The ACT Opposition accused Labor’s recent appointee as head of the ACT Tourism Commission, Charles Wright, yesterday of being a bagman for disgraced former Western Australian Premier Brian Burke.
The Leader of the Opposition, Kate Carnell, asked whether the Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, had been aware that Mr Wright had been named in the WA Inc Royal Commission as a bagman at the time of his appointment. She asked whether the appointment was an example of the Labor Party helping one of its mates.
Ms Follett described it as a disgraceful slur on a man who had an excellent record and was well-respected in the ACT community who had done an excellent job in promoting ACT tourism.
After Question Time a censure motion was passed against Ms Carnell and her deputy, Tony de Domenico on party lines with Independent Helen Szuty voting with the Government and the other two independents absent. Mr de Domenico read out the reference to Mr Wright in the WA Inc Royal Commission report:
“”The other payments of particular concern were made to Mr Charles Wright, who operated a fund-raising and business-relations consultancy. He had done work for the ALP since 1976 in assisting with fund-raising at the Federal level. He explained that, leading to the July 1987 Federal election, Mr Burke telephoned him and indicated Mrs sq(Barbara) Brush sq(his former secretary) was without a job. He said Mr Burke wanted Mrs Brush to continue to look after the fund-raising 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.”
Ms Carnell defended her description “”bagman” quoting the Oxford dictionary’s definition as an agent who distributes money for illicit purposes.
Mr Burke had been paying Mrs Brush for work not carried out out of campaign funds, she said, so the $80,000 payment was illicit.
Mr Humphries defended the questions saying any competent Opposition would have asked them in the same circumstances. The reference to Mr Wright could into be described as favourable. The only defence appeared to be that Mr Wright did not know what he was doing. Given the reference Mr Wright must have some question over him, so it was legitimate for the Opposition to ask the questions.
Ms Follett said she was aware of the reference in the Royal Commission report at the time of the appointment and as it was not a public-service job there had been no need to advertise the job and it shad not been advertised.
The Opposition’s accusation imputed illegality when it did not exist. It was a false accusation by innuendo. It did not credit to those who wanted to serve the community. Mr Wright had given service to the RSPCA, the RSL and the Australian War Memorial and had played a major role in the last year’s dedication of the Vietnam Memorial in Canberra which attracted 50,000 visitors.
The Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, said there was no finding of illegality. “”You are a grub Mrs Carnell,” he said. “”I’m disgusted at your conduct.”
The Speaker ruled that “”grub” was not unparliamentary. Mr Connolly said there had been no finding of illegality against Mr Wright. There was nothing wrong in passing on $80,000 if you did not know its source.
The Deputy Chief Minister, Wayne Berry, said the Opposition was using a coward’s castle to attack a man who was working for the community and who had no right of reply. Ms Carnell and Mr de Domenico “”could walk upright under a snake’s belly”.
Mr de Domenico asked if Mr Wright would go on Ms Follett’s Japan tour. Ms Follett said details had not been finalised. Mr Wright, who is head of the Wright Corporate Group public-relations company, did not return calls yesterday.