Page 2687 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: We will take you out of the motion.
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you very much. They put you up against the wall and shoot you down, and you are acquitted afterwards.
Madam Speaker, the fact of life is that the questions asked have been entirely reasonable and entirely appropriate. We have had references to Mr Charles Wright in the course of the WA Inc. royal commission - references which could not under any circumstances be considered to be favourable. Look at the bits that have been quoted from the report and which have been tabled in this Assembly. Mr Wright clearly was a conduit. That word is used in the royal commission's report. He was a conduit. He carried money or transmitted money on behalf of Mr Brian Burke to Mrs Brenda Brush.
Why did he transmit that money? He did so apparently - and the commission goes on to talk about this - because Mrs Brush was being paid in advance of work done on behalf of Mr Burke, not Mr Wright, and for services rendered in the past. A certain amount should be allowed for past services - so says the royal commission. The royal commission goes on to say:
The Commission is satisfied that he -
that is, Burke -
made use of campaign funds for the purposes of assisting a friend under the guise of employment. The implications of our findings in this paragraph are discussed in a confidential appendix ...
That is an adverse finding.
Mr Connolly: Against Burke.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed it is. Clearly, Mr Burke, the former Premier of WA, was using that money for illicit purposes. That money was being used for illicit purposes. There are no two ways about that. Mr Wright was transmitting that money for those illicit purposes.
Mr Connolly: No. That is the point. Does he know the source of the funds?
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, yes, yes. A bagman is an agent who collects or distributes money for illicit purposes. Was that the case, Mr Connolly? Did he collect that money? Yes, he did. Was the money used for illicit purposes? Yes, it was. Clearly, the connection has been made. Let us assume that there is merely a question of doubt. Let us assume, Madam Speaker - - -
Mr Kaine: If he distributes it - - -
Mr Connolly: Knowingly - knowing the illegal source.
MR HUMPHRIES: Here we go. Here is the defence - "knowingly". Mr Wright did not know what he was doing. Mr Wright was an innocent bystander caught up in this web of deceit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .