PM Transcripts

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT.
HON. HAROLD HOLT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
18TH MAY, 1967 b
a-2 2MAY 1967
" VOYAGER" ENQUIRY RAf'
I told the House last night at the conclusion of what I had to
say on the " Voyager" matter that the Government would be taking the
opportunity this morning to consult with members of the Government parties
on the course that it could recommend to the Parliament, and I am now in a
position to indicate the course that we believe should be followed.
My colleagues and I have considered the various possibilities
that are open to us. Vie have considered, among other questions, whether an
inquiry should be conduct-ed by a select committee of this Parliament. I think
most honourable gentlemen will have concluded that, having regard to the
involvement of so many members in the debate and the quality and content of
the debate., this would not be the most suitable tribunal to consider a matter
of this sori. There is room for a vi ew that the matter, having been
thoroughly debated here and all aspects that honourable members could see
as being relevant having been canvassed, little useful purpose would be
served by a committee of the Parliament conducting a further inquiry. The
Government has considered that view, but it believes that, though the detail of
these discussions has been well known to us and perhaps to those who have
carefully read all that has appeared in the Press, there will be many members
of the public who will be left with a feeling that more should be done to
. s atisfy th ei r minds regarding the matters in dispute.
So the Government has concluded that there should be a further
inquiry and that it should be a judicial inquiry conducted probably by three
judges. I have not yet the precise terms of reference which later we will be
putting to the House, and I ask that I be not held strictly to what I now say as to
the substance of matters which the Government thinks should be covered by such
an inquiry. Clearly, it should be directed to the allegations made against
Captain Stevens and the questions arising from them that is, whether he was
incompetent to command the " Voyager", whether his command of that ship
left him open to criticism, whether the allegations have sufficient substance
for these matters to have been known or whether they should have been known
to superior naval officers who would then have been in a position to deal
appropriately with him, and whether they should have dealt with him according
to the evidence in their possession. The question arises also as to whether
any evidence was improperly withheld from the Royal Commission, and if so,
whether that would have substantially affected his findings.
I have not attempted to put what I have said in strict legal
parlance. It is the substance of what we believe should be considered by
such an inquiry. Our own view is that there is no need for a second " Voyager"
inquiry in the full sense of the one that was conducted before. I believe that
the public generally is satisfied that there was a competently conducted
inquiry which has covered most of the matters in issue at that time. But
this is a special area which has been the subject of debate in this Parliament,
and the Government thinks that the issues and the allegations can be
satisfactorily resolved only by an inquiry conducted on the lines that I have
proposed.