COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH 13Y
The Rt lHon. J. G. GORTON, M. P.
ON
REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSIONERS ON
STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT-COMMANDER
CABBAN
[ From the Parliamentary Debates," 2 April 1968]
Mr GORTON ( H-iggins-Prime Minister)
Speaker, we have heard tonight
from the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr
Whitlam) an exposition which appears to
attack and to seek to attack not only the
Naval Board, the Government and myself
but also and in particular the findings of
0\ Royal Commissioners who were set up
Sconduct an examination and who, being,
I imagine the honourable member would
agree, completely impartial, should not be
subjected to this kind of attack and to this
kind of denigration for the findings they
eon the evidence presented to them
-, ersuch a period of time. But of course
the attack was not confined to the Commissioners
and their findings. It was also -xtended
in a way in which no politician
ought to extend an attack in this place to
a public servant to the extent of describing
the Secretary of the Department of the
Navy as ' this creature'. This is a shameful
way for the Leader of the Opposition to
carry on. If there is to be some opposition
to a course that is taken by a senior public
servant, if there is to be some claim that
that course was wrong, let it at least be
made in a reasonable way and let it not
be attached to this kind of childish denigration
of a man who cannot support himself
in this place.
14964168 It has been pointed out to me by a member
of the Opposition that I have 18
minutes left; but there are a number of
other honourable members on this side who
have a lot more than 18 minutes left and
who will be well able to defend themselves
against the improper attacks made upon
them. Let me just indicate to the House the
approach that the Government makes on
this matter. A second Royal Commission
was, set up as a result of allegations made
by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban, who
brought into question the drinking habits
and the seamanship of the late Captain
Stevens. Because the allegations in the
statement were so serious and because if
they had been proved to be accurate they
could have had such a serious effect, it was
decided that the question would be reopened
and that there would be a second
Royal Commission. Mr Speaker, the Royal
Commissioners, who I know are not exempt
from attack by the Leader of the Opposition
but whom most people would regard
as being completely impartial, have stated
that any reasonable man reading the
Cabban statement as it was made some 6
months after the completion of the first
Royal Commission could not fail to reach a
conclusion that Captain Stevens was a
chronic drunkard, that he spent his time
in port drinking until -he became ill, recovering
from ' that and then embarking
upon another drinking bout and that his
qualifications as to seamanship were such
that he should not have been in charge of
one of Her Majesty's vessels. This was what
the Commissioners said a reasonable man
reading the Cabban statement would conclude,
and this was what the Commissioners
specifically and completely rejected as being
a true history of the facts.
We in this House should now take this
opportunity to point out that the Commissioners
reached this conclusion af ter
examining all the relevant evidence and
they expressed their findings in these words:
This is not merely a ca'se where allegations of
frequent drunkenness are not proved. Not only
is there no evidence to support frequent drunkenness,
but the evidence positively establishes that
this was not the fact.
If it is true, as the Commissioners claim
it was true, that this officer of the Royal
Australian Navy, who perished in the performance
of his duty, has been held uip
whether wvith malice or not, and the Commissioners
claim no malice, before the
public as somebody who was in such a
state of drunkenness, it is essential to establish
here that the Commissioners have completely
refuted in the words I have just
stated any accuracy in this accusation.
Indeed, I can go further and state, as I
believe I should state, that Lieutenant-
Commander Cabban himself in his evidence
before the Commissioners disclaimed any
attempt to have drawn from his evidence
a conclusion that the late Captain Stevens
was in fact so affected by drink. It is essential
that this should now be stated in this
House. Similarly it is necessary to state that on
the question of the competence as a seaman
of the late Captain Stevens the Conmissioners
found that he was not in any way
incompetent as a seaman to command one
of Her Majesty's ships and indeed again
Lieutenant-Commander Cabban in his
statements and evidence before the Commission
disclaimed any intention in what
was in his statement to suggest that the late
Captain Stevens was in any way lacking as
a seaman. These two points should be made
clear, because : this officer has been subjected
to these accusations and these accusations
have been found by a judicial commision to be not founded in fact. I wish to make
that point in justice to an officer who is
no longer with us.
Now I move on to some of the strange
and inaccurate statements made by the
Leader of the Opposition in his address to
us tonight. One of the first and most inaccurate
statements, if there is a degree of
inaccuracy in these matters, was that the
Commission found that from January 1963
to February 1964 Captain Stevens was unfit
to retain his command. This is what the
Leader of the Opposition told us 10 minutes
ago. Yet when we read the report of the
Commissioners, from which I presume r
Leader of the Opposition was pretendi..
to quote, we find that they say: -t
We must answer this question as from * 1 t
December 1963.
