INQUIRY INTO SHIPPING LOSSES

Southland Times, Issue 24352, 5 February 1941, Page 6

INQUIRY INTO SHIPPING LOSSES

Commission Decides To Sit In Camera

(United Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 4. The Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government to investigate alleged leakages in information about shipping movements and the circumstances of the loss of the Holmwood, Rangitane, Vinni and Komata began its sitting in Wellington today. Mr Justice Callan is chairman and the other members are Mr T. F. Anderson, secretary of the Seamen’s Union, Auckland; Captain F. A. Macindoe, secretary of the Merchant Service Guild of New Zealand; the Hon. William Perry, president of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association and Captain E. Rotherham, R.N. After hearing representations by Mr H. H. Cornish, Solicitor-General, who with Dr N. A. Foden, of the Crown Law Office, is assisting the commission and by Mr F. P. Walsh, national president of the Seamen’s Union, the commission decided that the balance in favour of public interest lay in holding the proceedings in camera. Mr Cornish, discussing whether the commission should take evidence in open or camera, said it was not easy to draw the line between what was prudent and imprudent to discuss openly and it might very well be that the commission would decide it prudent to err, with so momentous an issue at stake, on the side of caution. If the commission so decided he could not see how the public interest would be prejudiced. He could imagine ways in which it might be advanced. Persons might thereby be encouraged to come forward and speak frankly and freely. GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE Mr Cornish, addressing the commission. said that as he understood the position the duty of the commission was, after having examined all the circumstances of the shipping losses, to determine whether those circumstances disclosed that there had been a leakage of information, whether inadvertent or deliberate, from New Zealand for the benefit of the raiders. His own function was not to appear for any party, but simply to assist the commission and marshal the evidence that became available. The Government would place before the commission all the evidence that appeared likely to be helpful. The relevant State departments that might have knowledge of matters concerning the commission had been notified and would produce all the facts in their possession. They would show the commission what their methods were and what precautions they adopted and it would be for the commission to say whether it thought these precautions were adequate. The public was invited to come forward and assist the commission.

“The importance of these matters cannot be exaggerated,” said Mr Cornish. “No commission has ever been set up in this country having a more important task. No doubt the findings of the commission will be of the greatest benefit to other parts of the British Commonwealth and perhaps to the rest of the English-speaking world.”

Witnesses would include survivors of lost ships. Their statements would be no more than statements or reports of what certain personnel on the raiding ships were supposed to have said. A further question would concern the value to be attached to such evidence. Coming from such a source as il did it might well be suspect for a number of reasons. It was a longestablished procedure in war to mystify the enemy if possible. Again, it was known to be part of the Nazi technique to spread doubt among their opponents. There was also the possibility of boasting in the motives actuating those who made the statements. Nevertheless, the j Government was not disposed com- ■ placently to disregard the statements, j The matter was so serious that the Government felt it required the most searching examination. GAI’S IN EVIDENCE There would be certain gaps in the i evidence to be presented before the i inquiry, said Mr Cornish. There was one person referred to some time ago as a very high judicial officer and on whose behalf startling revelations were promised. Mr Cornish added he was bound to say that although that high judicial officer who, he believed, was a judge in Tonga, was given every opportunity to make a statement in New Zealand and did so, as did his wife, the statements would give the commission very little assistance. They fell very far short of what the public had been led to believe they would be and, indeed, it was only fair to add that on questioning in Auckland he disclaimed having said in Australia much of what had been attributed to him. | His Honour: Where are those people | now? Mr Cornish: I believe they went to | South America. His Honour: But you have or some- | body else has written and signed statements? Mr Cornish: Yes and, of course, they will be made available. What this evidence may amount to is. of course, a question for the commission to decide. I am bound to sav that the statements will be no more than statements or re- | ports of what certain personnel on the j

On the question of representation raised by Mr Walsh his Honour pointed out that there were many' other organizations interested in the subject matter of the commission which might also ask for representation. To allow' them all to be represented would extend the duration of the inquiry to limits which might destroy its utility and the necessity of holding the inquiry in camera might be really defeated. All the commission could do, therefore, was to hear Mr Walsh and others similarly situated as witnesses, but it would be prepared also to hear their representations. The subsequent proceedings were taken in camera.

raiding ships are supposed to have said. There will be some evidence of what the raider captain or members of the personnel of the raider ship or ships said. The commission, no doubt, will closely scrutinize it and ascertain exactly what was said. Mr Walsh said the inquiry into the loss of shipping was regarded very seriously by his organization. ATTITUDE OF UNION “For a number of years before this Government came into office,” he said, “our organization had to fight every inch of the way to get previous governments to agree to inquiries into shipping losses being held. At times we have been compelled more or less to take the law into our own hands to see that justice is done on behalf of our members. Our organization claims that the result of those inquiries has been to minimize the number of wrecks on this coast. This inquiry affects the membership of our organization to a greater degree than any other section of the crews. I say advisedly that there have been a lot of loose statements by the Press reflecting on the Government and Government departments. I am satisfied that the investigation will show that the statements that have been published were unwarranted and unsupported by evidence. I submit that in fairness to the men who go down to the sea and to the Government portions of the inquiry should be held openly. If not, I feel that the public will feel that there is possibly something to hide and I am fully aware that there is not.” Mr Walsh asked that his organization be given representation at the inquiry in order to protect the interests of its members and help in preventing further shipping losses. After a short retirement by the commission his Honour said they had carefully considered the matters raised by Mr Cornish and Mr Walsh. Under Section 9 of the Regulations if, in the opinion of the commission, it was necessary or expedient in the interest of public safety, the defences of New Zealand or the'efficient prosecution of any war in which his Majesty was engaged or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community the commission might order that the whole or any part of the inquiry be held in camera.

That was a very grave power entrusted to the commission, said his Honour, and the fact that they had that power undoubtedly imposed upon them the serious duty of considering which way it was to be exercised in proper regard for the public interest. INTEREST TAKEN BY PUBLIC “We are perfectly well aware that there has been widespread and perfectly legitimate public interest and curiosity on the topics which we have been set up to inquire into, because they so intimately affect the interests of everybody in this country,” said his Honour. “They affect in some degree or other the whole of the public and suggestions that have been made and have found their way into the Press have naturally excited great public interest and the public is entitled to know and feel that the matters are being taken seriously. The other and obvious consideration is that from the nature of the topics that have to be inquired into there is no doubt whatever that a considerable portion of the inquiry ought, in the public interest, to be in camera. Great mischief would obviously be done in the way of publication abroad and possibly to the enemy of matters which, must be kept private if that were not done. There is also the consideration that some evidence may be got if we sit in camera, the benefit of which we would not have otherwise. Again, it is possible with due regard to the public interest to have the inquiry sometimes in public and sometimes in camera. We have come to the conclusion that with due regard to the public interest the whole thing must be in camera. Our view is that you never can tel] by looking at a sort of preview of some rough summary or written statement that it may appear to the commission that a particular witness or a particular topic can be taken publicly without any risk of damage to the public interest. Our view is that we may go wrong, that when we have a witness here some sudden development may take place and mischief could be done ’ before it could be recalled. For those reasons, balancing the grave circumstances we have to balance and realizing on the one hand the right of the public to feel sure that this thing is being done properly and on the other hand the grave mischief we might stumble into if we do not sit in camera, we are compelled to come to the conclusion that we are obliged to exercise our power to determine that the whole of the inquiry be held in camera.”