for every member. They opposed that. They didn’t believe in having a big organisation at the top. They were a do-it-yourself crowd. The companies gave them time and they could work within that framework without appointing great numbers of staff. They did have staff but not very many. So because of the nature of the locations, Wollongong and Newcastle, they were isolated, particularly Wollongong with its big mountain range at the back and the coast on one side, they had what you might call a community. The principal employer was Australian Iron and Steel and all the others were subsidiary companies of Australian Iron and Steel so they had tremendous pull. What AIS said and did, the others said and did. That action of rubbishing a man at an Annual Meeting in the hopes that he would be influenced went out the door. They stayed out for years and years. They were riding the crest of a wave these blokes up the top. They were riding a crest of a wave because we were getting members in and getting support from government and they thought they had it made.
We have moved to the point of the Stabilisation Scheme and the Reserve Fund.
CM: Let’s just have a bit more look at the insurance business because when I promoted that MLC coverage through the National Co-operative Insurance, we were the agent for them.
They weren’t CIC were they?
CM: Not at that stage. They became CIC later.
Not much later because I have seen the advertisements in Quest. With your name and picture on it too.
CM: Yes, we promoted that. Some credit unions were having difficulty affiliating with the League on a cost basis, they didn’t want to pay the affiliation fees. So some of them were looking for a way out. That wasn’t my business, but they were looking for a way out and loan protection was a hole. They didn’t want to leave the League unless they had loan protection insurance. So they switched across to MLC loan protection insurance through the National Co-operative Insurance so I was handling quite a portfolio of insurance there.
You weren’t handling any general insurance at all?
CM: Only a bit, not very much.
Through what company?
CM: Again through National Co-operative Insurance Company.
They weren’t off-loading it to anybody else?
CM: No they carried their own risk on that one. But also in providing our loan protection cover we gave a rebate back at the end of the year in relation to the amount of premiums they had paid. Now I think this might have been a little of the nut cracker in relation to later events with CUNA Mutual and the League when they were looking for more money to come from CUNA Mutual to the League in the way of rebates and it wasn’t forthcoming. They kept in touch with what was happening outside and they knew that the MLC, through us, was paying a rebate back to the credit unions. So it was an argument which went on and on and ultimately resulted in Stan Arneil being finished.
I don’t know whether I can clear this up to some extent with you. I have been looking in the papers and it comes to the time when Ken Miller and Dermot Ryan have come back from the States and they put in their report, well that was mainly Dermot’s report, on the Loan Stabilisation Scheme, the Savings Scheme, which eventually became the Reserve. The proposal was that Dermot wanted to put was that they should finance this jointly from the insurance rebates and an actual annual subscription, jointly. He put this to a meeting and it was turned down, even Ken Miller voted against it. The idea was that it wouldn’t be fair on all the others.
CM: Because some of them weren’t in the insurance scheme.
Stan Arneil was arguing that, that it wasn’t fair. It should be a straight out compulsory levy on the number of members. This was voted by the Board. But then Dermot Ryan was not satisfied with this and he asked the Board if he could put it to an Annual Meeting. They gave him permission. Do you remember him taking that to the Annual Meeting?
CM: Yes.
He got it up.
End Tape 2A: 4297 Words: 1 hour 20 minutes
5 OCTOBER 1989: RICHARD RAXWORTHY TALKING TO CLARRIE MURPHY
Apparently a Supervisory Committee at a Board meeting had reported on the League, this is the League Supervisory Committee, and apparently a number of the Supervisory Committee were away so it was mainly a Mr Palmer of Matraville Credit Union who made this report. He reported on the number of things regarding the meetings. They said, “This is mainly the work of Mr Palmer because of the absence of other members. I think Mr Palmer has overstepped the bounds of what is his function.” L D Ryan, Vice-President, said immediately, “Mr Palmer has usurped the Directors’ rights. Mr Palmer has criticised the form of the Half-Yearly Meeting.” Dermot said, “I won’t be bound by the opinion of a Supervisory Committee while ever I am a Director.”
CM: Well not having the words that Mr Palmer used there, maybe the rules and functions of the Supervisory Committee hadn’t been spelled out to cover every contingency, but they were certainly there to see that the League Board conformed to the rules of the credit unions under the operating margins allowed. I think you have got to be aware that in criticism of an individual against a movement and its Directors it is the old axiom of politics, you attack the man not the issue. Play the man not the issue. That may have been a little of that in this case.
I notice another issue was being canvassed immediately after that and they were talking again about this appointment by CUNA of a South Pacific Representative. It had been advertised and what is said is they appointed a representative from a credit union outside the League without consultation, although the position had been advertised. The meeting endorsed the Board’s rejection of the appointment and Dermot Ryan was quoted as saying in Quest at that time, “No one is going to be rammed down our necks by an overseas movement if we do not think the appointment is in the best interest of that movement.”
CM: Again thinking back and looking back on that particular issue, realising the fact as stated in your opening remarks there that it was advertised with no qualifications. There was no qualification as to where the man should come from. So the man who was finally appointed was Mr Tom Ryan, the Manager of the CBOA Credit Union. He had been a League Director. The very fact that his credit union wasn’t in the League is not to say that Tom Ryan was opposed to the League in principle, his Board made the decision to pull out of the League. Mr Dermot Ryan’s criticism there almost implies that the man who got the appointment was solely responsible for their credit union not being in the League. Also I think in digging deep into some of the records you will find that there were other contenders for that job who didn’t get it, so it could be a case of sour grapes, not to say as in Mr Ryan’s criticism that they didn’t get the right man.
Apparently what happened was they advertised it through the League in Australia and a number of people went for it, but in deciding who was finally picked they didn’t consult, they picked it from America.
CM: Were they obliged to consult. It was an American appointment and the salary would be paid by the international movement, so what particular right did the local movement here have to criticise such an appointment? I mean the inference could be drawn that they should have consulted with New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, every State in Australia before making an appointment. I would see it another way, that they had the right. Mr Tom Ryan was a credit union man who understood the philosophy of the movement and personally I felt he could have done the job quite okay.
There was another thing that same year I notice which began in America, the insurance controversy, it says, “The Annual General Meeting empowered the League to retain loans protection insurance rebates. This reversed a Board decision of February 29. Mr L D Ryan, City Council, moved that the Board be empowered to retain the insurance rebate for a further three years.” “It seems to me an insult that the General Meeting offers and the League Board spurns something,” he said. They agreed on that and they kept the insurance rebates at that stage. The query is, my impression is that what he was trying to do was build up enough money to start a Savings Reserve Fund?
CM: Well the intention was probably right but I think we have got to realise at this point of time in the history there were other people who felt it was imposing another membership fee, an additional membership fee on those people who were taking loan protection insurance through the League. Now others weren’t taking loan protection insurance so they would be so much less in their affiliation fees to the League, while others were going to pay extra through the retention of this loan protection insurance. That is another point of view.
In actual fact Dermot with Ken Miller when they came back from America made three reports. One was on a Savings Stabilisation Scheme, one was on a Collection Agency, which was put into place, and the third one was on a Supply Department, which was put into place. While reading the papers at that time I saw that the Askin Government had put a large impost, if you like, in the form of turnover tax at that time. I had the feeling that they were after setting up a central movement, banking, so they could cross borders and thereby evade that tax.
CM: Well they did move and establish a central banking organisation, they did that and it was successful. It gained majority support, put it that way, so in the main the major part of the movement realised the benefits of such a bank. It took a while to get incorporated but it was achieved over a period of time.
They were against compulsory joining of the insurance?
CM: No, they were against the compulsory retention of the insurance commission by the League for other means. That was a disputed issue for quite a while.
I get the feeling there was pressure from the Government with Steppa Stephens as Minister in the Askin Government and later on with Sid Einfeld as Minister for Housing and Co-operatives to set up a Reserve Fund themselves or he would do it for them, as he eventually did. They were looking for some means of financing this.
CM: Yes they were looking for means to finance it without putting an impost on the credit unions. They didn’t want to increase the fees but as it turned out the establishment of the Stabilisation Fund meant that credit unions had to provide for it. Looking back on the history of the movement it was a darn good thing it was established.
Looking on to the next meetings it comes to the point of looking at timings. You were looking at the time of Stan Arneil actually taking over as Manager as CUNA Mutual and CUMIS moved into Australia and the foundation of AFCUL, the timing of the whole thing. Now here we get to the Half-Yearly Meeting of 1969 where it was put to the meeting that the loan protection insurance be transferred from MLC to CUNA, early 1969. They outlined a proposed Savings and Guarantee Fund from insurance rebates be put to the Annual General Meeting. The proposal was that it should start in 1970 and this was agreed. CUNA got the insurance in 1969. Now, when we get to 1970 then it is reversed. The date on this one is the late part of 1971, early part of 1972. “The Annual General Meeting decided to withdraw endorsement of CUNA Mutual CUMIS Insurance Societies as insurers for the credit union movement in New South Wales.” 80 per cent of the delegates voted to change to Co-operative Insurance Company, CIC, and T & G.
