STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, a"
THE RT. HON. HAROLD HOLT IN THE 23
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9
19TH MAY, 1967 ~ R A R'
" VOYAGER" INQUIRY
I am sure the House would have wished the Government
to move as speedily as it could in resolving terms of reference which
could be submitted to the inquiry I announced yesterday. It is our desire,
as I am sure it is the desire of every member of the House, that these
matters hould be investigated expeditiously and findings given upon them.
Consequently I bring to the House what we propose by way of terms of
reference. My colleague the Attorney-General ( Mr. Bowen) will set as
speedily as he can about the business of finding what judges would be
available for this purpose. We would hope to make an announcement about
that as soon as this can be arranged.
I shall comment on one aspect not covered by the terms of
reference after I have given their detail, since it relates to a matter
raised in the debate by the honourable member for Hindmarsh ( Mr.
Clyde Cameron I as spokesman for the Opposition and was mentioned, if
a little obliquely, by the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr. Whitlam) when he
was questioning me yesterday as to what the terms of reference would
cover, We felt that in order that this matter could be dealt with with
reasonable promptitude and so that there should not be uncertainty
increasing the distress of affected persons, we should concentrate upon
those matters which we believed were exercising the attention a nd concern
of the Parliament and of the public. We recommend that the terms of
reference of the inquiry be
To inquire into and report upon:-
Whether any of the allegations made by Lieutenant -Ccmmander
P. T. Cabban in the document attached
That Is the document to which the Leader of the Opposition made reference
yesterday; I think it ran into about nineteen pages
regarding the drinking habits and seamanship of Captain
D. H. Stevens were true and being true established that
Captain Stevens was unfit to retain command of HMAS
" Voyager"
If it is found in answer to question that Captain Stevens was
unfit to retain command of HMAS " Voyager"
Did the Naval Board know or ought they to have known
of such unfitness to retain command and were they at
fault In failing to relieve him of command?
( ii) Should the findings made in the report of the Royal
Commission relating to the loss of HMAS " Voyager"
be varied and, if so, in what respect?
Whether the allegations in the document disclosed evidence which
was available to counsel assisting the Commission and was
improperly withheld from the Royal Commission. / 2
-2
I think honourable members will agree that this concentrates
the inquiry on the salient matters which were of concern to them. The
other matter to which we did give consideration, but for reasons which 1,
shall outline we did not include in the terms of reference, was the aspect
raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh as to the circumstances
in which the Government came to settle a number of claims of dependants
of those who went down with the ship. I think a little reflection by the House
will confirm the soundness of the view we have taken that to include an
item of this sort would prolong the Inquiry indefinitely and would confuse the
issues on which we have concentrated in the terms of reference that I have
read out. The Government has no desire, in this particular aspect, otber
than to see that the inquiry is able to concentrate on the matters which
primarily engaged the attention of the House.
Concerning the aspect of the settlein of claims, the Attorney-
General ( Mr. Bowen) would be entirely willing to confer with the Leader of
the Cpposition and his colleagues or, for that matter, other interested
members, explaining why this procedure was followed. I am sure that most
honourable members will be able, from their own practical good sense, to
come to the conclusion that this was the desirable and sensible course to
pursue. Firstly, there was a Royal Commission which was taking
evidence and which necessarily would extend over a considerable period of
time. Litigation is inevitably a protracted process and even dealing with
the claims by way of settlement has, in some instances, been drawn out since
the disaster until either late last year or even early this year. Thirty-nine
claims have been settled and I think one claim remains outstanding because the
claimant has not yet furnished certain particulars which were required. If
each of these claims had to be litigated upon or even if some of them had
to be litigated upon, in a period in which there was a Royal Commission with
its findings to be resolved, then there not only would have been delays which
would have been Inconvenient to dependants in need of financial assistance,
but the whole process for them would, I suggest, have been of a more
harrowing, painful and, indeed, embarrassing kind. So this was the
background to the course of action which the Government pursued.
If further detail Is required on this aspect then, I repeat,
the Attorney-General will be happy to supply it. Of course, it Is always
open for the Opposition, if for any reason it felt dissatisfied with the course
pursued, to take appropriate parliamentary action in relation to it. I do not
believe the Opposition will do this. I think that on reflection members
opposite will agree that It was not appropriate for this matter to come into
this particular set of terms of reference. The inquiry will necessarily
take the form of a Royal Commission, because it is under the legislation
concerning Royal Commissions that we can set up the inquiry. To do it
any other way would call for legislation.
Mr. Hayden It will not be another whitewash, will it?
PRIME MINISTER That remark is quite unworthy of the honourable
gentleman and it would not be echoed by his colleagues. I hope I do not
have to stress again that the purpose of my predecessor, as it has been of
myself and my colleagues, has been to see that the truth emerges and that
justice Is done.