Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises the heroic efforts of Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean and his crew mates upon the sinking of the HMAS Armidale on 1 December 1942 off the Timor coast;

(2)

implores the Government to award a posthumous Victoria Cross of Australia to Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean to recognise properly his valour and sacrifice on 1 December 1942; and

(3)

urges the Government to establish a mechanism to address outstanding issues and anomalies in the military honours system such as recognising the courageous deeds of people such as Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean on 1 December 1942.

I have spoken before in this place about two related injustices in Australia’s military history. The first is that, despite a long, distinguished history of engagement in all manner and types of combat and service, not one member of the Royal Australian Navy has been awarded the Victoria Cross. Why is this? Is the history of the RAN without one incident or act of bravery by any individual worthy of being awarded a VC? In the annals of the RAN, is there nothing remotely familiar to the following: in July 1940, Leading Seaman Jack Mantle of the Royal Navy, although mortally wounded, kept firing his gun right to the end when a swarm of Nazi Stukas attacked his anti-aircraft ship HMS Foylebank in the English harbour of Portland? For his valour, Jack Mantle was fittingly awarded the Victoria Cross. In light of this story, what I am about to briefly describe clearly highlights the second injustice. I am speaking of the tragic yet heroic events surrounding the sinking of the corvette HMAS Armidale on 1 December 1942 off the coast of Timor. More specifically, I am referring to the case of an 18-year-old Tasmanian from the township of Latrobe in my electorate of Braddon—Ordinary Seaman Edward ‘Teddy’ Sheean. Sixty-six years ago, Teddy Sheean gave up his life to help save some of his mates who were being strafed by Japanese planes as the Armidale sank. Teddy ran back to his gun, strapped himself in and, despite being seriously wounded in the chest, kept firing to the end.

Journalist, author and navy wartime veteran, the recently departed Frank Walker, in his book HMAS Armidale: the ship that had to die, described the final moments:

Even when there was nothing left of the ship above the water, tracer bullets from Sheean’s gun kept shooting from under the water …

Jack Mantle RN was awarded the VC for his extraordinary valour; Teddy Sheean was merely mentioned in dispatches. Why has this act of courage, for example—and many others, particularly in the Royal Australian Navy—witnessed then and undisputed today, not been rewarded with a VC?

I have here copies of statements made by seven survivors of HMAS Armidale, all collected by the late Frank Walker and testifying to the historical accuracy and extent of Teddy Sheean’s bravery. Do these eyewitness accounts mean nothing? Were they not countenanced in the official inquiry into the sinking of HMAS Armidale? Clearly, Armidale’s Lieutenant Commander Richards’ special mention of the Sheean bravery would have counted for something—but apparently not. In his search for justice for Teddy Sheean, Frank Walker has pointed to the inadequacy and the absurdity of the awards system as related to the Royal Australian Navy. And here lies the anomaly: unlike the AIF and the RAAF, where awards were decided by Australians in Australia, RAN awards were not. The Australian Commonwealth Naval Board, headed by a Royal Navy officer, had to send recommendation to the Admiralty in London where the awards and honours committee made the decision. Furthermore, Walker points out that the commanding officers of Royal Navy ships were entitled to recommend sailors for certain awards, but the captains of Royal Australian Navy ships were instructed ‘the nature of the award is not to be suggested’.

It is Walker’s contention that it was impossible for Australian officers to recommend Australian sailors for a VC. And he did not mince his words. According to Frank, snobbery and class distinctions played their part in this discrimination.

What then is the problem about resolving this issue, about doing the right thing? Contrary to popular belief, since a royal warrant of 31 December 1942, Australia has retained or adopted the Victoria Cross as the supreme award for military heroism in this country. It can be given on a recommendation from the Australian government to the Queen. It can in fact be legislated for and/or recommended by the present government. So why has this not occurred despite the overwhelming recognition of the merit and authenticity of the case? The answer basically is: ‘Let sleeping dogs lie.’ In condescending bureaucratic speak of 25 October 1999, the departmental response, from an adviser, to this very question was:

It is not practical for better judgments about individual actions or merit to be made at this time than were made by contemporary authorities who had direct access to eye witness reports and could test evidence when it was fresh.

Where was the danger? The danger was in:

… creating a precedent for unwanted and perhaps divisive comparisons between these ‘hindsight-awards’ and those recommended and granted at the time.

I call on my government, through its newly established Independent Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, to right the wrongs of the past— (Time expired)

See this speech in context