Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 10 December 1974
Page: 3257

Senator CARRICK (NEW SOUTH WALES) - My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to 3 actions taken in the District Court of New South Wales, the details of which are as follows: The first action: Plaintiff, John Adam on behalf of the Australian Coaching College; defendant, Junie Morosi; cause of action, account stated $320; result summons 1 June 1972, judgment 17 July 1972, garnishee 11 May 1973. The second action: Plaintiff, Oceanic -

Senator Georges - You surprise me, Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK - I am giving the information to seek information. Plaintiff, Oceanic Leasing Co. Pty Ltd; defendant, Morosi, J.; cause of action, arrears of rent $533; result: Summons, 13 August 1971, judgment 3 December 1971, garnishee 26 September 1973. The third action: Plaintiff, Rosenmeyer, S.; defendant, Ditchburn David; cause of action, rent due $350; result: Summons 13 May 1971, judgment 28 May 1971.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Will you please ask your question, Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK - Yes, Mr Deputy President. I ask: Is the Junie Morosi concerned the Junie Morosi recently appointed to the staff of Dr Cairns? Is the David Ditchburn concerned the David Ditchburn appointed to the Films Board of Review? Is the Minister aware that Mr John Miller, Managing Director of Shaul International Pty Ltd, is reported as claiming that the company TCI Travel Holdings Pty Ltd had falsely represented that it was an agent for hotels covered by another company and that restraining orders were secured against TCI Travel Holdings Pty Ltd in the New South Wales Supreme Court on these grounds? Finally, was the Attorney-General aware of these matters prior to their disclosure, and if so, for how long?

Senator MURPHY -I thought the day would not come when the Senate would be degraded in this way by the honourable senator. Apparently the honourable senator opposite is proving that at some stage judgments were obtained against Miss Morosi on the ground that she owed some money, or because of some other commercial dealings in which she had been involved- the kind of thing which happens every day in the courts involving a contest between people as to who had some agency and who did not. I do not know that it is proper for me to enter upon these things. I will say that I think it is disgraceful that these private details should be aired in the Senate. It is the kind of thing that one gets when one goes through some kind of credit agency and starts to bring the facts out into the light of day. I would have thought that the Opposition ought to have been content with what it has done to Miss Morosi already. Is the intent to endeavour to prevent her from getting any employment whatever in the community? May I say again that the honourable senator has not established that she has ever been convicted or even charged or even questioned by the police about any matter. So far as I am concerned- and I would think that most Australians would think in this way- it is pretty disgraceful to raise up against a person that she had been involved in some kind of civil legal action. As far as I am aware she has never been ever bankrupt or even issued with a notice of that sort. Yet, the honourable senator has raised in the public arena the affairs of a person simply on the basis that some judgment was obtained against that person.

Suggest corrections