Page 2679 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: What a beauty! Madam Speaker, here again we have an issue where the standing of this Assembly will be lowered amongst all in the community, particularly amongst those people who are working hard to make the ACT work better for its community. There is no question about the involvement of Mr Wright in the organisations which he is involved in. I have not heard him criticised for any of his activities in the ACT, but it seems that there is some disquiet amongst the Liberals about this particular person. My view is that it is to their great shame that they use these sorts of tactics to undo a member of the community; that they use this Assembly to undo a member of the community; that they use such strange logic to impugn a member of the community with such frail evidence. Therefore, all three Liberal members should be censured.
MR DE DOMENICO (3.31): Madam Speaker, for Mr Berry to stand up in this house and talk about how incredibly incensed he is that the Liberal Party should lower itself to ask a question in this house I find outrageous. In case Mr Berry has not realised this, I point out that this has not been said by the Liberal Party. This has been said by - - -
Mr Berry: You said "bagman".
MR DE DOMENICO: I did not say that at all, by the way.
Mr Connolly: Your leader said "bagman".
MR DE DOMENICO: My leader is very able to defend herself, and she will. Let us have a look at what the Western Australian royal commission report, not the Liberal Party, said. Let us have a look at what it said in total. I quote:
The other payments of particular concern were made to Mr Charles Wright, who operated a fundraising and business relations consultancy. He had done work for the ALP since 1976 in assisting with fundraising at a Federal level. He explained that, leading to the July 1987 Federal election, Mr Burke telephoned him and indicated Mrs Brush was without a job. He said Mr Burke wanted Mrs Brush to continue to look after the fundraising activity in Western Australia. Mr Wright had no objection, but told Mr Burke he could not afford to pay her. Mr Burke said he would arrange for payment. No fee was discussed. Subsequently Mr Wright made payments to Mrs Brush for which he was recompensed from the No. 1 Account. In essence, Mr Wright was a conduit for $80,000 that was paid from the No. 1 account to Mrs Brush. Mr Burke gave a similar explanation.
Mr Connolly: An adverse finding against Burke; an adverse finding against Brush; no adverse finding against Mr Wright.
MR DE DOMENICO: If you read on, Mr Connolly, the No. 1 account was then found by the royal commission - not by the Liberal Party, by the royal commission - to be used for illicit purposes.
Mrs Carnell: That is right, and that is what a bagman is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .