Page 2681 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico read out a paragraph, paragraph 26.5.4, from a royal commission finding which was handed down in 1992. I cannot recall precisely when it was, but I think it was in the middle part of 1992. I note that when the Vietnam veterans memorial was being opened last year and when members of the Opposition were trying to clothe themselves in patriotic glory, saying how wonderful that was, none of you attacked Charles Wright, who was one of the driving forces behind that memorial. No; you were all keen to associate yourselves with Mr Wright then because he was involved in a very prominent community activity.
Mr De Domenico: No.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, you were. Your then leader was in fact issuing all sorts of press releases about how we must do more to help the Vietnam veterans organisation. You were all keen about them then, but now you are using the old gutter tactics of the slur and the innuendo to attack Mr Wright.
What did the royal commission find in this paragraph that Mr De Domenico gave us a portentous reading of, trying to make it sound sinister? What it found, Madam Speaker, was an adverse finding against Mr Burke. It found that Mr Burke had used money in a No. 1 account that should have been used for party expenses.
Mr De Domenico: And who did Mr Burke use to transfer the funds?
MR CONNOLLY: Just remain quiet and listen. You may again learn something but not be wiser. It found that payments were made from that account to Mrs Brush - an adverse finding against Mr Burke. However, the opening sentence gives it away. It reads:
The other payments of particular concern were made to Mr Charles Wright -
not by Mr Wright. There is no finding that Mr Wright acted wrongly. There is a finding merely that Mr Burke used money from a particular source that he knew of; that that money was paid to Mr Wright, who paid it to an employee. There is nothing wrong with taking money and paying it to an employee. There may be something wrong if you knew that that money came from an improper source, but the Western Australian royal commission made no such finding.
Your statements in here that there have been adverse findings and that he has been named are all part of the slur, the innuendo and the gutter tactics, but there is - - -
Mr De Domenico: Has he been named?
MR CONNOLLY: His name has been used in relation to no wrongdoing. No adverse finding has been made against him. Many people are named in royal commissions. Thousands and thousands of innocent citizens are named in royal commissions. A royal commission might note that an organised crime figure was driving down the street and collided with Mr De Domenico and then went off to commit a crime. Mr De Domenico has been named. It would be outrageous, in those circumstances, for me to suggest, Mr De Domenico, that you were guilty of some wrongdoing. But that is essentially what you have done here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .