Senator ROBERT RAY (3:23 PM) —I move:

This morning at 9 o'clock, Slater and Gordon, Sydney, delivered on behalf of Senator Faulkner and me letters of demand on both the Australian Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Electoral Commissioner demanding that they desist from their planned mail-out using the electronic mail list supplied by the AEC to all Australian electors. I am very gratified that, 23 hours before the deadline we set had run out, the government has caved in after a week of obstructionism and abuse directed at Senator Faulkner and me for raising this particular issue. I well recall the estimates committee that Senator Ellison mentioned today. I well remember the Electoral Commissioner shouting at Senator Faulkner and me, `Show me the law where it says I am wrong. You show me in legislation where I am wrong.' The Solicitor-General, in this very well-written piece of advice, has shown the Electoral Commissioner where he is wrong—game, set and match against the Electoral Commissioner.

It is not just the Electoral Commissioner who entered the lists here; the tax commissioner said that it was legal. The tax commissioner offered up to the estimates committee his legal advice. Twenty minutes later, after cross-examination, he withdrew that offer. To his credit, he said he would seek some further advice. But of course in his media release of 25 May, Senator Ellison enters the lists, criticising us for raising these issues in the estimates committee. The most significant thing of course—

Senator Ellison —It was the way you did it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —What rubbish, Senator. We were misled on these committees. We were not told the truth. There was no public announcement. It was only our cross-examination that brought these facts to light. The government was never going to fess up—but you did. You fessed up and said:

What a duplicitous statement. They are entitled to receive that information on microfiche alone, not the electronic version. We read the act. We legally interpreted it; we eventually went for legal advice—it all confirmed that. Why in heaven's name has it taken a week for the government to understand that this was an untenable project? It could never stand up.

In issuing those letters of demand this morning, we threatened to go to the Federal Court on Friday. We do not have to—we appreciate that fact. But Senator Ellison wants to intervene today. Listen to what he said yesterday, not even in answer to the question I asked him:

That information, Senator Ellison, was supplied under 91(10). The reason why you always stuck to that story was that there was no end use attached to 91(10). Now you are shifting your ground. Now you are saying it can be supplied under (4A)(e)—but that is discretionary. Read the act. It was not asked for in a discretionary way. Eventually, again as a new process, the tax office can get that particular information under (4A)(e), but the problem is that the whole of 91A comes in, which restricts its use. It does not mention 91(10). You are shifting your ground from time to time, but you are not going to get away with it. You applied for it under 91(10); you did not apply for it under 91(4A)(e). For that reason, a whole series of illegal acts has occurred. If we had not raised these issues at estimates, this process would never have been turned up and previous flaws would not have been exposed. I reckon, Senator Ellison, you should cough up for the amount of money we have had to pay for legal advice—it is not much—because we have saved you a massive amount of money by raising these issues and helping you to avoid having to go to the Federal Court and lose.