CM: Well CIC would have provided the fidelity insurance.
You were working for CIC then weren’t you? 1972
CM: I wouldn’t have been working for them. In 1972 I was Secretary of Co-operative Federation of New South Wales, so I wouldn’t have been involved in that.
The Co-operative Federation of New South Wales was what?
CM: A grouping of co-operatives of various types scattered throughout New South Wales.
Why did you leave CIC?
CM: I was still employed by them but my salary was between the two, the New South Wales Co-operative Federation and the insurance company. I still had the loan protection insurance going, that was my main field.
So you had actually negotiated this?
CM: My original negotiations back in 1967 was loan protection insurance.
With MLC?
CM: With MLC. Fidelity insurance we just carried on with National. There was no change there. Some credit unions stayed with us, some went to CUMIS. I realised that CUMIS had the best deal. I told people that CUMIS had the best deal.
So when they actually got back in they had the best deal. But you weren’t working for them when they got back to CIC?
CM: No. In 1974 I took up a position with Earlwood Credit Union, full-time Loans Officer. I left the Co-operative Insurance Company.
Can you remember why?
CM: Why I left the Co-operative Insurance Company or the Co-operative Federation of New South Wales, where my main time was spent? In my estimation couldn’t see that organisation getting to a stage where their fees would carry a progressive rise in salary and conditions. It was a one-man show, namely myself. I didn’t want that position to prevail throughout my life so I looked at alternatives and I applied for a job with the Earlwood Credit Union as Loans Manager and got it. Perhaps I have confused you?
No, you haven’t confused me at all, but what I am really wanting to know is when you negotiated the loans protection insurance with MLC, that was the only deal in town?
CM: That was the best that I could get.
Later on CUMIS was better?
CM: CUMIS was better on the general fidelity insurance. That provides for theft by staff of the funds of the credit union. CUMIS was selling a better fidelity insurance package than what I was selling through National Insurance Co-operative Company, at that time. But I still kept on selling the loan protection insurance through MLC. So at that stage they had the two of them. The one company was providing loan protection insurance to the League credit unions, I was providing the loan protection insurance to those who wanted to remain in the League and those who wanted to get out, or some who got out but they could still get loan protection insurance.
Where did you stand on that sort of thing?
CM: I was probably against the introduction of CUNA Mutual because I knew of the struggles and battles that prevailed overseas on this issue. I wasn’t wrapped in the fact that they were coming out here. Also I knew the nature of the man who gained the Australian position. I could see danger there for the movement with the control that he would exercise through the company. Influence through his position and it was a company with a lot of money.
This deal they did in 1969, the idea was that it was going to be exclusive. Was it over that matter, being exclusive, that split the League?
CM: It would have played a part
Stan Arneil had already had the job for a while and at that stage in the proceedings they decided that was the best deal they could get to hand it completely to CUNA Mutual and CUMIS.
CM: Some of them went out of the League partly because of the fact they could get loan protection insurance outside the League, some didn’t agree with the policies of the League, or didn’t agree with the fees that were being charged to be members of the League. There were three things were involved there and some may be were all three, some two, some might only be one. So the split was appearing and members were dropping off. Those in control couldn’t see this danger would increase and reduce the income of the League. I attended an Annual Meeting and one of the Directors got up and said that too many members were leaving and they were losing money because of affiliation fees not being paid. I could see that a long while before. They were so full of their own importance that the movement couldn’t survive outside them, but the movement was surviving outside.
Now who would you include amongst that group?
CM: The majority of the Board. There was only one organisation as far as they were concerned, that was the New South Wales Credit Union League, the rest of them they didn’t care about.
There was some interested in AFCUL.
CM: That was the same group, Stan, Dermot Ryan, Tom Kelly, Berry Calverley and the chaps from interstate, they supported it. It was probably a natural progression. The idea of AFCUL was good, to link the State Leagues up, I think, was a good move.
I can see that. How much of the argument that came in over insurance do you think was over issues? What do you think the issues were in the first instance?
CM: Well I think Stan Arneil being removed, some would call it sacked, because the man had built up tremendous loyalty in certain areas there the very action of the New South Wales League in taking that drastic step alienated a lot of them. They went out and remained loyal to Stan, Stan’s ideals put it that way. I suppose some of them might have gone back. I don’t know the history of those that went out and whether they came back again.
How much do you think was personalities then?
CM: I would say a lot of it was personalities. There were very strong personalities involved in that. Take Dermot and Stan, two men very similar, up the middle, my idea, roll over the opposition.
What about Ken Miller?
CM: Well Ken was allied to Dermot.
He was President wasn’t he?
CM: Yes and he had a very strong position. Dermot and Ken worked closely together leaving Tom Kelly out of some issues. They decided things amongst themselves even though Tom was Vice-President but he wasn’t included in some of the stuff, I know that. It worked from the top. Again, as I told you earlier, you work with the majority and two is a majority in an Executive of three so you win every time. You can make mistakes doing that. History will judge.
Two years after they originally accepted CUNA Mutual and CUMIS for their exclusive insurance some had left the League and some were just not paying anyway, however, what do you think was the main reason why they decided to reverse the decision? The acceptance of CUNA Mutual, CUMIS as their sole insurers.
CM: Well what I understand was that it was acceptable with the movement.
But the League then reversed its decision. They negotiated a deal that was better with somebody else. What do you think was the reason?
CM: I think because of the retention of the commission by CUNA Mutual, this is my understanding of it. It wasn’t coming back, or the League Directors didn’t think there was sufficient coming back to the movement for use by the League Board or AFCUL. That would have possibly been a big issue. I think that in Stan’s appointment as Manager of CUNA Mutual he also established policy owners’ meetings. Now policy owners’ meetings were a copy of what was occurring in United States and Canada. CUNA Mutual would organise special meetings for member societies, education and all that goes with it and promoting the insurance company as well. But it has also got a political link as well, because if you put on these owners’ meetings you know very well the biggest bulk of those attending are going to be League Directors or people who make policy, so you can influence them at the same time. The way I look on things, there was a political danger to themselves. The power could have shifted out of the various Leagues, or AFCUL, to the CUNA Mutual policy owners’ meetings.
From what was said in the meetings, reading from Quest at that time which Tom Kelly was editing, and naturally he wasn’t quoting the whole of the meeting he was selecting so it is not necessarily the whole story, but on the other hand that was in the paper and the stories were written by good journalists, was that one of the issues was the control of these funds from America rather than from here.
CM: Yes, well the financial control rests wherever the head office is and the head office was in the United States in Madison.
Then there was the Half-Yearly Meeting when you could see it coming, they were going to remove the insurances, late 1971, it says, “We decide to withdraw the endorsement of CUNA Mutual CUMIS Insurance Societies as insurers for the credit union movement in New South Wales.” Then what they used as an argument then was that it was agreed at the Half-Yearly Meeting that the President would go out and try negotiate another arrangement with another insurance company, which they did. That was at the stage when they went back to MLC and T & G. Off MLC for life insurance and T & G for general insurance.
CM: I can’t comment on that because I wasn’t involved.
You think it was more about power than anything?
CM: Well the issue of exclusive insurance cover to the credit union movement.
Incidentally they didn’t get exclusive cover, it was only recommended.
CM: They also wanted to be in control of that commission. When they were negotiating there would be a strong component of what would be the commission coming back to the movement. I knew that when I negotiated with insurance companies. Anybody will sell you a policy but you are the agent so what are you going to get for selling it. That becomes the commission.
The League draws finances from that?
CM: Well it is extra finance. You have indicated that this was a big issue where Dermot had promoted retaining the commission for the League. He knew the value of commission retention.
His argument was that you have got to have a fund set up to cover any problems.
CM: He realised that we were taking it too fast and the importance of having a fund to stabilise the movement in case something went wrong. The finances for that fund have got to be obtained somewhere. He saw the easy way was retention of the commission, which was $50,000 or something. I can’t recall how much was in that pool.
I believe there was about $1 million at the end there.
CM: That would have been money that the League could well use. They were starting on a big spending spree and hiring more staff, cars and everything.
That maybe but the commission was to go for a Reserve Fund.
CM: But also when you create a Reserve Fund you also create an income. You put your money in a bank and you get interest on it, day-to-day. That earns interest for you when you bank your money and you build up your fund again. They knew the value of a large deposit into a fund to stabilise the movement. You would say on the surface of it a great idea, but again it wasn’t 100 per cent contribution by those credit unions affiliated with the movement. Some of them were in it and some weren’t in it.
That was Stan’s argument.
CM: He was right there.
Ken Miller even argued that way. Dermot was the only one against.
CM: Yes. He wanted the money.
Not for himself though.
CM: No, that’s right. But I mean even there on the Director level there was a conflict. They could see that some were going to be putting in more than others, unjust. So you can see the start of the split is there. The more they pressurised them, some of the credit union Boards said it wasn’t the way to go and out they went, moved sideways. The seeds of this discontent were there when they started to put the pressure on for the movement to retain that commission and let that be the nucleus for the Stabilisation Fund.
Now CUNA Mutual and CUMIS insurance had been turned down, the recommended insurance, by the League and Stan Arneil was still Manager of CUNA Mutual. Now some people have said to me, who I am afraid must remain nameless because they don’t want to be quoted, that a campaign was mounted against Stan Arneil as Manager of CUMIS, CUNA Mutual. He was still Manager but there was a campaign against him being Manager from Australia to America although they had already recommended against the insurances at the meetings and it had been passed. Do you think there was a campaign?
CM: I would say there would have been.
Why?
CM: My personal feeling is that they wanted to make a complete divorce of Stan from the movement. He was a powerful orator. You just didn’t have a bloke who was good and could sell insurance, you had a powerful orator, a man who could influence people and they were frightened of him. He had strong support in other States too, he had strong support in Queensland, great support amongst various individual credit unions. They liked the man, he could almost walk on water with some people.
What about Dermot Ryan, some people thought a lot of him?
CM: Well they probably still do because of his ruggedness and single-mindedness. He has done a lot for the movement.
His attitude was that Stan Arneil’s attitude was not strictly practical, Dermot was pushing the practical line.
CM: Well he didn’t get maximum support from his own Board, the Executive at the time, you said two of them were against him. So a lot of people had thoughts that weren’t exactly in line with what Dermot thought. You have got to weigh all this up and you can’t say he was right all the time.
Later he became first Chief Executive of AFCUL. They had already set up the central banking system and the Savings Protection Fund.
End Tape 2B: 3813 Words: 1 hour 15 minutes
5 OCTOBER 1989: RICHARD RAXWORTHY TALKING TO CLARRIE MURPHY
Do you reckon that Dermot Ryan had a vision? Did he have vision of the credit union movement?
CM: Yes. I would say possibly he and Stan Arneil were the most forceful in presenting the vision in New South Wales. There was another man who had a vision for certain other aspects of the movement and that was Tom Kelly. But he was a quieter man, not so forceful in his presentation. He was a man of vision too and did his best to move the League in certain directions but he was never in the same personality class as Stan Arneil and Dermot Ryan. He was a quieter operator and these two fellows were vigorous and people who had the most affect on the movement.
What about Ken Miller?
CM: I found him a quiet fellow. A very good Chairman. He could control meetings, big meetings. He had a vision too and worked to achieve it. At the top you had men who were not just satisfied with sitting down and reading a set of Minutes, they wanted to achieve. They wanted the League to achieve something, they wanted AFCUL to achieve something. It went in various directions.
What about you?
CM: I had visions too. I wanted the League to be a very successful League but I didn’t want to involve the League in too many issues which created friction. I could see the insurance one was one which had the potential for a great deal of friction. The Stabilisation Fund was another one which didn’t go smoothly and gain acceptance straight away, but in the long run through the League persisting and the government persisting too they got the fund. The League ran it to start off but then they had to get a fund which would embrace all the credit unions in the State, which in the long run was the better one. Anyway it was a step-by-step achievement. Personally I was opposed initially to the Stabilisation Fund because of the way in which it was going to be financed, financed through an insurance commission. I was opposed to that idea and I find out from your remarks that I wasn’t alone in that opposition, other credit unions thought the same too. There was some of the conflict. Also there were the positive moves of getting the Stabilisation Fund, which eventually resulted in the fund which is operating today. The League was achieving various things of a positive nature and these men, Dermot Ryan, Stan Arneil, Tom Kelly and Ken Miller, were some of the men who were keeping the ship going.
Tom Kelly differed with the others on the insurance controversy didn’t he?
CM: Well I think he must have because his own credit union stayed with CUNA Mutual. He didn’t see that was the way out of it. He maintained a communication with Stan, you know, he didn’t chop Stan off and a friendship basis, he still communicated with him. The other blokes took a pretty drastic position on Stan and I know personally Stan has a very positive position on those guys who he maintains helped to skin him out of the movement, lose his jobs.
Do you reckon that Dermot Ryan worked to push him out of his job?
CM: Well in his position of a Director of the League.
He was a Vice-President along with Tom Kelly.
CM: Well he would have been vitally involved in what happened.
Ken Miller said to me that certainly they made the decision that CUNA Mutual and CUMIS were not the best deal and what was more there was no control from over here, the League wasn’t getting the money.
CM: We have got to follow that through. What does that mean to a business and the Chief who is running it, he is not the man for the job.
Once they had established that was not the recommendation he said that was it. Ken said they didn’t get Stan removed from his job.
CM: Well the company must have then. Actually the company came out and gave him the big ‘A’. He couldn’t be sacked by this Board here, but the company took the step.
But I was told, not by Ken Miller but others, that there was a campaign from this end to have Stan removed from his job. Others say there wasn’t a campaign to have Stan removed from his job.
CM: I don’t know about that. To me the two things went together. Once the League Board had withdrawn their endorsement of CUNA Mutual. The CUNA Mutual Board must have seen there was an area of discontent for the use of CUNA Mutual and they had to obviously look at the long term affect on the company and who was the head? Who was ruffling feathers? The Chief. You can draw your own conclusions. You are right that CUNA Mutual’s Board sacked him, not the League Board.
But it has been claimed that there was a violent campaign from Australia to America to get him sacked. I can’t find anybody who will say who was behind it. Or if it was actually so, not just guessed. I haven’t got any definite evidence at all.
CM: Well I can’t help you in that regard because I was working in another capacity.
When we get to the other side of it, which is AFCUL and Dermot Ryan becoming Chief Executive of AFCUL, can you remember how that happened?
CM: No I don’t. My recollection of that would be sheer guesswork.
What about his work while he was there? It was during his time they established a national central banking scheme, among a number of other things. The EDP.
CM: Here again, not being directly involved I don’t know his work there.
What about his removal? You don’t know the numbers or anything about them?
CM: Don’t know anything about the numbers of for what reason they took the step. I haven’t a clue there. I think you should cover the fact that the Sydney Credit Union was a great supporter and financer of the League. That was well-known and respected that if they could do anything to assist the League all the League had to do was ask and the credit union made the effort.
You weren’t at the League during the time Jack Bannister was there?
CM: No. That was a great plus. There was a few credit unions that if extra things were needed there was the core assistance. They could go out to these credit unions and they would do something of a positive nature. Not a talk feste, you would get the practical assistance. Sydney Credit Union was a good and strong supporter of the Credit Union League.
Did you have any other dealings with any other members of the League? Did you have any dealings with Jack Coyne?
CM: No, I just knew Jack as a Director of this credit union and also Vice-Chairman of the League. It was towards the latter end of my association with the League at that time that I came into contact with Jack.
How did you get on with him?
CM: Well I suppose you have got to say there was a bit of a clash of personalities on a couple of occasions, and we will leave it at that.
What about Jack Bannister, did you get on with him?
CM: Well I never really got to know Jack until after I left the movement. I had heard of his name many, many times, but on a personal basis I didn’t have much to do with Jack. I have met him more since I left the organisation.
Where did you go next?
CM: I went to Earlwood Credit Union and worked as a Loans Officer for twelve months. Then I saw Tom Kelly and asked him about a position in his credit union and he put me on. It was 1974 when I took the position as Loans Officer with Earlwood Credit Union and after one year, January 1975, I joined the Railway Staff Credit Union as a Development Officer responsible for the preparation of brochures and internal posters, addressing workshop meetings and conducting education sessions for Directors and credit union representatives and attending to credit union members inquiries. Then in 1976 I was invited by the Board of Universal to come back there as a Marketing and Development Officer, a job I took. Later on, through internal circumstances, I was asked to become the Manager. I produced a paper called Money Matters at Earlwood, I assisted with the editorial material on the Rescue magazine with the Railways. Then I became editor of Rescue magazine, that is the Railway staff one. I was in that position up until the time I retired in May 1986, just about that time. With the Railway Staff Credit Union as Marketing Manager I was involved again the production of brochures, circulars and the newsletter. I talked on the credit union to the apprentices each year. Every year they employ a lot of apprentices and we covered the whole lot, get them early in their first few weeks. Produced various other promotional material. That was my function with the Railway Staff Credit Union. I completed a counselling course while with the Railway Staff Credit Union in 1979 at the St John of God Counselling Institute at Burwood. Completed a two year course. My overall position and work at Railway Staff Credit Union entailed the supervision of staff, development of the credit union to increase membership and extend the service to members, promotion of the insurance services, editor of Rescue magazine and addressing the apprentices and cadets at Chullora and working on the Credit Committee and liaising with the Loans Department. So it was kind of a whole wide field that I worked in with them. I retired in May 1986. Tom Kelly had retired in January of that year. A new Manager called Laurie Worth had come in and I worked under him for a while but I retired in May 1986.
What have you been up to since then?
CM: Well I was asked to come on the Committee of the Credit Union Historical Co-operative, which I have done, and I am an Historical Officer with that organisation. I have conducted three interviews so far with Dom Arrivolo, Kevin Gleeson and Alec Marsh, former Directors of the League. Kevin Gleeson was a Chapter man, active in the South-West Chapter. A good promoter. So that has been what I have been doing and general maintenance around the house. I have become expert at pushing trolleys in supermarkets.
You were proposed and received an Award this year?
CM: I received the Order of Australia in April 1988. Got the investiture in Government House in April 1988 for my work with credit unions. For the development of credit unions. In that same presentation was also Ken Miller, former President of the League. So it has been a full and interesting career as a volunteer and as a paid official of credit unions and the League. I have enjoyed every minute of it. A few hairy times there, but they didn’t prevail.
Well I am very glad to have talked to you. It has been a privilege and a pleasure and I hope that I can come to you again for a bit of elucidation if I am completely baffled, as I sometimes am on a lot of these things.
CM: Only be too pleased to help you, Richard, any time.
There is one thing we didn’t record and that was your involvement with the first programme on Four Corners regarding credit unions.
CM: Well I think it was in 1964 Stan Arneil organised Four Corners to do a segment on credit unions. A segment is roughly about twenty minutes. Four Corners is a national programme. As the League Manager I did the organisation of the various credit unions and people to speak to. Richard Carlton, the famous commentator on Four Corners at that time and who know works for the BBC. One of the credit unions they took in was Punchbowl Credit Union. I was on the working side of the counter and the TV cameras were set up and Mr Carlton just goes ahead and asks the question. There is no pre-arranging of what the questions are going to be, so you have got no idea what is going to be involved. Anyway we told the story of the reason for, and success of, the Punchbowl Credit Union. Dermot Ryan was involved in a segment dealing with the City Council Credit Union, where fellows were interviewed on the street. Dermot featured explaining the operation of their credit union. Stan Arneil gave a summary of the movement and what had been achieved. From that national programme the League office received mail from every State in Australia asking for credit union information. Strange to say it even came from Darwin. Well with the limited resources we had at the League we did our best to answer those inquiries and provide them with general credit union information. We regretted very much the fact that at that particular time of our organisation there was not a national organisation established to handle the inquiries. We realised that there were going to be problems when people tried to form their own credit unions without the active assistance of an organised credit union league. Anyhow the exercise was, in our estimation, worthwhile and apart from the interstate ones we got a lot of queries both written and over the phone to come and give talks and provide information on credit unions. Undoubtedly some of the credit unions formed in later stages evolved from that very segment of Four Corners. It just showed too the impact a national programme had on people. When talking about money and showing a way in which ordinary people could handle it, it certainly brought a great response. We have to thank Mr Stan Arneil, through his influences in the ABC as a staff member then, making the openings for such a programme to be shown.
Dermot was involved in that was he?
CM: Dermot gave a segment on the operation of the City Council and they interviewed a road gang. Dermot was there and some of the chaps spoke about how they felt about the City Council Credit Union. It was a real down-to-earth presentation and would have gone over tremendously with the ordinary Australian guy, who was pretty rough and ready, to see these blokes on the side of the road speaking up of what a great thing the credit union was to them. I think it must have done a tremendous lot of good for his own credit union and the movement in general.
I am told that there is still a copy of that at Sydney Credit Union?
CM: Yes it is here somewhere. If you ever get a chance to see it, make sure you do.
Thank you very much Mr Clarrie Murphy.
End Tape 3A: 2531 Words: 1 hour