They did not say as from 1st January b,~
as from a year later. Here we have b,)
told that the Commissioners have founa
something -to be true that the Commissioners
did not find to be true. What sort of
creditability can we give to this kind of
accusation? Mr Donald Cameron-None.
Mr GORTON-I agree. I thank the
honourable member for the answer. I1 prefer
to rely on : the findings of the Royal Commissioners.
Then we have the Leader of
the Opposition suggesting to this House that
the Naval Board did know of the alleggC
tions against Captain Stevens. Yet the finq_
ings of the Royal Commissioners are perfectly
clear on this point. They are:
We find-
' We' are the Royal Commissionersthat
the Naval Board did not know of the alx
Lions and there was nothing that casf..
to their knowledge which ought to have put them
on inquiry.
This is a different presentation from the
one we have received tonight from the
Leader of the Opposition. Again, one must
make one's own judgment on the relative
credibility of the Leader of the Opposition
and of the Royal Commissioners sitting in
impartial findings on these facts. We are
told, and it is true, that officers such as
McNeill and Tiller did not complete-the
forms which naval regulations required
them to complete. This is admitted. Both
these officers were out of the Navy by the
time the inquiry was set in train. But all
that this proves is that the regulations laid
down by the Navy will, if they are followed
by the officers in it, bring to the attention
of the Board facts which the Board ought
to know. There is no military, Air Force,
Naval Board or other administrative
authority which can do more than lay down
regulations which, if they are carried out,
will fulfil the requirements sought to be
attained by that administrative authority.
I think one of the most serious derogations
of the Leader of the Opposition was
his attempt to suggest that the Attorney-
General ( Mr Bowen), the Treasurer ( Mr
McMahon) and the honourable member for
> inbotham ( Mr Chipp), the former
, i mnister for the Navy, have in some way
r"'" ed this House during the last debate
u1Pon this matter. It is claimed by the
Leader of the Opposition that there was
2curoboration at the time of the statements
i de by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban
and that these Ministers knew of that
corroboration and that in saying there
was not such corroboration Ministers
deliberately misled this House. I do not
-believe there is any scintilla-I use that
word advisedly-of evidence to support this
statement. Let us look at what in fact was
said , by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban and
what in fact was said by the relevant
Ministers in this place and what was said
by those officers whom Lieutenant-Commander
Cabban said would corroborate him.
his statement Lieutenant-Commander
', abban said:
During the period in the Far East the situation
became more than trying, it was quite desperate,
as he drank for very long periods in harbour
until he became violently ill and then would
" d days in bed being treated by the doctor
S., i his steward until he was ft to again start
drinking. Lieutenant-Commander Griffith, the officer
who Cabban said would corroborate him,
stated: I had never seen Captain Stevens under the
influence of drink.
Mr Kevin Cairns-A bit different.
Mr GORTON-Well, it is not corroboration,
although at the mess dinner to which
Cabban refers in his statement, Captain
Stevens obviously did not look well.
Lieutenant-Commander Griffith said:
The general remarks made on or after the
dinner was that the Captain had drunk too much
but when Captain Stevens left the mess he was not held up. I do not remember any signs of
slurred speech or of actions to indicate drunkenness
such as mentioned by Mr Cabban.
Can the Leader of the Opposition truly
claim that this statement by Lieutenant-
Commander Griffith is corroboration of the
statement by Lieutenant-Commander
Cabban? Later Lieutenant-Commander
Griffith-this is the officer who was supposed
to corroborate Cabban, whom the
Leader of the Opposition said did corroborate
Cabban, whom the Leader of the
Opposition said the Minister knew corroborated
Cabban, and in respect of whom the
Leader of the Opposition therefore said, the
Minister misled the House-said:
My understanding is that Captain Stevens had
the reputation of being a heavy rather than a
moderate drinker. I know of no occasion on which
I have seen him intoxicated.
Is that corroboration of a charge
of drunkenness? Lieutenant-Commander
Griffith went on to say:
Subject to the qualification on the night of the
mess dinner, the Captain was obviously unwell but
whether this was due to alcohol I cannot say. I
have never seen Captain Stevens drink at sea and
although I have been in his cabin I have never
seen him drink there other than the ordinary issue
of lime powder and water.
Is this corroboration of a statement which
the Royal Commissioners claimed would, to
any reasonable man, indicate that the late
Captain Stevens was a drunkard? What is
this claim of corroboration tied to?
Let me move to the question of seamanship.,
In the statement made by Lieutenant-
Commander Cabban a number of incidents
are mentioned. There is the alleged collision
between two destroyers. This was the time
when one destroyer was berthing alongside
another destroyer which was static, not
moving. There was the incident when a towline
parted. There was the incident mentioned
when a ship drove in-I think that
was the term-between two other ships.
These incidents took place. Lieutenant-
Commander Cabban in his evidence before
the Commission said that he did not advance
these incidents as indications of bad seamanship
at all or of bad ship handling at all.
This was not in his mind and he did not
advance them in that way. But nevertheless
the Commission found that a reasonable man
reading the documents would have thought
they did tend to indicate some lack of seamanship
or some lack of ship handling, and
they did take place. But on all the evidence,
including the evidence of Lieutenant-
Commander Cabban himself, they were not
either evidence of bad seamanship or
advanced as evidence of bad seamanship.
According to his evidence they were merely
advanced as an indication of the temperament
of Captain Stevens.
It is no corroboration of an incident to
say that that incident took place. If I were
to say here tonight-and of course I would
not-that yesterday I saw the Leader of the
Opposition walk through the door of his
office and he had had so much to drink that
he tripped on the carpet and fell flat on the
floor, and if later someone were to say, ' Yes,
he was walking through the door of his office
and he did trip on the carpet and fall over,
but I know he had nothing to drink the
whole day; he tripped because the carpet
was loose', then this second statement would
not be a corroboration of the first. It would
be quite different in content and in the
implications to be drawn from it. Yet, it is
that kind of suggestion which the Leader of
the Opposition claims to be a corroboration.
It is just not a corroboration at all. These
matters will be developed by the Ministers
who have been attacked. They cannot be
developed by the Royal Commissioners who
have been attacked, but they will be attacked
by those who can speak for themselves in
this House.
Let me refer to the questions which the
Leader of the Opposition asked in his statement
and to the answers which he has
given. The Leader of the Opposition asked:
Was Captain Stevens unfit to retain command
of ' Voyager'? The Commission said
he was. The Commission said he was as
from December 1963, not as from the date
which the Leader of the Opposition
advanced in this chamber as the time from
which he was unfit to retain command. The
Leader of the Opposition also asked: Did
the Naval Board know of his unfitness? The
Leader of the Opposition answered his own
question by saying: ' We know at least that
the Chief Medical Officer of the Navy was
aware of it.' Mr Speaker, what a misleading
statement that is. What an inaccurate
statement that is. Let us look at the Leader
of the Opposition's statem-ent that the chief
medical officer of the Navy was aware of
Captain Stevens's unfitness to retain command
of ' Voyager'. tExtension of time granted.] I thank the House for its courtesy
in granting me an extension of time. I shall
endeavour not : toe xtend my time too far.
The basis of this claim by the Leader of
the Opposition that the chief medical officer
of the Navy was aware of Captain Stevens's
unfitness to retain command of ' Voyager'
is that the chief medical officer of the Navy
knew that on one occasion Captain Stevens
had had a duodenal ulcer, and that he knew
that Captain Stevens was taking care of that
ulcer and was drinking milk when he went
out to see the chief medical officer in his
own home. In other words, Mr Speaker, all
that that means is that the chief med
officer of the Navy knew that there I.
been a medical history, knew that there
been treatment for an ulcer, knew that
condition had healed, and knew : that the
officer was taking care of that condition.
This is now advanced in this House and''
twisted round to a suggestion that, beca
of that, the chief medical officer knew that
some years later the late Captain Stevens
was unfit to retain command of ' Voyager'.
What credibility can we give to arguments
of this kind?
Then the Leader of the Opposition asks:
Should the Naval Board have known? He
answers his question-and he answers all
his questions, naturally, in a way that suits
himself, as I suppose we all do with our own
questions-in this way: In the light of
Stevens's known past history and his cond,"
while in command of ' Voyager', it is pla
that there was a -gross malfunctioning of
thl system of check and control of naval
commanders. So the Leader of the Opposition
has decided that the royal comrr; d-.
sioners were wrong in their findings, beck
what they found was that the Naval Boa-r%
did not know; that there was nothing
which came to its knowledge which should
have put it on inquiry; that the two naval
medical officers referred to in the report
had in fact not filled in the forms which
the regulations required them to fill in; and
therefore there could have been no possibility
of the Board, or responsible members
of it, knowing.
' Did responsible officers of the Navy
know of the condition which made him
unfit to retain command?', asks the Leader
of the Opposition. And he answers: There
is evidence that many more officers beyond
those criticised in the report were in fact
aware of it. Aware of what, Mr Speaker?
aware of the fact that he had a duodenal
ulcer? Of course there were a number of
officers aware of that. There were alsoand
the Leader of the Opposition did not
care to tell us this-a number of other naval
officers, members of the Royal Navy as well
as members of the Royal Australian Navy,
commanding and responsible for Captain
Stevens and other captains in charge of
ships, who were so satisfied with the way
in which he performed his duties as commanding
officer of ' Voyager' that they
reported on him as having properly and
' Joughly carried out his duties in com-
_ jd. Those were not just officers of the
-' al Australian Navy, but also officers ol
tl. _ toyal Navy. Then we are asked by the
Leader of the Opposition: Did corroboration
exist for all or any of his statements at the
e of -the parliamentary debate last May?
_. It is a reference to Cabban's statements.
What corroboration was available, if any,
Mr Speaker? I suggest that there was none.
Oh, yes, there was corroboration by incidents
occurring when ships went close to
each other and when tow lines parted. But,
as I pointed out, this was not corroboration
of the underlying suggestion that this was
due to bad seamanship. Oh, yes, there was
corroboration that on 3 days, as the royal
commission found, out of the 180-odd days
of the cruise Captain Stevens was affected
alcohol-slightly on one occasion, more
) n slightly on another. Is that corroboration,
Mr Speaker? Would this House think
that that was corroboration of the kind of
impression that one would gain from a first
reading of the statements that the late
Itain Stevens was drunk all the time in
that he spent his time drinking, then
getting better so that he could drink again?
Could that be called corroboration? For it
was not called corroboration by the royal
commissioners. Then we are asked: If there was corroboration,
was it known to the Navy Department?
It was, the Leader of the Opposition
tells us, because the Department had obtained
it. What the Department obtained,
Mr Speaker, was statements by Lieutenant-
Commander Griffith refuting completely the
claims made by Lieutenant-Commander
Cabban. What the Department obtained
which did to some extent support the claims
made by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban
was a statement made by the medical officer
14964/ 68-2 who had since left the Navy-Surgeon-
Lieutenant Tiller. The Leader of the
Opposition has attempted to make great
play with the suggestion that because
Surgeon-Lieutenant Tiller had made a statement
which tended to corroborate-as it
did-some of the statements by Lieutenant-
Commander Cabban, therefore Ministers in
this House were wrong -because they suppressed
this statement, because they did not
let it come to the light of the day. What is
the truth of this, Mr Speaker? The truth
of this is that Surgeon-Lieutenant Tiller
made a statement long before there was
any question of a royal commission being
appointed and long before there was any
chance of his ever being held in the witness
box to sustain the evidence and the truth
of whatever he might put in the statement
that he then made. Subsequently, this
question of the royal commission arose, and
there also arose the question of sustaining
the truth and accuracy of the statement
previously made. And in those ciroumstances,
Surgeon-Lieutenant Tiller-not the
Government-said that he did not wish his
statement to be used; it was a statement
which was his personal property, and he
did not want it to be used. The royal commissioners,
in their judgment and in their
findings, found that this was a perfectly
reasonable attitude for Tiller to take and
that it was a perfectly reasonable attitude
for Mr Landau, the Secretary of the Department
of the Navy, who was referred to by
the Leader of the Opposition as ' this
creature', to respect the privacy of what
was in effect a private communication and
to get another statement, which was subsequently
made.
Mr Speaker, I do not wish to trespass too
long on the courtesy that the House has
done me in extending my time. I shall complete
what I have to say in these words: The
second royal commission was set up by the
Government as a result of statements made
by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban. Those
statements, on the royal commissioners' own
findings, were found to be untrue, though
not untrue as a result of malice. On the
findings of the royal commission, the implications
inherent in what the Leader of the
Opposition has said this evening about the
drinking habits of the late Captain Stevens
were fully rejected by the royal commissioners.
In their view, on the evidence
of Cabban himself, the allegations as to bad
seamanship were fully rejected. In the view
of the royal commissioners, examining the
matter as a whole, the previous findings of
the first royal commission in relation to
Captain Robertson were rejected. And the
Government has already taken action to do
what was considered to be the just thing
in that case.
Mr Bryant-It would never have happened
without Cabban.
Mr GORTON-I would not contest that.
Mr Bryant-Then why do you not say so?
Mr GORTON-I am saying so, am I not?
How can I do more than say that I would
not contest that?
Dr J. F. Cairns-Give credit where credit
is due. Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable
member for Yarra will cease interjecting. Dr J. F. Cairns-The Prime Minister
needs a lot of help, Mr Speaker.
Mr GORTON-If I needed a lot of help
I would not get it from the honourable
member for Yarra, Mr Speaker, and I certainly
would not seek it.
Mr SPEAKER-Order! I have already
asked the honourable member for Yarra to
cease interjecting. If he continues in this
vein I will have to deal with him.
Mr GORTON-It is quite evident that
the findings regarding the causes of the
collision would not have been made if there
had not been a second Royal Commiss'
I would imagine that this was evident
a 2-year old child. There would not' -) e
been a second Royal Commission if it _, d
not been for what were found to be misleading
accusations by Lieutenant-Commander
Cabban. This, again, I think wc
be evident to the honourable member I,,
Yarra.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA, A. C. T.