PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA 30 SEPTEMBER 1979
ELECTORATE TALK
During last week what has now become known as the Finnane Report
was tabled in the New South Wales Parliament.
This was a report compiled on the directions of the Attorney-General
of Mr Walker, on behalf of the N. S. W. Labor government.
It is important that the nature of the Report be understood and
it is also important that the role of the N. S. W. Government be
understood. Mr Finnane was asked to enquire into the business
affairs of a number of companies which Mr Sinclair, former
Minister for Primary Industry was associated with.
The inquiry was conducted in private, witnesses gave their
evidence to Mr Finnane in private, there was none of the normal
cross-examination that would occur in a court of law, there was
no testing of evidence by counsel as would occur in a court of
law. There was no opportunity to examine the credibility of
witnesses as in a court of law.
As a result of this process, Mr Finnane came to his personal
conclusions and findings. We need to ask whether this is a
reasonable way for the N. S. W. government to conduct its investigations.
We need to understand that the conclusions in the Finnane Report
could not be presented in a court of law. Its findings are not
facts, they are the opinions of Mr Finnane, after taking evidence
in the way which I have described.
None of this represents a criticism of Mr Finnane, because as
I am advised, it is not unusual for such inquiries to be conducted
in this manner.
It is a criticism of the N. S. W. procedure. It is hard to believe that
the N. S. W. government did not intend the tabling of the Report-I
to be damaging to Mr Sinclair. As I am advised, and from the
Financial Review editorial of last Friday, 28 September, there
was a lock-up for journalists and officials were busy pointing
out the particular pieces of greatest damage to Mr Sinclair.
That had nothing whatever to do with justice. It might have a
great deal to do with politics, but it is surely plain that an
inquiry of this kind, on the direction of the Attorney-General
should not be exploited for political purposes, with political
objectives. If that is to be the part of the N. S. W. Attorney-General / 2
-2
the normal protection of the law is absent and any person could
be arbitrarily destroyed.
The N. S. W. government sought not only to introduce the matter
into the public arena, through tabling in its own Parliament
in a way damaging to Mr Sinclair. There was clearly a degree
of co-operation with the Federal opposition in Canberra which
over much of the last two years has sought to introduce material
under cover of Parliamentary privilege and create a poisonous
atmosphere in relation to Ian Sinclair.
If there had been no inquiry, if there had been no examination, if
there had been no possibility of a prosecution, one could have
understood the Opposition's tactics in seeking to reveal and to
probe. But that was not the case, there was an inquiry sponsored
by the Labor government of N. S. W. Mr Sinclair himself had
referred the matters to the Corporate Affairs Commission and
to the Taxation Commissioner so inquiries were in train. There
was no question of the matters not being properly examined.
There was no need for Parliamentary debate to expose, because
the matter was under a most vigorous examination under the
direction of the N. S. W government.
Against that background, any introduction of the matter into
the Federal Parliament is plainly designed to poison the atmosphere
against Mr Sinclair, under cover of Parliamentary privilege.
It is important to note that while there were allegations against
Ian Sinclair in the Finnane Report, no prosecution has yet been
launched. No official charges have been made by the law authorities
in N. S. W. but a most damaging report has been published, and
widely publicised.
Is it reasonable for such a report to be published in these
circumstances?-1s it reasonable for a government to undertake
actions of that kind to publish such a report when it has
not yet made up its mind whether it intends to prosecute or not?
The allegations have been made against Ian Sinclair. How can
his position be determined and finally resolved?
Unless the N. S. W. government takes some action the allegations
will stay in the air. They have been made. The only thing
Ian Sinclair would be able to do to answer those charges is to
make his own statement of the position as he sees it.
That does not dismiss the charges. That does not end the
speculation. They are still there in the public domain.
There is only one way these allegations can be finally determined.
There is probably only one way Ian Sinclair's innocence, or
otherwise, could be proved and that it through the normal court
processes. ./ 3
-3
I know that is what Ian Sinclair wants. An opportunity to prove
his innocence through the processes of law through a fair trial.
Surely in all fairness Australia owes that much to any person,
whether they are a public figure or somebody who shuns publicity
and merely seeks to go about his own business.
But have not the circumstances been established in which Ian Sinclair
is almost unable to attract a fair trial?
How many people would there be in our ccrmunity uninfluenced by-the * publicity,
uninfluenced one way or another by that Report tabled in the
N. S. W. Parliament?
The way this matter has been handled by the N. S. W. government
creates a very real doubt as to whether the due processes of
the law are now adequate to enable Ian Sinclair fairly to have
his opportunity to have his day in court.
And yet, despite that heavy qualification there are only three
options open.
The Finnane Report and its findings can be left hanging in the
air, with theJN. S. W. government taking no action whatsoever. If
that is the course they pursue a grave and serious injustice
will have been done. An injustice that would condemn the
N. S. W. government for every day that it exists.
The secon * d course of action would be for the N. S. W. government
to launch a prosecution. Mr Walker might continue to say
that that is a matter for Mr Finnane to recommend and I understand
that he has been told to come back from his holdiay to form his
recommendations but they will only be recommendations.
The N. S. W. Crown Solicitor would make his own recommendations.
But it would be Mr Walker as Attorney-General who would finally
be able to say whether or not that prosecution would proceed.
There is no way the Attorney-General can avoid that decision.
He cannot disassociate himself from it. If he acquiesces in
what a Crown Solicitor might decide, he still gives that his
support. Such a prosecution, despite the qualifications that I have
mentioned offers by far the best hope of justice being done
and the truth finally revealed.
And finally if the.: N. S. W. governme -nt is not prepared to launch
that prosecution, the only other option which would leave any
dignity to the government cf N. S. W. would be for the Finnane
Report to be totally repudiated by Mr Wran and his government.
If they do not prosecute, if they are advised that a prosecution
could not be sustained, if there is any justice left in the State
of N. S. W. so far asthis'case is concerned the Report must be
repudiated. The Sinclair case, the Finnane Report, is a very significant event.
Not merely because it involves a senior Minister of my government
but because it throws bare to the light of day, a contemporary
challenge to the rule of law, to the right to a fair trial, and
to the role of the Parliament. / 4
4-
There are many quasi-judicial tribunals, there are many
investigative bodies established by governments. A number of
them conduct their inquiries in the same manner that Mr Finnane
conducted his. Should there be some new rules for the conduct
of such inquiries?
The reports, once made, are handled in different ways. Clearly
there needs to be much greater care in the way the reports
are handled, and the purpose for which they are used.
Because if Ian Sinclair can be denigrated and damaged in the
public mind as a result of the Finnane Report, next week, next
month, next year that same process could be used against you or
any other member of the Australian community.
The last matter which needs seriously to be examined is the role
of Parliament when such investigations are under way. Should
the Parliament allow itself to debate these matters, to have
evidence introduced, or what is alleged to be evidence, part heard,
inadequately understood andoutof its proper context? If such
matters concerned a case in a court of law, Parliaments could not,
and would not, behave in that way. But as we have seen these
processes are capable of very severely damaging, and are
capable of even destroying the reputation of people.
Going beyond the Sinclair affair and the Finnane Report, there
are serious matter of principle involved. They affect all
governments and your Commonwealth government is certainly not
prepared to ignore these matters.
For the rmrent it is up to the N. S. W. government whether they
prosecute, or will they themselves repudiate the Finnane Report?
They have no other option that will leave them with any dignity
or any honour.